It's a complete disgrace that the WSOP TDs manage to screw up obvious rulings like this year after year. If Jack or whoever is in charge of the entire room isn't available for a TD to quickly call on his phone or whatever why not for whenever a complex ruling like this comes up that the assistant TD can't handle properly?

Again, why did he flip them so fast...

Man, just quit it. He flipped them up fast because he had AK, wanted to get the money in and was angled into believing his opponent had put all his chips in the middle. It's absolutely ridiculous that you fish are still trying to find fault with Matt Glantz in this case.

I agree. The same could be said to nearly every victim of every crime. Yes, the perp is a scumbag, but there were steps you *could* have taken to prevent this from happening.

Prematurely exposing one's hand and verbally acting out of turn is a "complex ruling"? As much as Glantz's opponent is a big POS, the ruling really comes down to the aforementioned.


Think about this. Sometimes when players bet they pick up a stack of say 20 1K chips in their hand, move them forward, cut out say a bet size of 10K, and return the other 10 1K chips in their hand to their stack, for a legal bet of 10K. Imagine if every time you grabbed the stack of 1K chips to cut out whatever bet size you wanted, before you could even begin cutting out your bet, your opponent said "Call!" and flipped his cards over. Should you be required to bet the total amount of chips in your hand simply because other player prematurely acted before you completed your action?

A betting line or forward motion rules actually open up more holes to allow angleshooting. I thought there was a rule about being able to override any rule based on the integrity of the game right? That clearly applies here. We have a guy who did an action that anyone would interpret as a shove, clearly was not a mistake, and it induced the exact action he wanted, then he took advantage and benefited from it. The rules shouldn't be covering individual mechanics, because that just opens the door to more angles. The rules should be based on intent, which can't really be codified into rules, but dealers and players and floors can all judge and rule on.

This is why intent matters. He clearly intended to shove. If it was a gray area, I'd agree it's Glantz's fault for flipping over his cards before the other guy made a legitimate action. But when everyone at the table realizes he was shoving, that's not relevant here.

Here's a better question, what would happen if every time there was an all-in people took a minute to reveal their cards and asked "do you have a pair?" "well I have a pair, how high?" "what's your kicker?". And the answer is it does happen at low-limit cash all the time and it makes me ****ing lose my mind. Here's a guy trying to speed up the game based on something that should be extremely clear cut and he gets penalized for it. Really ****ed up.

An angle is deliberately planing to take advantage of someone, this dude was about to put the chips in, and glantz revealed his hand, again, how is this an angle?

LOL

is that an argument?

No. It's an acronym. It stands for "Laughing Out Loud".

But that's not even close to what happened here. The villain picked up all of his chips using both hands, brought them to the middle, but instead of letting them touch the felt, he rested them on the bottom of his fists until Matt said call and showed his cards. He then returned the two stacks to their starting position. I can't believe that people are seriously arguing that Matt was at fault here.

Even using your misguided example of a routine situation where someone picks up a stack and cuts out some small number and returns the rest to his stack, have you ever seen someone pick up all of their chips with both hands, cut out a small amount from one hand, not use any in his second hand, and then return everything else back to the starting position? Of course not.

This analogy doesn't work unless the player who grabbed 20 1k chips was picking up his entire stack of chips which was just 20k. In that case, it would be obvious that the player was intending to go all-in or shoot an angle.

Have you ever seen a player grab their entire stack of chips and move them in the middle, only to intentionally cut out a smaller bet size? I have never seen this one time in live play, and if I did I would assume the player was shooting an angle or a complete newbie.

I've seen a player pick up his whole stack in one or both hands, move hands to center, drop half of those chips in the middle for his bet, and return other half of his chips to his initial stack position, for what I assume was either a quick change of mind from "all-in" to "stop-n-go", or who knows, maybe just theatrics.

The only salient point here is that Glantz flipped his cards over and announced "Call" before a legitimate bet was even made. (I'm afraid the "but I'm sure he was going all-in" won't hold up in a dispute when the floor is brought in).

I'm not saying that Glantz opponent isn't a total POS mind you. But we can't know if he might have dropped one hands worth of chips in pot and brought back the other, I've seen it happen.

Terrible rule obviously, IMO a betting line and forward motion rules are the way to go. But that being said, it seems like any remedy being sought by Glanz would penalize a winning hand, right?

Glanz says that the villain should have been all in preflop, but he did a (within the rules) pump fake and saw a cheap flop instead. Then all the chips went in later, and villain eventually won with a straight. So What is the remedy? Say we all agree that the villain should be compelled to be all-in preflop. Then what happens?

What happens is that Glanz has a bad beat story instead of a "he angled me" story. As we all know, bad beat stories are cancer, nobody wants to hear one, the only thing worse is hearing your Mother talk about what a slut she was back in the day. So I say chalk this up as a win for Glanz, at least people will listen to this, although it is no less of a whine. But to penalize the winning hand otherwise would seem unfair. Remember, the pump fake is within the rules, and Glanz is a dope for exposing his hand prematurely.

Also, LOL at that known scumbag, welsher, six-figure a month Full Tilt poker "salary" recipient and all around slimy person Matusow putting himself forward as an arbitrator of scumbagness. Although we have to acknowledge his expertise on the subject, it amazes me no less that he would accuse anyone of malfeasance with a straight face. Not even a hint of irony or self awareness there.

An angle is deliberately planing to take advantage of someone, this dude was about to put the chips in, and glantz revealed his hand, again, how is this an angle?

There is no betting rule that isn't open to angle-shooting.

I don't like trying to interpret intent. I prefer the rule to be written in such a way that the interpretation is indisputable if you have video evidence, so I would write the rule for what constitutes a binding bet based on what makes action clearest to a camera.

Hovering your chips over the felt in an all in motion while your opponent has time to call put his chips in and turn over his cards, then you say you weren't all in might just imply you had the intention to take advantage of something your opponent might do

I think it wasnt like this, also, who turns over their hand while their oponnent is suppossedly weirdly hovering their chips over the table.

I bet this happened in a fraction of a second, step one, guy grabs his chips and is putting them inches over the felt and other guy snap throws his hand before other guy is able to move fully forward, now you tell me, who is acting dumb in this spot.

Both probably acting dumb in the spot, all we've got is one side of the story which is glantz + matusow on pokernews video showing what happened with the chips for whatever that is worth.

What the hell is even going on here? How is this still a discussion? After a three bet, said angler picked all his chips and then pushed them towards the middle of the table towards the main pot, fully extending his arms with a forward motion, crossing any imaginary betting lines (if they had been present).

It's really just disrespecting the game to insinuate Glantz did anything wrong in this spot.

Correct
Incorrect It's an angle because he deliberately planned to take advantage of someone by pretending to put his chips in and then waiting for a reaction before deciding if he was really going to put them in or not. Hope this helps.

It's ridiculously easy for the dealer and the floor to figure out what is going on and make a correct ruling that considers both potential angles. Is there any doubt at all about this particular situation? I think not.

No, because your characterization of the situation is so absurdly wweong that he's done arguing with you.

Greg is correct, which he always is unless he's discussing politics.

Jesus matusow looked out of his mind that video


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk