The second he said all in, action was on you and you said the word Call, so you called his all-in. How much you were betting has no value, you called his all-in. live with it and show balls and live by your word, if he flipped AA you wouldn't be complaining would you?

Balls are not just for kicking

BTW, I would never invite you to my home game again if you acted like this, I wouldn't care how big a fish you were, not saying you are but it is a fishy move.

What's also less clear are your motives for this post. Are you asking for the specific situation you posted, or some vague fantasy scenario?

Here's the bit you seem to be glossing over:

action offered, action accepted

That's it, hand's over. You're heads up, he made a proposition, and you accepted it. The time to call this into question is before you say "I call," not after. If you introduce third parties or other factors not present in the OP, then the situation changes, and is addressed for the facts of that specific situation.

In other words:

Most of the people in this game are experienced, "play to win" types and push whatever edge they can get.

That's unfortunate.

I have a large group of people in my home game who are experienced "play to win" types, but we respect the best interest of the game.

Rules are a backup for dealing with ambiguous situations and problem children. They are not a roadmap for how to trap people on technicalities.

I think the OP is trying to say since he hasn't finished his raise action never completed. This is wrong. Even if you did raise all in, when the second player says all in...that would be a call on his part.

Making up situations where its 3 or 4 handed and people are acting out of turn doesn't matter here. There is a set order heads up. You, him, you, him, you etc. Regardless of what you raise, he will be all in. Regardless of how much his all in is, you call.

I would just like to say that reading this thread has tilted me hardcore. I really hope this is all one giant level by Zizek, because if not...wow.

The 'out of turn' argument makes no sense. Nothing about this hand was done out of turn.

Drop down in limits if getting set<set makes you try to pull something like this.

-DrG

just to clarify because nobody has expressed this completely in a COMPLETELY direct way...

you said raise, and he chose to go all-in. what does this mean? it means that NO MATTER WHAT you were going to raise to, this guy was insta shoving (or calling if u moved all in). it's clear that with your set, youre not letting go of your hand anyway...so if you raise a substantial amount...pause...he goes all in...youre still calling. and you still said call despite complete proper exchange of action.

this is an angle if i have EVER heard one. if you had a legitimate issue with the action on the table...this is how your OP wouldve looked:

I had 33 on a flop of 9 4 3, early position bets out $30, its folded to me, I say raise and before I put any raise out, he shipped his whole stack into the pot. I argued that since I hadn't put any raise out, that I could raise $30 and then fold. I said call, and he turns over his hand and shows 44.

ducwidt?

Yeah. I'd actually typed out a reply a while back, left it to percolate a few minutes, and came back and read it and realized I'd be running laps for 3 years to work off the demerits I would have been given by Rapini or TT if I pushed "Submit".

But you guys are doing just fine telling Zizek what he is, so I'm glad I don't have to.

OP you are a cheater.

OP would never be invited back to my home game, that's for sure. Not just because he thinks angling is acceptable, but also because he is confused to a point where I wouldn't know what kind of crap to expect next.

this

What do you think of the OP's villian declaring "All-in" before the raise was stated or completed? Is that an angle in and of itself, is it just poor form or is it acceptable in your opinion?

What kind of angle could it possibly be? What advantage does it give? The guy was excited to have a set and got a little ahead of himself. As an angle it works rather poorly. If OP was bluffing, now he gets away with the lowest amount. As it was, I suspect "villain" knew that they both loved their hands, and stacks were short enough that it didn't matter, as they were both getting the chips in the middle.

All the guy did was tip the strength of his hand.

Can the stupid melodrama, getting a ruling on whether on someone's mistake invalidates action isn't cheating.

I don't thi9nk its an angle. he puts himself at a disadvantage. because if the OP has a weak hand he can get out now for the minimum raise.

You're right, it merely pushes the absolute boundaries of angle shooting.

You conveniently skip right by all the incredibly valid points made by many posters in this thread. By acknowledging merely the "melodrama" you are in fact the perpetuator of it.

Nice afternoon for a troll, eh?

Sucks when your friggin' set loses, eh?

Skipped over what, exactly? All the "incredibly valid points" just repeated the same thing, which is fine, because that's why I asked.

You've only elaborated your question or responded to one-liners. This makes it seem like you're ignoring the answers to your question, rather than absorbing them. If this is an error of interpretation, I apologize.

ban the cry baby angler

Threads started by OP

I can see why he needs to do this to win.

Most other threads are BBV.

Cheating is not an edge, it is cheating, an edge is better skills at the game by the rules.

Now there is no way I would ever let you play in any game I have, hell I wouldn't even pick you up in the rain if you had a flat.

Had OP won the pot he wouldn't have tried to wiggle out of the all-in call.

The fact that he's even trying to argue in this thread shows what kind of cheater he is.

Clearly OP is, as he has himself stated, trying to shoot an angle here. But it's actually a more interesting question than some of you are giving it.

The most basic question here is at what point is the original bettors action complete, and it becomes the new bettors turn to act. This is similar to another thread that was posted a while back about whether stating "I call whatever you bet" out of turn is binding.

Essentially, is his action complete as soon as he says raise, and at that point the next player is free to act, and is in fact completely binded by any action they put into place as soon as he mutters the word raise, or is action still on the original player until he completes his entire turn by not only stating his intended action, but also the amount of his action if necessary. If the latter then the second player's all in move is out of turn and therefore not binding, and additionally his call is also not binding.

An easy way to visualize this from OP's perspective is that he says I raise and villain says "if you raise, I go all in" and then OP says "if you go all in, I call!". Is this binding? It's the same action, but phrased in a different way, and could easily be interpreted as being out of turn action and therefore not binding.

The main thing the remember here is that OP is not asking for a common sense answer, or even an "is this an angle shot" answer. He knows this is an angle shot. He knows what the answer should be when the rules are applied intelligently. He is just asking if there is an argument for him based on a very strict interpretation of the rules that he could use for his benefit in this case, which tbh there probably is.

Its not that interesting because of two things. 1 they are heads up. Its very simple to handle OOT action heads up . . . Its binding . . . there is no reason for it not to be.

second HE SAID "CALL" after the other player announced all-in. end of discussion. there is nothing interesting about this situation. It poses no deep philosophical questions about poker.