Is an angle bad etiquette or is it a moral wrong?

I'm talking about behavior that skirts the rules but doesn't quite break them. An example might be hiding your big chips behind your smaller ones or acting like you're going to bet and observing the other guy's hand movements to get a read on whether he's going to call or fold.

I just find this question to be interesting in light of the question of morality as a whole because a lot of other games don't really have "angles" and poker is kind of unique in this respect.

It seems interesting to me that there seems be a common understanding of what an angle is among poker players but I can't really figure out the source. Could something that's an angle today ever become not an angle?

Thoughts? Opinions? What's everyones take on angles?

Angling is wrong. Maybe thinking like that prevented me from becoming a "better" player.

I'm not trying to justify angling, I'm viewing the question in light of moral philosophy in general.

If it's a moral wrong then what is its nature?

A bit wrong, I'd say. Not the end of the world. Think it will not ever be regarded acceptable, people will not in general feel it's fair. You bend the rules that are agreed upon. "What would happen if everybody did it?" "We would get a bad world"

An angle shoot could end up costing someone tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

If you have to ask...

Driving a car may kill someone.

But as to the angle shoot: it depends. If it's about maybe getting 10 dollars or almost surely 10^6 dollars they are different things, like it or not. The world is grey, philosophy black-white (if you happen to respond they are the same thing, it's about principles!)

Think I wrote some more in the previous post you might not have seen when responding after 6 minutes. What do you think about that part?

The "easy" answer is that angling is about playing the rules (or to the limit or them/on the border of exploitation) whereas you're morally obliged to play the game with integrity.

It definitely depends on which moral philosophy you wanna follow, but I think most will agree that it's a matter of honesty and integrity, both for the individual and the game.

The whole concept of angle shooting comes from the observation that it's impossible very difficult to create a comprehensive suite of rules that covers every possible situation explicitly. Something might be within the rules as written but clearly be at odds with the goals of those same rules. We're not robots programmed just to follow explicit rules, we're people who understand the idea that the rules imply a shared commitment to uphold the underlying integrity and fairness of our shared activity. And so exploiting flaws in written rules is taken to be unethical because it conflicts with that shared commitment.

It is the duty of the player to exploit the rules to his advantage.

Finally, someone with Balls applies the correct philosophy.

This is critical. If everyone cheated, poker would not be fun. On the other hand, if everyone shot angles, everyone would fall for a handful of different types of angles 1 time each, before learning their lesson and becoming a slightly cagier player who isn't so exploitable. Pretty much just the same as when only a small percentage of players shoot angles.

sarcasm respected aside...(if playing against well deserved aholes)


It is the duty of a civilized human being to explore the possibilities that emerge when the unknown human still sensibly cares for strangers and doesn't exploit poorly defended situations because they share with them an allegiance of higher intelligence and wisdom, having had the opportunity to share this experience in that brief moment in time that we lived together in this planet.

What happens in this world when others witness strangers being confident, kind and overall ethical people ie gentlemen? I think we all learn by the example of others and experiencing a world where all small edges are instantly exploited screams relentless insecurity and truly small time thinking.

I do agree that one must exploit the rules to the maximum but not in a way that exploits the outside the game spirit of citizenship.

For example why not start smiling very insultingly every time we win with bad beats and never putting an end to it with intention to mega tilt opponents or investigate who has a financial stress situation and happens to be at the wrong time at the table willing to take great risks and tilt them maximally exploiting their immense stress to recover quickly. How about exploiting drunk people or posing as their friend, then betraying them, mega tilting them and then striking. What a glorious victory for humanity.

It takes greater balls to recognize a bigger game is always in place.

Take this example. You happen to be at the right lane in 3 lanes heavy traffic street. You approach a point a car is about to try to enter the street from a nearby shop area but only at the last moment you notice because of timing. There is nobody behind you, the red light is in place for still many more seconds but within seconds endless cars from the previous block light will pile up behind you precisely because it is still early in the red green cycle . Your car blocks completely by advancing all the way to the car in front of you the entry of this person. If you take the spot they will then have to wait over 1 min to get out because they do not fit to try to exit from behind you. The others will arrive and by the time they are gone another red light will happen. If the guy behind you allows them to pass in the future all the cars will lose more time eventually waiting for coordination and a few of them will be cursing at the kindness that victimizes them. So you notice the other car and all the other possibilities and after checking nobody is behind or coming, yet will soon, you go on reverse a bit and open room for them to enter in front of you.

What happens at this moment? The other person recognizes that you get it and it costs you nothing. You show you respect their time as both cars will pass the resulting green and all the cost was to move your car a bit back. Maybe the world wins something at this moment. You will never meet that person again. You know nothing about them. Of course you instantly alter the future of all the others behind you too. But they do not realize it.

That said if you play with friends and family try it to teach them what exists out there and then tilt them too. Then maybe refund them or find some other way to prove it wasnt malicious. You will not learn to love this world from a permanently protected place. To try to be something you are not for them is some form of altruism too. There are some tough teachers out there that are first hated by their students and then recognized. Some are naturally that way. But if someone forces themselves to be that way against their nature then it is a real sacrifice and hard to execute let alone receive any clear appreciation.

Aldous Huxley famously once said that - "I have spent my entire life studying the human condition and I have arrived at no greater insight than a cliche - be kinder to one another".

This sums up Masque's pages of text here and everywhere else morality is discussed.

If I understand you, when you say "exploit the rules" I think you mean stuff like playing more hands in position. Something like "adopt a strategy which takes advantage of the structure of the game".

If so, I don't think that contradicts what I said. I think there are at least a couple necessary elements for something to be called angle-shooting; it's not sufficient that it merely involves acting in a way which gains an advantage by "exploiting" the rules in that sense. I'd say angle-shooting involves

1) actions not explicitly contemplated by the rules
2) which allow for an unfair advantage
3) where "unfair" usually means something like it's impossible to generalize the action such that everyone can equally employ that strategy without destroying the game
4) and where there is an existing set of norms/conventions that suggest that the action would be frowned upon

Playing more hands in position, or check-raising, or things like that don't get past (1), and definitely not (2) and (3). A good example of the problem of generalizing might be something like taking a really long time to act in situations where you know what you want to do. It's not typically contemplated explicitly by the rules (except in tournaments), it's not "unfair" in the sense that it's impossible for others to mimic the strategy, but when everyone does it the game becomes unbearable, so there's usually some norm against doing it excessively. Obviously that's not as game breaking as other kinds of angle-shooting, but I haven't played poker in a while and I'm drawing a blank :P

I'm pretty sure that isn't what he meant.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When I first saw the thread title; I thought it would be about Euclid.

How new rules are born...
Someone says to themselves:
‘It’s not against the rules, I’m going to try that’.

And then after such an attempt someone else says:

‘there oughta be a rule against that’.

See also the history of sports.

Indeed. And the game is from Poker to World Peace. The nut is that many think there is a solution to X, if only M, N, and O are applied to Z. Well, if only I can instigate my rules or Cultural Revolution the utopia on the horizon will become a reality. You just have to join the Right Moral Team.

Examples are Well Named and his brainwashed army of sycophantic SJW and their draconian infiltration into every fiber of your doings and thoughts; ditto for Masque and his minions of scientific society oafs solving every problem under this sun and all other nuclear fireballs scattered about the universe - To say nothing of Huxley and his trite bark of kindness.

Fine, I’m ok with all that; its fun - So I have my team also. And my team will win*.





Kill, Pussycat, Kill.


* And have been wining since before the Neanderthals entered the Game.

I'm just going to assume you typo'd "whining" there in the last sentence.

Good one.

Time for a song: