fwiw there is an older asian guy who plays 3-6 lhe in eagle pass,tx who uses this all the time... no one ever holds him to it


in fact i don't think i have ever seen him not angle shoot in a pot

I don't see anything wrong your play and I would have done the same probably. I have heard other stories where it gets to the river and player one says to player 2 "If you bet, I am going to raise." which is an angle from player 1. Some casinos are trying to stop this type of behavior, he learned his lesson the hard way.

IMO that rule is in place for cases just like this. It might not be a rule everywhere, but it is there. OP stuck to the spirit of the rule. Totally legit imo.

It was a perfect ruling.
If there had been no action (ie, you checked) after his comment he could do whatever but you did raise so he was bound to his statement.
Good for you and a good Poker and etiquette lesson to the trash talker.

Lesson to be learned: Familiarize yourself with house rules. Asking the floor to enforce a house rule isn't angle-shooting. NH, op.

Isn't the real villain in this hand... the dealer?

As a noob to live play, if I asked a dealer a question like this, I would expect an answer. And if none was forthcoming, I would ask why I wasn't being answered. To proceed without my question answered just wouldn't happen. I'm a noob. I would be totally suspicious with an unanswered question that might affect my BR.

How is this an angle? What angle is being shot?

Actually, angle shooting IS using the rules in an unfair way to your advantage. That is one of the most basic definitions of angle shooting (not the only or most complete one, but still a decent off-the-cuff explanation of what angle-shooting is).

I don't see how the villain was angleshooting here, anymore so than saying something like "I've got a monster" is angleshooting. I think the OP angle-shot here, not the villain.

saying "i checkraise" first to act does not necessarily show any intent or understanding, kind of like when people frequently incorrectly use the term raise (ex: he checked to me so i raised to $40). there is a good chance someone who says this is just a bit clueless and before this kind of statement should be binding, we should discern his intent further.

if you said "i check and if you bet, i raise" would be more analogous to this situation

OP, I would think (as you probably do) that villain didnt know his statement would be binding. Knowing that I kinda think you went too far. More appropriate would be to have the floor come over after the hand, have the rule explained. Then tell him to put his happy face that you didnt call him out on it.

No it's not. The rules more often serve to PROTECT players from angle shots. And this hand is a good example; the villain took a shot by acting out of turn to influence other players. The rules (at most well-run casinos) recognize that action out of turn is not binding.

You are in the minority, albeit a very vocal minority (which includes a mod), which thinks the rules of poker are there to be abused by angle shooters. It's simply not true. They are there to protect players and the game. Everyone should be advised of the rules when they ask, and be provided a copy of them on request. Ironically, this particular casino appears to NOT enforce the "action out of turn is not binding rule." That, is insane.

OP was fine in this hand.

Out of turn verbal declarations binding...perhaps the worst casino rule ever. It's so bad, I can hardly belive it really exists.

Here comes the flop in a family pot. Small blind bets 100 and right away the button says "I raise to 300!"

The cutoff says "I call!!"

Uhhh, floorman?

I'm glad we agree on this.

Then how can you say this? You agree that this rule is ridiculous. You say rules are there to protect players and the game. Exactly who was being protected by the OP forcing this poor guy to put all his chips in the pot against his will?

Rules are intended as a last resort, when people cannot play nice with each other. I deal a game where people will tap their fingers when contemplating a bet: nobody forces a check. People will move chips sometimes past their cards when counting out or contemplating a big call: people know that they're merely thinking it through and don't force bets.

Poker should be played by people who respect themselves enough to let everybody go with obvious intent. The table isn't as full of endless ambiguous situations that the rules-nits would have you believe are there.

In three years of dealing, I could count on one hand (if I even remembered them) the times where a rule was invoked by a player as a way to protect the integrity of the game. It's done to force people to go against intent, or to a kill a hand that by all common sense should be live. That's angle-shooting, through and through.

So what if OP had 1010 and villain had JJ, exact same scenario where villain folded but was forced to play. Would OP have angle shot by enforcing that rule when maybe he had an advantage or maybe he didnt have an advantage?

It would still have been an angle shot, as he thought he was getting an advantage.

Sparks, yes, the rules are there to protect the players - from CHEATING. Doing something outside the rules is cheating. Doing something unethical within the rules is angle shooting. Like if you play in a room with a strictly enforced betting line and you bring your chips right up to the line to go all in, and then when you lose you say "haha, they weren't over the line, and I never verbally declared all in!" but if you win taking the other guy's stack. Technically it may be within the rules, but it's obviously an angle shot. Similarly attempting to act out of turn to induce action. Just because something is within the technical rules does not make it ethical.