DeucesCracked Articles Feed
There was a period of a couple years, I think it was around 2000 and 2001, when there was a no-limit hold’em game every night in a poker room in San Mateo called Pacific News. The room only had three tables. One of them was used for newspaper reading and dealer break-taking and players in waiting. The other two poker tables were used for poker – one for $3-6 limit high-low hold’em (<–Yes, that’s exactly what I meant to say) and one for no-limit hold’em. The blinds in the no-limit game were $2-3-5 (you can read about the Bay Area 3-blind structure here), there were two optional kills (which can make the game VERY big) and there was no maximum buy-in. The game started at 7p.m. every night. I was one of the regulars – one of the starters. Another one of the starters – a man I learned as much about no-limit from as from any other person – was Walt Z.
Here’s a hand Walt played that demonstrated the depth of his wisdom, and savvy, and ruthlessness. Walt was in the big blind position, but he had not posted his blind yet when the dealer started dealing. This is a very common situation. I’ve seen it thousands of times. Usually what happens is, when the dealer deals the second card, the player in the big blind is reminded to put his blind out. But sometimes that doesn’t happen, in which case, when the dealing is finished dealing and either the dealer or a player realizes that the big blind has not posted yet, someone says to the big blind, “Don’t muck your hand! You’re in the big blind!”
And sometimes none of that happens, and the big blind, thinking he is first to act, does actually fold. And then someone says something for sure. How it gets resolved at that point, well, it can get gnarly, and it’s not relevant to the story, so let’s move on.
Here’s what happened on this hand. Walt was in the big blind. Then the dealing began, Walt was busy talking to someone standing behind him. The dealer dealt both cards, and Walt had still not posted his blind. Then Walt looked at his cards, and folded his hand, about a foot or so in front of him. The dealer said, “Wait! It’s your blind!” Walt was a little embarrassed, and he took his cards back and posted his blind. I’ve seen it work out this way many times, especially when I very experienced player makes the mistake. It’s a courteous way to handle it because it keeps the game moving and no one gets upset.
Here’s how the betting went. It was folded around to the button. The button, the small blind, and Walt all had about $1000. The button was a tight player, and a smart player, plenty smart enough to take advantage of Walt’s telegraphed weakness. The button opened for $30. (The minimum opening bet was $10, so $30 was a normal sized opening amount.) The small blind was another tight, smart player, plenty smart enough to know that the button’s range could be extra wide here because of Walt’s premature fold. The small blind made it $100. Walt looked a little confused, and he raised it to $400.
Right then I knew exactly what had happened. I resisted the urge to stand up and bow reverently toward the Walt.
The button, who as it turned out had AQs, shoved all-in. The small blind folded. Walt called with – have you figured it out yet? – pocket aces.
It was probably accidental that Walt did not post his blind at the right time. Then he looked at his cards quickly and discreetly, saw that he had pocket aces, and now, in full awareness that it was his big blind and that he had not posted it yet, he folded, knowing that the dealer (or someone) would point out that it was supposed to be his blind, and that it would then be perfectly fine and normal for him to grab his hand back, laying a deadly trap from whoever happened to be unlucky enough to be moving around before the flop.
Tommy Angelo
Haha fun story. I guess BTN was a bit upset... By the way have you shipped my book (aka your book) to sweden yet? Ordered it a couple of weeks ago.
Tommy, it's obvious from your tone that you regard this as a fine and normal play. But to me this sounds like an angle. I have a lot of respect for how you approach the game, so can you please explain how this move falls within the realm of acceptable poker ethics (however you want to define them)?
Haha fun story. I guess BTN was a bit upset... By the way have you shipped my book (aka your book) to sweden yet? Ordered it a couple of weeks ago.
When I got home from school today, there it was lying on the floor where the mail man left it. Ty!
Tommy, it's obvious from your tone that you regard this as a fine and normal play. But to me this sounds like an angle. I have a lot of respect for how you approach the game, so can you please explain how this move falls within the realm of acceptable poker ethics (however you want to define them)?
Poker causes depressions, divorces, teenagers comitting suicide and all other kinds of misery. Just because we don't see it when we sit in front of our computers doesn't mean it isn't so. The idea of poker ethics strikes me as a little silly.
Pygmyhero,
Tommy, it's obvious from your tone that you regard this as a fine and normal play.
