As stated it seems like an angle, but most rooms have some weird rules that irrationally deviates from a logical rule. That being said, idk what the rules are at the room you were in, and if you feel like you were angled AND the floor was complicit racking up and leaving and never playing there again would be best.

We don't have unlimited options of where to play though. Have you tried talking to the floor about this? Have you seen this before?

On a side note, if a reg angles this hard to get one extra deuce in their hand I would hope you can beat them anyways

In case it wasn't clear I don't think the floor was complicit and I have every faith that the room will keep improving. Just a confusing situation created and exploited by the player.

Ha, true. This guy is one of the big winners simply by being a tight fit though. Of course so am I but I think I'm better at projecting a slightly gambly image.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

You could simply say you saw it and move on. If the guy didn't want to give back a card that he flashed, why are you insisting that he does?

Poker is a social game and not every aspects of the rules need to be enforced strictly by the book. I think you were overreacting.

The angle is pretty simple: If he likes the card he raises a ruckus and keeps it. If he doesn't like it he insists on a replacement. It's hard to tell if this is a level but perhaps that angle wasn't clear to you. Otherwise it sounds like you think the rest of us should be this guy's sucker for some reason.

I appreciate the feedback and agree poker is a social game where leniency is sometimes appropriate. I have to disagree that this is one of those times. It's not OK for opponents to choose which cards to keep or replace unless it's draw poker.

Just so that I am on the same page, dealer pitched him a card and it was semi-exposed and you spoke up.

And you think he's angling because he had a choice to discard the card that was rightfully his (in which you had the advantage because you saw it) or to get a new card in which he has no control over.

If he's somehow consistently exposing card in hopes of getting a free draw, then obviously it's a different story. Flashed card happens all the time.

Come on man...

Umm.... No, that's not how poker rules work (for reasons already explained). It's an exposed card on the pitch. It is not rightfully his, no matter the rank or suit of the card. But I think this is just going to be a disconnect and I don't want to belabor it further.

It's really news to me that anyone would think of an exposed pitched card as just part of the game. But that's probably true of many of my opponents now that I think about it. Different strokes, I guess.

Have a good night. Thanks for the input and good luck at the tables.

Angleshooting is basically someone wishing to enforce the rule down to the T outside the boundary of its intended purpose.

The rule used in this discussion is aimed to protect players from giving up information and be at a disadvantage to other players.

You are applying this rule to "protect" yourself.

Anyhow, good luck at the table.

I think the rule where I play is that all flashed cards must be exposed to the whole table and replaced. The only available "angle" here is to only announce flashed cards which are good, like broadway cards but not others(lol, that's so dirty, and cheap).

It's not okay to see an exposed card and say nothing as that gives you an unfair advantage. In my opinion, actions that corrupt the integrity of the game are angles. I know that many disagree and will do anything short of actual cheating to win but it's not okay to behave like a scum bag just because "IT'S POKA".

I feel like the Pacific Northwest cultural attribute of conflict aversion and the Pacific Northwest cultural attribute of rule-following are in conflict here, too.

Humor me, what do you think is the intended purpose of replacing a misdealt card by dealer?

It's to give him a hand which has not been seen by anyone else, to which all players are entitled.

Suppose the rule doesn’t exist, who would be at a disadvantage?

Whoever the dealer didn't like, who would "accidentally" have his cards exposed more often.

Even if there were no unfair dealers, and everyone would be randomly disadvantaged, I think it would be a much worse game if you randomly were forced to play with an exposed hand.

Dealer doesn't have control over what cards are dealt. There is no advantage or disadvantage to a player by "accidentally" flipping over a card.

Correct, except he wasn't forced to play with an exposed hand. Player was arguing whether his card was actually exposed and if it was clearly exposed, dealer had responsibility to enforce the rule.

It was clear that dealer did not think the card was exposed and AKQJ10 was the only person contending that it was and yet he could not clearly identify the card.

Burden should have been placed on dealer to decide whether the card was exposed and apply the rule accordingly. If it was unclear whether the card was exposed and the player, in which the rule is designed to protect, refuses the protection, then I think it's fair to move forward.

To imply that the player is somehow cheating and wants the rule to be absolutely enforced is IMO the definition of angleshooting.

Of course there is a disadvantage to the player who has one or more of his hole cards exposed. Or would you really not mind playing your next session with one of your hole cards exposed on every hand? It makes no difference that the dealer cannot control which card you get.

Everyone who doesn't see the flashed card is at a disadvantage.

