he didn't look at the second card so its not really an angle. not even half an angle i mean you cant play winning poker only looking at only one card. if he had looked at both then its pretty scummy but playing half in the dark and saying you're blind is still lighting money on fire, which as a player at the table I want. no big deal.

nevermind.

Good acting job by the dude as well, except he's making it pretty obvious he understands everything perfectly well considering he doesn't spreak the language.
The other guy took it well, probably because he knew he was actually handed a huge tell on a platter there.

Sorry to dig up a dead thread, but given the recent PNiA stream it is relevant again.
The table had a good, lively discussion on whether on not this trick was an angle. I don't have the exact time mark, but he starts the gag pretty early and continues through most of the stream.



Jim had some new tricks and props too -- not just "playing it blind" as a possible alternative fact to actual blind play. He might not be a well known pro, but he is definitely a consummate showman.

Update: Jim Carroll is still a scumbag who sucks at poker and makes Christians look bad.

Didn´t see this thread before, glad to read most agree on my standpoint.
I posted this, regarding Dougs Reaction, on the hashtag king thread and repost here.

Sorry Doug, can you further explain your Argument why saying you looked at your Cards when you (may) didn't is anyhow an Angle?
I stumbled upon this part but didnt look the whole thing and may missed something.
First, isn't it your responsibility to be aware and look what the player did or did not?
It may be unethical in a very friendly homegame,where gentleman agreement is stronger, but how is it in any casino setting?
Second, how is that different from any other lie about your Hand(including a Bluff) or tabletalk?
Third, Isn't it the case that you want to take advantage of him raising blind by 3betting light and therefore want to know if his statement is true?
So he says he didn't look which might or might not be true, if true he puts himself in disadvantage, if not true he (tries to)put himself in advantage, but in both cases, it only will apply if you also want to take advantage of him.
If this is not your Intention, you just could ignore his statement, like any other tabletalk, and play your hand accordingly.It would be either good, or bad(aka angling) for you, just neutral, so no reason to speak up on it.
Further on just try to see if he has any pattern with raising blind, if he really does look at his cards or not, if he does it with random or specific(premium) hands only.If you spot a pattern, exploit it.Just like he does try to do with you with this kindergarten trick.
If you don't spot any pattern or don't want to, cause you play gto and are not into that, just ignore it.
So, IMO, either your logic isn't correct here, he tries to exploit as you do, or it LOOKS like you are just turn things around and say he's angling while IMO you are angling(socially kinda^^) You try to get the truth out of him and want to know what to do, so you are angling yourself by accusing him of angling, because, as stated, otherwise his statement of raising blind is just neutral to you and not worth a single argument.
Besides that, he is a clown, you are not .

Next time you have long winded and useless thoughts, just post them once please.

Was fun watching Carroll go on a heater towards the end of the stream and play basically every hand.

Love his song, People Who Died, tho

Link, please. We must enjoy.