That's an understandable but off-base interpretation of my tone.
The way I regarded Walt’s play was similar to how I feel when I'm watching a movie, and there's a bad guy, and he's deeply evil and vicious and cruel so we are all supposed to hate him, but he's also very smart, and he does clever, brilliant things that we appreciate for their creativity and effectiveness, even though we are expected to deem the actions as "wrong." (That analogy breaks down in that Walt Z. is not deeply evil by my judgment.)
My own view is that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong that applies everywhere at all times, there is no such thing as absolute cheating and absolute fairness, there is no such thing as an absolute angle. These are all temporary judgments that only exist inside individual human minds. Did judgments such as right and wrong and hot and cold exist on earth before humans arose? Answer: No. Ethics and opinion-forming evolved, right along with us.
But to me this sounds like an angle.
In that case it absolutely was an angle, in your reality.
I have a lot of respect for how you approach the game, so can you please explain how this move falls within the realm of acceptable poker ethics (however you want to define them)?
Well, you said a mouthful inside the parenthesis! I very much do NOT want to define “acceptable poker ethics” in any way that extends beyond my own actions. Who is to say what is right and wrong for every player on earth in every possible situation? Not me! I don't want that job! I don’t even want to pretend to be applying for it! I can only say what I think is "right" and "wrong" for me as I play. I would not make the move Walt made. But as a gamester and a strategist, I appreciate his foresight and inventiveness. Many judgment labels could be used to describe what Walt did. One person could call it larceny. Another could call it genius. The word I chose was smooth.
Tommy
Great story! very unorthodox but brilliant move by mr. Walt there.
How does limit hi/lo work exactly, is the low the same as in omaha8?
Great story! very unorthodox but brilliant move by mr. Walt there.
How does limit hi/lo work exactly, is the low the same as in omaha8?
Not quite. You don't have to use your hole cards. For example, if the board is A2345, then everyone has a wheel.
I've never seen this game spread anywhere else. I believe it was a mutant gene that happened to thrive in that particular environment.
sushi, poker doesn't cause depression, divorces, teenagers committing suicide, and all other kinds of misery. Poker can cause all of those things, but the statement you made is quite a bit different.
And really I don't see that as an argument for dismissing the notion of poker ethics. For example, I could say that business causes everything on your list (well, maybe not teenage suicide), but very few people would argue that ethics has no place in business.
Also, if you really want to make a generalization that poker ethics are silly, would that mean you would condone blatant cheating in the form of collusion, superuser accounts, or site's just straight-out confiscating money?
Okay Tommy, I accept your explanation and feel I now have a better understanding of what you mean. It appears that in the infinite vortex of connotation I initially misinterpreted some of your words. Obviously ethics is an extremely complex topic and I'm not trying to lay out a universal system of right and wrong, nor do I expect you to.
That said, I personally would not make the play that Walt did (feeling that it fits into my conception of the 'wrong'). Although I can't make it a categorical imperative I would definitely lose some respect for a player making that move.
sushi, poker doesn't cause depression, divorces, teenagers committing suicide, and all other kinds of misery. Poker can cause all of those things, but the statement you made is quite a bit different.
And really I don't see that as an argument for dismissing the notion of poker ethics. For example, I could say that business causes everything on your list (well, maybe not teenage suicide), but very few people would argue that ethics has no place in business.
Also, if you really want to make a generalization that poker ethics are silly, would that mean you would condone blatant cheating in the form of collusion, superuser accounts, or site's just straight-out confiscating money?
Mike, I was out of line here, Sorry. Had been dwelling over these thoghts a bit and guess I just wanted to provoce. I 100% agree that the two issues are not related. Sorry.
sushi, it's no problem. 
I don't think you were out of line at all. I've always felt that ethics are an interesting topic and enjoy thinking and talking about different issues.
I can't say I'm in complete favor of the move but it certainly is intriguing. I think it's really interesting that we all play a different game when we play poker. To Walt this could be a range balancing move just like checking OOP with a monster so aggressive players will pounce on weakness. You don't want to have nothing every time you make a physical mistake so why not mix it up?
taking advantage of Walt's obvious weakness and raising the BTN lighter is just as ethical as pulling this move. I think he just got leveled and the move is a masterpiece imo.
Nice story as always Tommy
not sure if this is allowed? he sort of folded out of turn, and you are not allowed to fold out of turn but then take your cards back and play, right??
anywayz i'm from europe but went to the bay area in october to learn and play live games. I played in the lucky chances and in the Oak's. Maybe i sat at your table...
cheers
If Tommy's brother was in the business of scamming old people out of their life savings destroying everything they worked for their whole life, he would just say:
My own view is that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong that applies everywhere at all times, there is no such thing as absolute cheating and absolute fairness, there is no such thing as an absolute angle. These are all temporary judgments that only exist inside individual human minds.
That is pretty clearly lawyer-talk b.s. to avoid a more applicable response of a dodgy scam. Your appreciation and admiration of a con artist and your first response in the replies thread is quite unmasking.
I don't see anything wrong with this play except how clever it is.
That is a tough angle. I was initially thinking I'm surprised the shover didn't call the floor over, but really he would have had to call the floor upon the immediate pulling back of the fold, and not the call of the shove. mmmmm devious...
The word I chose was smooth.
I couldn't agree more. He played the man in the situation he was in. imo.
If Tommy's brother was in the business of scamming old people out of their life savings destroying everything they worked for their whole life, he would just say:
That is pretty clearly lawyer-talk b.s. to avoid a more applicable response of a dodgy scam. Your appreciation and admiration of a con artist and your first response in the replies thread is quite unmasking.
You are playing poker. Right ?
Without rules there would be chaos and no game called poker. Clearly this was an angle shot by an experienced player who took advantage of his and the dealers mistake. Calling the floor for a ruling in a 2 table poker room where he helped start the game everyday was like calling his brother for a ruling.
Tony leads us to believe that Walt is a very stong player. So he should be skilled enough to help himself to the Button's money within the rules of the game.
Without the angle shot, the Button would have raised AQ anyway. While the SB may have folded, clearly Walt would have re-raised. At a 100 BB deep the results may have been the same anyway. The button would put Walt on a wide range and likely 4 bet all in.
Since Tony thinks it a smooth move, it must be acceptable. Its not. At best it was a quick analysis of the situation he created by not posting as required and realizing he how could take advantage of it.
If this was a mistake by a casual player, then I'm all for letting him post and pick up his cards. But a professional player must be held to a higher standards. Follow not only the rules of the game, but the intent of the rules.
You want the cusual players to feel good about playing and losing the money. You don't want them worried that the regulars are coming up with ways to cheat them by bending the rules.
I mean if you don't consider this an "angle" then what is... Maybe its different in different communities but when i played live full time in LA cardrooms you would get crucified for pulling something like this... I do believe there are ethical bounds in poker that extend beyond what would be considered against the actual rules of the game.
I have accidentally done things such as toss a 5k chip in on the river to put my opponent in not realizing that he could easily mistake that for a 1k chip as i had just as casually tossed in a similar looking 1k chip for my turn bet. They are different colors but otherwise are over sized which differentiates from every other chip in play so if you're not paying attention they could be easily mistaken especially since it was very rare for either of them to be in play at all in the 5/10NL uncapped game i was in. My opponent verbally stated call and i tabled the winning hand and he thought he owed 1k. He had ~3500. Now this was completely unintentional. However if I were to continue to do this sort of thing with the intention of deceiving my opponents I feel that would be an angle and wrong. It goes against the spirit of the game. Your example is no different. Walt would obviously never open fold AA but did so knowing he would be aloud to just post his blind and get his hand back. He is deceiving his opponents outside a manner consistent with the spirit of the game. Thinking this is OK opens the door to all sorts of things.
Tommy are you arguing that angles don't exist? Or that they are ok? I'm confused.
Tommy are you arguing that angles don't exist? Or that they are ok? I'm confused.
Angles definitely exist. The act of judging a behavior as an angle is a thought. And thoughts exist.
If you think a particular behavior at a particular time is an angle, then in your mind at that time, it is most definitely an angle. If others think the same behavior is not an angle (as has been expressed in this thread about this particular behavior with pocket aces), then in their minds it is not an angle. This could be called the theory of relative angles.
My opinion is that every opinion on everything is exactly as valid as any other, and that does include my opinion on opinions. :-)
Tommy
The theory of relative angles now has my interest. I guess you need to gauge your opponents' opinions of certain actions and decide whether or not their respect is of any value to you.
