I would agree, but the RRoP rules don't say "it's ok to table your cards at showdown", they say "it's not ok to show your cards when multiway (until you get to showdown)".

(The TDA rules just say it's not OK to show your cards at any time until showdown.)

If Villain is not fluent in English, and Hero is aware of this fact, it could easily be an angle. And a very clever one at that.

If it's an angle or not mostly based on intent in this spot.

I've been in 'lots' of rooms where it's multiway with one player all in and this happens and nothing is said by dealers. I assume because they rely on tips from players or not worth hassle for them.

Yes, it's an angle. If you had something marginal, like AT, then exposing your hand would be legitimate because you could be trying to decide if you were going to call or not. But with top boat, there is nothing to decide, you would just snap call. So you must be angling when you expose your hand without calling.

So, eliciting a tell is now an angle? That's weak folks.

So tricking opponent to show their hand is eliciting tell? Not in my mind. Definitely getting more than a tell.

The more I think about this, the more I think this is an angle. It all depends on context.

One of the definitions of angle I use is 'Using idiosyncratic rules of the local room to misrepresent action or imply a different action'. Basically, if you know the floor in this room is going to rule in a way that may be unusual, and use that knowledge to manipluate the game, you are angling.

Example of this are pump faking in rooms with hard betting lines. Because this would be a bet in most rooms, doing this could be an angle, as it is action outside the normal game context. However, as a counterpoint, cutting out raising chips behind your cards, then folding when your opponent does not react is perfectly acceptable, because cutting out chips behind your cards is never a bet.

In this case, while it is sometimes allowed by the rules, it is less common for players to table a live hand without acting. It is entirely possible that the intent was to create confusion so that the tabling player can pick up an advantage. Unless this is a common practice in this room, or unless the player asks the dealer or clarifies that he isn't acting, this is likely an angle.

That being said, I consider this a medium sized angle. And like all angles, a little awareness can easily prevent any problems.

What tell is so reliable that it would cause you to fold the nut full when you only lose to quads?

Is forward motion even a bet these days? Thought we were going towards cut and release.

Virtually none. However, there are tells reliable enough to raise him back, or just call. Also, everywhere I've played showing your cards head-up is allowed.

Besides, the #1 rule in all poker games is: PROTECT YOUR HAND! The fact that Mr. Quads didn't do that isn't and shouldn't be our problem.

"Cut and release" typically refers to which chips are committed. Forward motion is at least a call/min-bet, and thank God.

If you are thinking about re-raising the river, you probably don't want to expose your hand. Anyway the other guy was all in.

That is why it's an angle. Angles are not against the rules, they are an attempt to abuse the rules in order to effect a positive outcome for one's self.

Other guy Turning over quads.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Mr. Boat should be bound to a call (unless the room has some unusual rules). The question is, was he showing his hand in a move to drive tells in a way that no one could mistake for a call, or was he angling. Yes, Mr. Quads screwed up, but it sure looks like Mr. Boat angled him.

It doesn't feel like an angle to me, as narrated.
Like somebody else pointed out, if he knew Mr. Quad didn't speak english, yes, could be an angle. If he suspected Mr. Quad was a nervous rookie, maybe angle. As others have said, if his intent was to get Mr. Quad to show, yes, angle for sure, and a filthy one.
BUT, we don't have enough information. Saying that's it's an instacall, therefore it has to be an angle, is just doing live poker a disservice. My thought when reading the narrative was that Mr. boat had some sort of read on Mr. Quad - either through familiarity with the player, or some other tell, he had reason to believe he was up against quads. Now, I don't have enough information to make that assumption either. But that's my point - we can't know, based on what we've been told.

+++

Villain obviously made a mistake showing his hand, but isn't that the whole point of an angle?

This is an angle because when the hand is exposed it can look like a call. As is typical of an angle it may take a floor ruling to uphold the rules which in a cash game is to say that it is not a call and in a tournament which will be a one round penalty for turning over the hand, but not a call.

Once the opponent thinks its a call they can either turn their hand over (like here) and give the angler the opportunity to fold.

Or the opponent might muck their hand if it is worse allowing the angler to reap the benefit of a win without having to have actually bet.

In this case because it does not seem like the intent was to get the opponent to muck/turn over their hand the angle wasn't intentional. However that doesn't make it less of an angle as you can see from the result.

This type of angle becomes clearly intentional when the person turning over their hand then proceeds to say something like "OK" which will be ruled as not a call but will seem like a call at the time it is said.

Not an angle.

Back in the '70s and '80s, there was a rule that said "A bet is only a bet when chips are released into the pot". An angle shooter would say "call", but not do anything and wait for the other guy to show. This was an intentionally deceptive act. Just tabling your cards is not intentionally deceptive, therefore NOT AN ANGLE.

We can’t say for certain since an angle requires intent. But it definitely could be an angle

Ummm, you just said 'At one point in time, there was an action you could commit (a verbal call) which, by rule, was not binding call, but people thought it was. That was an angle. But today, committing an action (tabling your cards) which, by rule, is not binding, but people think it is, is not an angle'

Ummmm, howzatgain?

Huh? Since when is tabling your cards a declaration of an action? You're creating a fantasy and declaring it's a reality. In today's games, an action requires either putting chips, or even a single chip, into the pot, or a verbal declaration.

This whole craze of showing your hand when head-up was started on TV and some people seem to think they can pick up a tell from doing it. Maybe some experts can, but 99.9% of everyone else just ends up leveling themselves. The point being that it is common knowledge it's a tactic to gain information, NOT AN ACTION.

Not sure where your confusion is, Jay. You said that an action in the ‘70s and ‘80s that looked like a call but was not a call was used deceptively as an angle, but an action today that looks like a call but is not a call cannot be deceptive and is therefore not an angle.

That’s aside from the fact that this thread is full of reasons why it is an angle, with which you seemingly agree up to but before calling it an angle. It’s also not to mention that “not intentionally deceptive” requires a degree of mind reading that I doubt you possess.

If you asked 100 recreational players what it means if a player, facing action on the river, headsup, tables his hand without saying anything, you will get nowhere near a 100% unanimous answer that it means nothing. I would bet that over 30% would think it was a fold, and 20% would think it is a call.

This is further complicated by the fact that a large number of players are more familiar with tournament rules, where tabling your hand with action pending is NOT allowed, is not a valid move, and will result in a warning or a penalty.

I have watched a fair amount of televised poker, and I don't think it is at all common to see players table a live hand without acting(while I am sure it is done, I can't say I recall seeing it).

The few times I have seen it done in live play, it always generated a buzz, either during the hand or afterwards, with players confused by what happened.

The idea that this is a well know, common, and universally understood move is not, in my experience, accurate. Maybe it is a regional or specific to certain cardrooms, but i don't think it is at all accurate to say "The point being that it is common knowledge it's a tactic to gain information, NOT AN ACTION."

I don't think it's that people think that flipping your hand up means call. The confusing part is tabling your hand face up is what comes after a call. So someone whose brain interpolates for missing information may think the call happened. Someone who sees person A facing a bet, then flips their hand face up but doesn't toss it towards the dealer, may interpolate a call happened in the middle when it didn't. My brain definitely works this way and I have to be very careful not to rush my actions at times.

I think that tabling your cards is strongly associated with action. Whether it is a call or fold is dependent on the player's interpretation, but I think many players, and most newish players, would have a strong bias towards thinking that someone who flipped their cards up has acted.