This really has been a grade-A "level." You had me going for the longest time even though I was suspicious. It was this last little push, playing a 2+2 poster who doesn't understand why hole cards need to be secret, that got us past the Threshold of Plausibility.

Well played. Bravo!


FWIW the dealer pitched to seat 9 then immediately after was looking toward the 1/2/3 side. Either she pitched without looking toward 9 or she immediately averted her gaze to the UTG player in 3. Dealers don't normally watch every card into the player's hand. She never expressed an opinion whether the card flashed, simply called the floor.

Obviously you know this and are leveling but for onlookers: You can't "refuse the protection" here because you'd refuse it with an ace and accept it with a nine (awful card in high-low games) which means you're getting a free one-card draw. This particular player would have raised holy hell to get a replacement if he were dealt an exposed nine.

So no, giving him a free one-card draw is not "protecting" anyone, just giving him an advantage.

Again, well done. You got me.

I worded it incorrectly. What I meant to say was that dealer has no direct control whether he can create an advantage or disadvantage by intentionally flipping over a card.

I thought the conspiracy context that dealer can play favoritism in which you created was pretty clear, but I guess it wasn't the case. So I'll spell it out more plainly.

If dealer intentionally flips over a card, he cannot control whether that card would benefit the player (a bad card) or harm the player (a good card) by replacing it with another random card.

So the notion that:

Is pretty out there.

And you still don't get that, if you never replaced the exposed cards, the player would be penalized whether it was a good card or a bad card that was exposed.

Dealer did not take a position whether the card was exposed. You insisted that the card was exposed and demanded it to be replaced because you made the correlation that V is taking advantage of the rule by getting a free "draw."

The notion that a semi flashed card that wasn't clearly exposed is now a "angleshoot" to get a free draw is pretty interesting, but clearly few others are agreeing with your position.

For sake of argument, do you guys really think it's actually a good idea for one player to be able to ask dealer to replace another player's card without dealer's acknowledgement that the card was exposed, and without the player able to identify the card that was exposed?

I am pretty surprised what we are arguing here and that you guys feel this strongly about enforcing the rule to the T.

Of course I get that. So you were actually agreeing that the rule is intending to protect the player who's card was exposed?

So if one is to apply the rule outside the boundary of its intention, is that not angleshooting?

It protects the player either way, as well as protecting other players who may not have seen the exposed card, as someone else mentioned above.

And that's the last food I'm offering the troll. If you honestly still don't understand the rule now, I can't help you any further.

I'll try this again and probably won't respond to this subject anymore.

You are basically telling me that:

1. You could not identify the precise card that was exposed.

2. Dealer never said the card was exposed.

And you guys still think that the card should absolutely be replaced.

You couldn't see the scenario in which any player could just replace another player's card if the burden is that the card is slightly exposed? And it is not angleshooting by arguing that the rule should ALWAYS be applied?

You've done some master-class leveling here so you get one more naive serious response. Besides, even though you're speaking in troll character, there are many floors in the Puget Sound area who think like your trolling and one is probably reading.

So first of all, what if I'm sitting in Seat 8 and the card flashes to Seat 2? Why should they get to know the card?

Secondly, I'm genuinely curious where you draw this line for the all-important identification. "You said the three of clubs, but card is actually the deuce of clubs, so the player gets to keep the card."

But third.... your whole premise is nonsense.

Yeah, you're right. This policy is such a good angle that I'm going to move to Los Angeles or Las Vegas, where they allow it because they're not good at pokering like Seattle. And every single orbit, when my opponent gets pitched an ace that doesn't flash, I'm going to say to the dealer, "I saw that card! But I won't tell you what it is."

And the dealer naively will replace the ace, which didn't flash, just on my say-so. But I've shot an angle, you see, because I didn't just pick any non-flashed card, like a nine or a seven, to tell my lie. I waited until the other guy got an ace.

Then I lied and said it flashed. It didn't flash. I waited until he got an ace that didn't flash, then I lied and said it flashed.

One more time, real slow, with hints: I lied and said the ace, which I knew was an ace, had flashed, but it really hadn't flashed.

OK, ready for the punch line?

Addendum, pretending you're not leveling:

It's also funny you can't see that your policy actually does set up an angle. Now I just point to a random card and say I saw an ace! If it's not an ace, the other player has to keep it.

But then, you (in troll character) also can't understand why letting the guy throw back his nines and keep his deuces in an Omaha game is bad policy, so....