I forget the action, but it goes to river heads up. Action is on the first player on a Q-high board, and player on the button declares "AK" (i.e. ace-high) as if he thought the first player checked. First player says "I haven't acted yet" thinks for a bit and bets small. Player on the button raises big, gets called, and shows down top set.

Thoughts on this? Seems within the rules but scummy/angley to me.

What is there talk about?

Standard poker table *******ry.

First player is a greedy idiot.

a. Betting when he thinks guy on the button only has AK
b. Calling the raise.

Table talk like this works mainly on greedy idiots.

Do you think the guy who looks at his cards preflop and says 'oh, aces again!' before overlimping, is shooting an angle?

If he thought he had AK, why did he call the raise?

The hand wasn't misdeclared since it wasn't at showdown.

Player B says he has A-high and raises. Player A has A-high beat and calls.

You nailed it.

If it is obvious as in "Ace King." "I haven't acted yet." "Oh, I thought you checked, sorry." This is riding a thin line between angle and actually breaking a rule. If he truly thought the hand was over, then he was breaking a rule by misdeclaring his hand at showdown. The fact that it isn't showdown yet technically makes it within the rules. I would expect the dealer to warn this player or call the floor to make a decision so that the floor will hopefully warn him. I would not let a player believe that continuing to do this would be ok.

Your room actually has a rule against underdeclaring your hand at Showdown? What are the possible penalties?

no action was on V1 and the Button said "Ace King" before any bets. Then V1 bet, the Button raised, and V1 still called.

It's obvious that the "declaration" had no impact or bearing on this hand whatsoever.

You asked why player A called the raise and the answer is 'because he thought that player B had AK'. It's obvious to you and me that the declaration had no bearing, but apparently not to player A.

No, he goaded the OOP player into making a bet that he might not have made, and calling a raise he definitely wouldn't have called.

So the guy said "I have Ace high. I raise" and the other player called. I don't think the reason he got called was because the other player really believed he had ace high.

Maybe that's why he made the original bet, but why would he call a raise thinking someone telling him he has ace high and then raises really does have ace high?

That's the angle.

The declaration isn't meant to make anyone think he has AK. It's meant to cast doubt on everything.

Minus the declaration, OOP makes a thin value bet and turbo mucks when raised; or OOP checks a valueless hand and maybe calls a small bet with a bluff catcher.

With the declaration, now a much wider range is on the table. Does Villain really have ace high? Won't OOP look like a ****** if he checks his marginal value hand and Villain checks behind? Won't OOP look like a fool if he folds to the raise and Villain shows AK for the bluff?

The whole game shifts from "what should I bet/call based on Villain's range" to "how do I exploit what he just said" or even "what if he's lying / telling the truth?" OOP just ends up throwing up his hands and figuring it's 50/50.

Good point. The rule says "deliberately miscalling your hand". It does not say "over declaring your hand", so IDK.

Table talk, in heads up cash, is fine. Not against the rules, not even an angle, usually. Acting as if you are giving information because you understand the current status of where action is, this is definitely an angle. I would consider it low on the scummy factor, but definitely an angle.

Upon reflection, maybe he isn't a greedy idiot.

Maybe he had second set or top two and the table talk convinced him to bet small to try to get value from AK.

He knew the hand wasn't over yet.

After the other guy (who lost) left the guy with QQ asked me what I thought of the move. I told him I assumed it was allowed, but thought it was a bit scummy and wouldn't do it. Especially because it's a one-table underground room where he plays a lot, so he should be pretty careful about getting a bad rep.

99.999999% angle

Misrepresenting your hand with action open is not an angle by itself, just part of live poker. But misrepresenting your hand and pretending that you think you're at showdown when you're not, is definitely an angle.

This is like the definition of an angle. Within the rules, but deceiving. He did a double angle shoot. First he pretends to act out of turn, but really he didnt act by saying “Ak”. You aren’t checking, but many people will turn their hand over once you say your hand. The second part of the angle was lying about what he had in the first part. But he knew there hadn’t been action, so it a nice double angle shoot. Guy is still an idiot for calling

Grunch from title alone: yes.

Really, title says on the river, not at showdown.

Of course it's scummy. If it's not against the house rules then it's an angle. If it is against the house rules then it's just plain "breaking the rules".

I couldn't care less about people shooting these angles at me because I've been around long enough and seen enough of this garbage at a poker table that it won't effect me whatsoever . To me it's super bush-league and scummy though, and most of the time I see angles like this, they arise from people who are generally terrible even by LLS standards.

Telling your opponent what your hand is mid-hand in a heads up pot seems pretty standard table talk/mind game stuff that you see every night. But in this case it sounds like he lied about his hand in a way that made it seem like he thought the hand was over and was declaring his hand rather than just playing mind games? I guess that's technically an angle, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Exactly this.

I told the guy I thought it was an angle, though not the biggest deal in the world. Also asked if he played a lot at this club (I don't, he does) and said I wouldn't do that kind of thing in a one-room underground game I played a lot in. You can get a (deserved) bad rep pretty quickly, and won't get the benefit of the doubt the next time.