Whether he had 63 or not is irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree. Because if he has showdown value and is angling to get a firm tell, a more likely thing he could achieve by angling than a muck or a tabling, then he's angling to gain tens of thousands of Euros of equity.

I agree with your POV that an angle is an angle, but if it was with 63o then it's not such a direct theft of equity as it's gaining player behaviour and reaction info that you could likely pick up on an ongoing basis across many pots including ones you are not in.

Certainly wouldn't matter if he had 63o if the guy mucked his hand thinking PADS had already folded.

Yeah I get that, or he could have tabled 66/77 and got raised.

What we can establish by knowing his actual hand is whether it was an out and out dirty angle to win a big pot, or if it is what he claimed, an attempt to gain info for future hands, albeit with a small risk of a muck or a tabling that maybe PL had not considered at the time was a real factor when he started talking.

I think enough has been said that no one is likely to change their mind. I doubt he tried a full fledged angle and wish he had straight up apologized from the get go.

The biggest reason is if Pads says I'm a good guy so take my word for it and that's deemed ok then everyone can say that and have a case but the game would go to trash.

They record the cards on the feature tables so they can have the info for the highlight shows. Just because the live stream is cards down before the FT doesn't mean they're not recording them.

Okay that's good, so probably we'll see what he had. This greatly increases the likelihood that he did have 63o as it would look super bad for him if when the highlights are shown that he had something else.

This must mean then that they re-record the commentary for a highlights show because otherwise the live stream commentary would not fit.

Perhaps the live stream commentators can see the cards but commentate as if they can't?

Why are you just throwing out guesses?

The commentators on the live stream commentate on the footage as it goes out on the stream. That's how they can read Tweets live etc. They have no access to the holecards. They are watching the same footage as the viewer at home.

When the highlights shows come out, they do a whole new commentary based on the footage plus the holecard information that is then overlaid in the graphics.

What remains to be seen though is if the highlights shows for the PSC cover more than the final table. It has varied in the past for the EPT.

Thank you, I rarely watch the live stream so don't know how it all works.

You'd hope they would show the hand, not to rub things in, but because how often on TV has anyone bet 3x the pot on the turn in a tournament? A great actual poker hand.

+1

God what a silly thread. If you're not getting butthurt everyday you're doing it wrong in 2017 I guess.

I mean its pretty scummy but I dont know that its technically an angle shoot. within the rules right?

This is just disgusting. So many people ok with or advocating this garbage. PADS basically fake mucks his hand, and people defend that by "ha, that's poker, it's a dishonest game", or "it's within the rules and you should do whatever you can to win", or my favorite scrupulous scraggly beard comment, "if you ain't cheatin', you're not tryin' hard enough." I have no interest in being a boyscout or pontificating about integrity, but it's embarrassing to see you treat poker this way. Ya know how horrible the poker content is in most films which feature it? Embracing the behavior in countless gambling entertainment is as intelligent as embracing the style of play from that entertainment. The only excuse is yourself.

i agree man, and I'm no saint myself.

it's one of the main reasons I've really done some soul searching about poker lately...live poker is just so ugh, shady is the only word I can use. it really ruins the game for me, having to constantly defend against some sort of angle/scummy **** at the table.

as a US player, online poker is all but dead(dont let anyone on these forums lie to you, Ignition/Bovada and WPN are not reputable and have basically zero security/regulation in place).

makes you really think about poker, as winrates decline, i suspect more and more of this **** will happen as regs will look for any way to gain an edge and stay afloat a little longer.

Wow!

I would have put this in the bracket of vacuum silly insignificant incident than the beginning of global poker downfall.

RIP Poker i guess, nice one PL ruined the game for us all!

Agreed [bold added for emphasis]

Agreed - I think you have nailed down the distinction between "fair ethical play" vs "angling" vs "cheating".

IMO some of the other analyses in this thread indicate that people are quite muddled on what the definition of angle-shooting is. It's not just ANY action taken to gain an edge!

So this is where I'm scratching my head.
I admit I'm struggling with how "you got it, nice hand" is remotely the same thing as a "fake call".

Patrick still has a chip on his hole cards, and hasn't said anything that sounds like "pass"/"fold".

In my mind a true "speech angle" would be where you intentionally used a word that actually sounded like FOLD and then said, for example, "I didn't say FOLD I said FULL, I was asking if you had a full house"...

