I think it's the correct ruling. And unless there was clear evidence that villain was deliberately trying to get the guy to muck prematurely, I'm not sure I'd call it angle-shooting. It's a dick move, and I wouldn't do it myself, but it wasn't against any rule, and I think he's within his rights to call for the pot.

His hand cannot beat my friends. How does he deserve the pot? Is there no integrity anymore? The fact that he cannot beat the trips yet demands the pot because of the mucked hole cards makes it an angle. Classes behavior imo. Why I expect any less from the Oaks is beyond me.

If you wouldn't call this angle-shooting, I don't think you know what the term means. I'd be curious to know what you would consider angle-shooting.
This is actually one of the worst incidents of angle-shooting; anything worse and I would call it "cheating" instead. Actually I might just call this cheating.

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

Classless? Yes, I agree. Lacking in integrity? Surely. But them's the rules.

What's more, I seriously doubt this kind of behavior is unique to the Oaks.

I think angle-shooting involves a rule violation (in spirit, if not in fact). I don't know of any rule this would violate.

Would it make a difference to you if villain wasn't trying to induce the friend to muck prematurely? If so, how do you know whether villain intended to do so? Was there something that indicated this? (I'm not saying there wasn't -- I just don't see anything in the description of the incident that would demonstrate it.)

I don't see how there is any other interpretation, if I read it correctly. Villain said he had a losing hand, ceding the pot to the guy with three 5s showing, then tried to get the pot because the other guy thought the hand was over. If he wasn't trying to cheat the other guy out of the pot, he wouldn't have tried to claim it with a losing hand (regardless of if the guy properly tabled his hand or not).

A clear rules violation is generally known as "cheating". Doing something sleazy but within the letter of the law to try to gain an unfair advantage is generally known as "angle shooting".

I don't see anything in the original description about ceding the pot. Villain said he couldn't beat the three 5's, but that's not the same as ceding the pot.

I'm not a 7-stud player, but in hold-em, if the other player hasn't mucked, you've got to show your hand if you want to win the pot. Villain might have been waiting to fold because he wanted to see what the winning player's hole cards were. That'd be a totally legit reason not to muck the losing hand yet.

Right, I agree -- but "within the letter of the law" generally means you're violating some law in spirit, just not literally. I don't know of any rule that this behavior would violate "in spirit". Maybe there is one; I'm not a rules maven by any stretch. But nobody's pointed one out yet.

Otherwise, it's just sleazy.

Is this your first time ever playing live or something?

Do you need to sign a waiver upon entering a casino that reads, "I am aware that this place may be infested by dicks"?

Since you're not a stud player, I'll translate it to holdem.

You're headsup on the river with the guy sitting to your left. The other guy checks behind you and picks up his cards, clearly shows them to you, but does not properly table them. You say "that's good" (and you're being honest, his hand beats yours). He then throws his hand in the muck (not a good idea, but he thinks the only other person contesting the pot has conceded). Then you say "I have cards, I get the pot".

Well one obvious difference here is that when someone shows you their hole cards in holdem, you know exactly what hand they had.

If I understand the story, the 7-stud winner here never showed villain his hole cards. So villain had a legitimate reason for not mucking right away. I obviously don't know if that was actually his motive, but it's one possible alternative to the inference that he was trying to induce hero to muck prematurely.

I feel like I've explained this already, so I'm not going to keep arguing about it.

Take it easy.

Well I was wrong in thinking you didn't know what angle shooting is. The problem is that you don't know how stud works.

Consider it a cheap lesson. We've all done dumb things along the way or seen others do similar.

The guy may have been trying to induce a bet. Once a player mucks before the pots been pushed, they cede the pot as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, dude was sleazy and in a home game I might rule differently. In this case, your boy mocked before being pushed the pot, that's his fault.

PG&E working out at the Oaks today, emergency lights only.

Cardio, machines, or free weights?

Thighmaster.

he *might* be the worst dealer, but he definitely has the best toupee.


yes, i registered just to make this comment.

And man, i miss the Oaks so much.

Must move 30!

Also apparently the 30 went through to 9 in the morning. Good omens, these.

I'm really sick of the 15-30 lobbyers. There are now about a half dozen very regular regs who are lobbying 50 percent of the time. The table is almost never full of actual playing players.

Very sad. I may transition to Pacheco and bay 101 for now.

Do they drop the rake when it's short-handed?

But the pai gow and double-hand tables will never get sick of them.

$3 for 6-handed, $1 for 5-handed or shorter.

It's going to be a problem so long as the game is weak. No list, no pressure.

Short-handed games are generally good for LAGs. Aggression pays off more, and loose play is correct.

Learn the Way of the LAG, IMO.

^^ I may have to.

I did leave and head over to Pacheco for the 15/30 last night. Talk about LAG -- those people are maniacs.

... or move up to 30/60 and get 3-bet preflop with Q8o and J7o.

(In fairness, I was dominated both times. Fffffuuuuuuuuuuuuu)