I witnessed a scenario at a $1-3NL at my local casino. You can skip to the question but the action went like this:

Pre:
MP lady (Villain 1), raises to $9
MP +1 guy (Villain 2), three bets to $30
Villain 1 calls.
(Pot $63)

Flop
2, 6, J rainbow
Villain 1 checks
Villain 2 bets, $35
Villain 1 calls
(Pot $133)

Turn
7
Villain 1, leads with $45
Villain 2, now calls.
(Pot $225)

River
A
Villain 1, bets $45
Villain 2, raises to $100

Question: Villain 1 now asks Villain 2, “Did you just flop a set of aces with that river?”. Villain 2 replies, “I wish.” Villain 1 says “OK then, I’ll call.” Villain 2 now shows his pocket aces for a set, and the Villain 1 lady turns over 77 for a set on the turn, and now starts complaining that Villain 2 lied to her and that it was unethical and he shouldn’t have said what he said. Villain 2, replies, “What would you have me do, tell you my cards?” And went back and forth from there. The question, is there any justification from Villain 1 that Villain 2 was unethical?

I had no skin in the hand, but it was a curious interaction and had the table with mixed feelings.

Absolutely not, ainec. If you want to table talk to try to get a read, then you should be prepared for table talk, including being lied to.

Having said that, depending on the table dynamic and/or your read on the player, I might handle things differently to keep the game good. But no way I'd be angry with anyone who did what V2 did.

If anything it might be a problem if villain 2 told the truth about the contents of their hand.

Not in any cash game I have ever played.

But As Dinesh stated, absolutely NP in what Aces did or said.

OP are you really asking whether it is unethical to lie about the contents of your hand in the card game of poker.

No, I’m not asking if it’s unethical. I probably worded the question wrong. I more or less am asking if the behavior crossed any “unwritten” social norms. For my personal feeling, I believe that Villain 2 (Aces) did nothing wrong by suggesting/indicating he did not have aces when asked by an opponent and then flipped over aces. I found it interesting that a few at the table felt that Villain 2 (Aces), should have said nothing rather than “lie” about his hand. I truly believe the lady felt “hurt” that the guy outright mislead her as they seemed to be having a cordial conversation before that hand. But I was perplexed that several others felt he crossed some sort of line, so I wanted to proposed that to this forum and get an opinion.

Well since you technically can’t flop a set on the river V2 technically did not lie since V1 question was improperly worded.

Not uncommon for two people being cordial all night and one develops a feeling they are becoming friends until paths cross in a significant HU hand. Then that player gets butt hurt when the other does something perfectly normal for poker.

But still V2 sounds like she was at least slightly out of line.

This.

Of course I lied, Phil. It’s poker!

Even if she did flop a set, she didn't lie. She implied with "I wish".
But a lie would be fine here. Opponent opened the table talk door.

Start with table talk, you might get answers. And I'm not required to tell the truth.

I see plenty of this 'soft play' in our Reg filled room. Players actually will tell the truth against certain other Players .. or just say "Good Fold" to let them know they are crushed. No one has been 'caught' lying about having the nuts. There was a Player that was down 4 BI and I told them to fold the Turn and they called anyway .. with (not top) two pair .. in PLO .. and got one of his 3 outs (I had one in my holding). I asked him if he thought I was lying .. said "Nope, I just figured I had to win a hand sooner or later."

But on the flip side there are other Reg v Reg spots where talk and even showing cards is part of the dynamic between those two Players. I thoroughly enjoy table talk and showing cards as it breaks up the monotony of the game .. and usually gets the table going depending on how it ends up.

Against unknowns I can see Players telling the truth before the River because they don't want to get sucked out on, but I can't really see a Reg telling the truth to an unknown on the River.

In tournaments there's a 'general' rule (63?) about not discussing contents of a live hand, but no real definition of table talk rules.

OK .. on to ethics .. as far as poker is concerned is bluffing with chips any different than verbally misleading an opponent about your hand? No .. simple answer.

OK .. on to ethics .. as far as Reg on Reg, or even just Player on Player I think the depth of table talk is up to each Player and what they are willing to take away from the table with them. As I stated above, I will 'have mercy' on a Reg who's having a bad day .. I don't EXPECT nor do I think I receive the same 'courtesy' in return from most other Regs .. and I'm fine with that. GL

I twisted the two players. I meant V1, the one who initiated table talk and then got upset about the lie was the one getting out of line. V2 who maybe lied, though I agree both the answer (I wish) and the improperly formed question technically mean there was no real lie, was perfectly fine.

Not sure how you Flop a set on a River ..

Moral of the story is don't start a conversation if you're going to get 'that' embarrassed if things don't go your way. AND why isn't she re-raising all-in? So she's willing to lose to JJ, but not AA? GL

The lady deserved it 100% for asking someone if they have a set when she's the one who has a set. Was she really folding anyway?

The flop is the first 3 cards so the OP meant rivered not flopped

I am going to assume op knows flop and river since he correctly used them. If true and since it was presented as a quote, I will assume it was V1 who misspoke or doesn’t know. I am 100% certain A20 does kno flop and river.

Yeah, +1 for finding it interesting. We're social scientists at heart.

Different groups have different norms so it's possible two-thirds of the players in this game are put off by the lie.

A few times I sat in a $1-5 stud game in Tunica. To give you an idea, they used to have a 25c ante, but the players didn't like having to pay a quarter a hand to try to hit the BBJ, so they made it zero ante, $1 bring in.

I had fun sitting there thinking, "OK, if I get split aces, should I put in a PSR to $3? Isn't that kind of hard for anyone to call?" But after I raised a couple of big hands and got dirty looks, I realized their social norm was just not to show any aggression on third street. (Presumably it's OK to raise on later streets but only to get enough money in the pot to trigger the jackpot.)

Obviously I wasn't doing anything unethical, but aside from lack of profitability it also didn't sound very fun to try to run over the game to wreck their jackpot dreams so I could take down $1 or $2 pots. So I moved on.

It's kind of silly to expect anyone to answer truthfully at a poker table, but maybe for this social circle that was a norm.

This is the funniest part.

At my local casino there is a $3/$6 that starts up at 6:00 am a few days a week. The average age of all of the players is likely well over 70. I wouldn't be surprised if it is over 80.

The pots are ridiculously small. No one raises preflop. Only on occasion will there be a post flop bet and rarely a call.

The players there are only there to be social and try and hit the bad beat jackpot.

On really rare occasions (maybe once every 3 months, maybe even less), I will be playing a NLH game that will run overnight and break up early in the morning as that game is getting going. If there is an empty seat I will often take it. I buy in for $100 and announce that I will leave when it is gone or after I win $50.

I will play 30+% of hands and raise every time then play aggressively post flop. I am just being a lagtard. I just try and run over the table for $50.

Approximately 50% of the players love me. They know that I cannot possibly be profitable long term and am likely dumping a relatively decent amount of money into the game ($100 is a large sum for that game). I also think that for more than a few of these players, it stirs their competitive juices. They were likely decent poker players earlier in life, but have just adapted to the social norms of their group and now play passive, low aggression poker. They enjoy the challenge. Many of these players remember me and will greet me and ask if I am going to play.

For the other 50% of the players it is like I murdered someone and raped their wives. They get angry with me. I raise pre-flop and they will angrily muck their suited connectors from the big blind face up trying to explain they could hit a bad beat.

Over time, I have become more sensitive to the feelings of the other players, recognizing that I am ruining the game for some of them.

Just a story to show that legal, ethical, and moral all can be different things.

It's 100% fine to lie about your hand and generally speaking the person who starts the table talk is trying to get a read, so you should misdirect them one way or another. It's not unethical at all.

Personally speaking I would make an exception if I firmly believed that the questioner was naive enough to imagine that I wouldn't lie in this circumstance. There are zero regs that fall into that category.

If this lady was a reg I'd just shrug and laugh at being called unethical in this situation.

I don’t do it but it’s part of the game. Now lying at show down is a nono.

If anything here is unethical it was the lady asking if he rivered a set. She was doing it to get a read. Or because for some reason she thought it was OK to get a player to discuss the contents of their hand regardless of the harm it could do them.

Saying "I wish" isn't even a lie (as Steamraise and others have said). It's just stating the obvious that he wishes he hit a set, not that he didn't hit a set. It is deceptive. But once the Lady asks the question looking for a tell then she is likely going to get one or more false tells. And possibly one or more subtle real tells as well. She was too stupid to realize that what was said was an obvious avoidance of the question in a misleading way. If he had said "I can't answer that question" she might have read that better. And certainly if he had said "yes" it would have been a lot more interesting. Of course if he had a set of Jacks he could have said "No" honestly. That would of course have been even worse for this lady who would have insta called or maybe even jammed.

But exactly how does somebody who has a set fold to a $55 raise in a pot that is already $315 where there is no possible straight or flush on the board? He could just as easily have min raised with AJ.

This whole thread reminds me of the once-common belief that there's something dirty about a check-raise.