So my game was playing a one table SnG, and we were down to five-handed play. Stacks were about even, with no one actually having a real lead. Everybody was about even in chips.

So one of the players, a new guy who we had invited in to play for the first time, made a very foul play in to me. Before the hand was dealt, he talked about everybody going all in. He was at the bb. I was first to act, and obviously did not want to take part of the proposed action, but he convinced the three players after me into going all in - but then he looked at his cards and folded .This is very foul play to me - it is a friendly game so I really don't feel like inviting him in again. But the problem is that it is a good friend of one of the other founding members of the game (who regrettablydid not see the action). What should I do?

Wait, I'm confused. Was everybody about even in chips, or did somebody have a lead?

You said he started this campaign before the cards were dealt; is that when the others agreed to do it? Or was he egging them on after you folded and the first person shoved?

If he did it while the hand was in play, that's a bit of a violation, but it's not really all that bad. It's bad, yes, but not along the same lines as, "he's bluffing, you have to call!" You gained from it yourself, since it bumped you up two places.

If he did it all before the hand was dealt, then hey, good for him. I've made that joke myself, without ever intending to go along with it before looking at my cards.

No matter what, you seem more offended by it than you probably should be. If he's telling people what to do in the middle of the hand, that may need to be discouraged (although some home games have no problem with rampant table talk). If he's working them before the cards are even dealt, I see no problem.

We were all about even in chips - no one had a lead. I guess this is why it made sence to the one's who went all in.


He had started out before before the hand was dealt, and kept on trying to convince others to go all in during play. No one had accepted to go all in before the hand was dealt. Then when it was his turn he just folded with a grin - really hated that play.


I don't care about me gaining from it, then i would have done it myself when i was BB.

I would have had no problem with him doing it, if he had called himself. Saying "lets all go all in" and then folding when three others go all in is not the spirit of the game to me. At least a game i wanna go to.

I guess it just depends on expectation, and the kind of game you're used to playing. In the tourneys I play, a comment about everybody going all-in (especially from someone in late position) is generally just waved off as a cheap joke/ploy. Nobody really takes it seriously.

Telling people what to do during a hand might be a violation, but it depends on the rules of the house. That kind of thing would never be allowed at the games I host, but I play one game where people make those kinds of comments all the time. Maybe not to the extent this person did during the hand, but it's not that far out of bounds.

Were the players who went all-in offended? Did they feel cheated? It sounds like he pulled a bluff that worked, and not much more.

Y'know, there are a lot of players who get offended at check-raises. They find them crass and against the spirit of the game.

Foul play? As in, "a murther most foul?"

By all means, alert the proper authorities.

If you rather mean the new guy's shennanegans at the table, then if I were you I'd be hesitant to follow his orders regarding *my* chips. Especially if he's the new guy.

Subtle angle shoot maybe, but each people control their own chips. The two ahead of him going all in could have just had easily said no. I'd never base my actions on what a person two seats behind me said they were going to do.

While I think what he did is somewhat douchey - I don't think I'd ban him. I'm not even sure if it's worth a KITN quite frankly.

Sarge

Sure, you can call it tactics and exploiting the naivety of other players, but to me it is just ethically wrong. KITN ? im not familier with all these homegame termes.

Should I just tell him that playing like that is not acceptable and invite back or whta do you suppose?

Since you folded the "everybody" part of the "everybody go all in" contract was now voided. Participation was now up to each individual with no obligation by others.

I think it will be easier to find resolution if you can pinpoint for us what about it is ethically wrong. I understand that it doesn't sit well with you, but I'm not really sure why. Was it the convincing them to do it? Was it because the hand was in play? What are your thoughts on check-raising? Or bluffing?

Kick In The 'Nads (most say Nuts, but I prefer the gender-neutral 'Nads)

Were those who went all-in offended? Did they feel cheated? That makes a difference as to how to proceed from here.

Are you the host?

KITN = Kick in the Nuts.

Sarge

I would have been okay with it if he had went all in himself. Thats the problem to me. (I know bluffing is somewhat like "lying" too, but it is not quite the same thing).

Check-raising is just a part of the game to me, and i do it a lot myself. Have no problem with bluffing either

I'm not sure whether or not only i felt that it was a bit like cheating, as the others went to couch after being busted. Though at least one of them seemed fine with it although another one seemed irritated.

It is a rotating game, so i am not the host but more of an "organizer" - though we play at my place at least half the time

The reason I bring up check-raising is to illustrate context. It used to be the poker culture that check-raising was offensive, but it's not any more. People who came up in a different age still bristle at it, much as you're bristling now. It just feels dirty and wrong, and not the kind of game they want to play.

So what did this guy say, exactly? What about it feels like lying? Did he say, "If you all go all in, I'll do it too"? Was it more like, "Hey, we should all shove this hand"? What was he saying while the action was going on? It may very well be that this was quite dirty, but it's hard for me to say based on the information so far.

People busting from a tournament are always irritated. So far it seems like you're the only one really upset by it.

Well, then you do have some room to establish the tone of the game. But it does feel like you're just more taken aback by something that "feels" wrong without being able to put your finger on why (just like check-raising "feels" wrong to the old timers). I DO encourage you to stop table talk during the hand, but it doesn't really seem like that's what's bothering you about this.

A bit of a tanget, but I am usually good for playing one hand per night entirely in the dark. Obviously very -EV for me and only me. One of our players, an older gentleman, considers this extremely offensive (even if he is not a part of the hand).

Guess the point I amy trying to make is that each player has their own perspective. OP, in this case, based on the info you gave us you are overblowing this. If he tries this or something similar again, just call him out and remind everyone the last time he suggested it, he did not follow through and is a chicken ***** since he did not. Even if this was a thinly vieled angle-shoot, it should only work once as his credibility is shot.

Telling everyone to go all-in, then folding when he checks his cards seems okay to you? Behavior you'd like to encourage?

learned something today- didn't realize they were cross-sexual.

The first person to act folded. I would think the "let's all go all-in" agreement is void at that point, even if it was serious.

I agree, it's silly and childish, especially if it was done during the hand. But encouraging everybody to go all-in before cards are even dealt is not something that bothers me. Out of turn action is not biding, after all.

My main point here is that I don't think we've really pinpointed why we're annoyed. Is it because he said something before the hand? That's not a good reason. Is it because he talked during the hand? That's a reasonable reason, but it doesn't seem to be the one given. Is it because he didn't do it himself? Well, we're not really sure what exactly he said. If we're going to tell this person that what he did was bad, we should be clear on which part of it was bad.

I think some of the regs here are being a little disingenuous in saying they don't see what the problem with this move is. OP says the guy "convinced" UTG, UTG+1, and 2 to shove this hand after his prodding; clearly they thought there was a tacit agreement that he was going to shove as well. When he folded his hand it looked to them (or at least to OP) like he was welching on the deal. I get what people are saying w/r/t table talk being being looser and more freewheeling at home games, but I think it cuts both ways: you can get away with OPTAH violations and encourage others to shove out of turn, but once it's your buddies who start feeling cheated when you appear to back out of an agreement, a strict legalistic defense that might work at the casino isn't going to salvage your friendship or necessarily get you invited back.

Well that is true. That being said, he still encouraged the other players to go all-in (with him) AFTER i had folded my hand - so a "deal" was still proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep asking why it offends me and, as i have already stated, it is that he did not go along with his own preposition - he just lured others into it which is a very dirty move to me. It's like slamming someone with a chair in pro wrestling when the referee does not see it.

@ nmend - this is spot on to me. You can always state that it is tactics, but then you should not expect to be invited again.

LOL!!! That is frikkin hillarious in so many ways, wp!

Back on topic: It`s your home game, and you can do whatever you want, this one you can just go ahead and decide on feel. If the conversation during which he persuaded the other felt like an inexcusable angle to you (for example him asserting over and over that he will go all-in as well, and then just basically saying "f you, I fold, lol, fools."), ban him from the game, or let the other decision makers know how you feel about the situation. You decide how the atmosphere in your homegame should be, period.

Because his stated word, on a 'proposal' that he championed, isn't good, that's why. I don't want to encourage the mentality.

OP was UTG and folded. So if OP felt there was a tacit agreement (assuming OP thinks its alright to enter into these agreements) and is upset that he welched on the deal .... shouldn't OP be upset with himself for being the first guy to welch on the deal?

You can make the case that the strict letter of deal was that if and only if everyone shoved first, then the guy who proposed the deal would shove too. But from the way OP phrases it--"he convinced the three players after me into going all in"--he at least thinks that those guys believed the deal was still on. OP declined the action offered (everybody shove), but when those guys accepted it was their expectation that his fold didn't negate the proposal. Obviously the proposer didn't feel this way (or more likely never intended to call/shove without a premium hand) but OP does and that's the source of his beef.

The guy who proposed the deal can easily talk his way out of it on technicalities. No one's going to force him to throw his chips in. But when the people who start feeling like they got played (and not out-played, just played) are friends, technicalities aren't going to restore hurt feelings or get you invited back. OP thought it was a downright dirty play. I think it's borderline; some of you guys seem to think it's perfectly clean. Different standards, different expectations--but I'm not going to claim I don't understand why OP was offended.

Poker is a social game. Especially Home Games. It isn't the "ethics" of this guy's move - it is the social appropriateness of it. I don't know about the rest of you here, but I play Poker because it is fun while being competitive. When it stops being fun or I am surrounded by people who I just don't like, I'll find another game or something else to do.

I get the sense from the OP that he simply doesn't like the New Guy. He feels that the play was socially unacceptable behavior and is asking us to confirm his feelings.

If anybody thinks its acceptable for players to make a deal like this that doesn't involve all the players then what could they possibly find unacceptable in a poker tournament? If you play in group who's standards are that low ... you have no basis to complain about anything that happens.

Seriously.

I mean, why are they even playing poker in the first place? You're going to have a S&G and get half way thru the game and most of the remaining players just decide to coin flip? AFTER one guy has already decided NOT to participate in the deal? Then the histrionics of "I can't believe New Guy did this." Well, the other players didn't have to agree to the silly deal in the first place.

All in all if this is the kind of group that can't even focus for long enough to complete a single table S&G and do silly deals - well this is just a strange Home Game to begin.

The thing is, he still kept on about it to the three other players after i folded. Like "it does not matter that he does not wanna get in - we can still do it". So if you are putting it up like you do then, yes, i gave up the first deal. But then he made a new deal with the three other remaining in the hand - a deal which he violated.