Mods please delete if there's already been a thread, I used the search feature.

video of the hand:

http://www.cardplayer.com/cptv/chann...nu-calls-floor

DN's description of the hand and somewhat nonsensical explanation for his actions:
http://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-jo...t_from=&ucat=&

So, before I get to the big hand I'm going to address a video that was posted on day one of a strange situation where I called the floor person:

Flop is As 2h 10d and an Italian player bets like 2000 and I call with 3h 4h. Turn is an As and he bets 2200- I call. The river is a 5c and he bets 4000. I had a decent stack and felt like he'd pay me off with a hand like AK or AQ. So I decided that I'd raise to 14,000, and if he re-raised me I'd have no choice but to fold.

He doesn't see me re-raise and flips his hand face up. I see the Ace of diamonds as clear as day, and the other card looked to be a two across spade, meaning it was the 4s or the 5s. Now he wants to raise me 15,000 more and I say, "Why are you raising me! I saw your hand, lol." I wasn't exactly sure what his second card was, but I obviously assumed if he was raising me it couldn't be the 4s and had to be the 5s or the 10s. The two guys on my left saw his hand much more clearly and knew exactly what he had.

I had exactly ZERO intention of ever calling a re-raise of even $20. I called the floor over to get a ruling on the right procedure in this instance. Does he get a penalty? Is his hand dead? Is he allowed to raise? Different places have different rules, and I thought it would be foolish to let this one go. I'd already let the guy get away with betting in a spot where his fingers were tapping like a check. I kindly said to him, "Sir, be careful with your hand, your finger is tapping the table and I can call that a check."

The floor man decided that once he showed his hand he was only allowed to call my raise. No matter what the floor decided, it would not have changed the outcome of the hand in the least.

I'm inclined to agree with Terrence Chan's take:
http://terrencechan.livejournal.com/328662.html#cutid1

If indeed all the events of this hand have been accurately reported, I think this is a poor ruling and possibly poorer procedure. Also, again if everything here is accurate, I think Daniel's behaviour is appalling. But who knows; I wasn't there myself. Curious what you all think.

Asking for a ruling is an angle shot now?

I wouldnt consider asking for a ruling as an angle shoot.

sick angle bro




.

That's not an angle-shoot but that's the dumbest rule ever. Showing and raising is really dumb but if he wants to do it why can't he? Why should someone be forced not to raise just because another player has seen his hand? I mean if they were like to warn him "he's seen your hand are you sure you want to raise" that'd be one thing but if DN really saw the hand then he was allowed to raise that benefits DN so why would he ever complain? I guarantee if he had AT here somehow he wouldn't be calling the floor to see if he could raise or not.

Rigged obv, I call the floor right there.

The number of people knowing what an angle shot is seems to be dwindling fast, or I may have learned it incorrectly. As far as I know, the angle is when you fake a mistake, and then have the dealer call you on it. For example, you want to fake strength, so you string-raise when you wanted to call all along, and have the dealer force you to just call.

I consider it an angle shoot because it's Daniel Negreanu, the man who was all for showing one and tried to whore the idea out on PAD on several occasions.

What?

There are a lot of different ways to shoot an angle. As someone said before, would Daniel have asked for a ruling on the raise if he had AT? There's a difference between shooting an angle and breaking the rules.

Also, I want to be clear that Terrence Chan made that blog post on the basis of a reported hand history rather than the video. I have no idea what his final opinion on the hand was.

I have a tough time understanding (1) the ruling (2) how someone could watch that video to the very end and feel like Daniel was a totally disinterested party at showdown and that his request for a ruling was 100% procedural. He said himself that he was unwilling to pay off a raise, but was apparently willing to show the hand down for free. He was also willing to tell his opponent "I saw your hand" when he in fact did not in an attempt to get his opponent to take the raise back. I'm not saying it was an angle, but I'm surprised people aren't even rubbed a little the wrong way by the combination of his behavior and explanation.

i think it was a bad ruling regardless. You should be allowed to show your hand and raise. What he did could only help Daniel if Daniel truly saw his hand

So let me get this straight.

- Villain bets river
- Daniels raises
- Villain exposes accidentally exposes his cards
- Villain releases it is not show down, and tries to re-raise Daniel
- Daniel sees that there is a chance he does not have the best hand.
- Instead of folding like he said he would if he was reraised, he calls the floor to try to get to showdown without having to call the reraise.

I dont know, kind of sounds like an angle since he said would have normally folded if the villain didn't expose his cards.

?????

Not quite the same situation here......

I'd say this is being a rules nit, not an angleshooter.

Asking for a ruling is not an angle shoot

Daniel's played enough tournaments to know what ruling he SHOULD receive, but he's also played enough tournaments to know that sometimes the floor doesn't always rule correctly. He wasn't planning on calling the raise, but it would seem that he tried to freeroll a better result, which is what ended up happening.

It's a bad ruling by TDA standards. The hand should have played out as normal, and the raiser should have gotten a formal warning for showing their hand, or a penalty if he's been warned previously.

It's a minor angle shot, but nothing most players wouldn't attempt in DN's situation IMO.