Based on the video alone, it seems Patrick's opponent is exceptionally naïve in reaching to muck his hand just because Patrick said "you got it, nice hand". (Except that's not even the case, right... wasn't his opponent actually "fake mucking" to elicit a call?!)

"Ok you win" would feel closer to an angle than "you got it".

(I still wouldn't muck my hand just because my opponent said "ok you win", this just seems common sense.)

These sorts of remarks exist on a continuum of declarations that carry the subtext "I'm probably about to fold", but (IMO) categorically not the subtext "I fold".

The tone of the voice and the actual words are very commonly said by players as they're in the process of folding not as they're still deliberating a call and trying to determine strength or weakness. As I said before it's not very severe as far as angle shooting goes, but as someone who walks very close to the line myself in my speech play I think it crosses the line because a reasonable opponent could interpret it as a fold - nice hand especially said in that manner is typically said upon conclusion of a hand, not during the thought process and you got it implies that the other player wins the pot in the way it's said here (as I think I mentioned in my post saying 'you've got it don't you' or 'you've always got it in this spot' or similar would be fine)... Saying you've got it implies conceding the hand due to the context and tone of voice here implying 'it' is victory in the pot, not 'it' being the effective nuts as would be the case in the examples I gave if someone's still tanking and immediately following it with nice hand implies the hand is over without stating it outright. Combined, it can be interpreted as a fold by a reasonable player and is therefore angle shooting if the player isn't intending to fold immediately.

I don't think it's unforgivable or anything and i've had name players do far worse to me in live tournaments, I just personally think it crossed the line from regular speech play into angleshooting (possibly by accident, possibly not) and Pads should acknowledge that he crossed the line and won't do it again.

As we can see by people's varying views ITT there is some subjectivity as to whether "you got it, nice hand" is someone angling a fake fold. Personally I think given the intonation he used, that it is.

My view is also that his opponent looked as nervous as a kitten and on both occasions when he (the opponent) touched his cards it was an involuntary reaction to being tricked into thinking that PL had folded or was folding a millisecond later.

Saying it was an attempted reverse angle is "the defense counsel" clutching at straws IMO.

This is no worse than Jamie Gold: "Sammy, you got the Aces! OMG I call."

There's no case or controversy. He folded. Case closed.

Be careful what you wish for........ it could result in a special anglers World Championships. A 72 runner event with 16 invites and 56 live qualifiers. During the comp and the qualifiers all forms of angling are acceptable and in fact positively encouraged.

Most experienced live players are very capable of angling, it's just that they choose not to angle, and they also know where the line is between acceptable/ethical speech play and angling.

Where we can agree is that, at worst, it's a very minor angle.

IMO folks condemning it as "scummy" need to get some perspective.

Saying "you got it, nice hand" (in that tone) is somewhere vaguely around here IMO.

For clarity, I'm personally not arguing the villain's "counter-angle" is any defence. Obviously it is not.

But personally I thought his "fake muck" was a bit slow - didn't look involuntary to me. And IIRC, Patrick actually says in his explanatory video that he didn't think it was involuntary.

I certainly take your point about the "special anglers World Championships". It doesn't seem to set a great precedent if ambassadors of the game are brazenly trying to get as close to the "line" as possible.

The thing is though, it's not a hard line, not everyone agrees where the "line" is, so I think it's a slight oversimplification to suggest other pros could go around attempting these "angles" but they choose not to because they know it crosses a line.

This is why the response has to be proportional to the "crime". To me, it feels a very minor/marginal angle at worst.

It seems that many contributors in this thread do not think the matter is nuanced (as though "an angle is an angle is an angle").

The pinpoint timing of when his opponent touches his cards is so precisely in tune with PL's fakery, leading me to think when he touches his cards each time it is natural rather than contrived.

I think it is too much of a stretch to think that a player being angled in a super unusual way would be able to spontaneously adjust and enact a reverse angle.

Furthermore, he looked well under the pump when PL was speech playing him and like he wanted the hand over, so not the look of some live play, extrovert, angle deflecting, end boss.

1. This is clearly subjective and open to interpretation - I've watched the footage several times and respectfully disagree.
2. The "fake muck" doesn't need to be a spontaneous reaction to Patrick's "angle" per se. The whole time, the villain could have been mulling over "ways I could try to elicit a call" and then gone for the fake-muck as a last resort when it sounded like Patrick might be about to fold.
3. The villain allegedly admits he was fake-mucking, i.e. it was not involuntary:
http://twitter.com/plenopads/status/901476368399073285