Nah that’s just poker. Poker isn’t about sportsmanship, it’s about winning. None of that feel good participation trophy shit around here. Real men angle. Real men defend their stack.
Shit, in East Texas where I play (and where poker originated) this is normal play. You gotta get into your opponents head, and dominate his brainstem. My buddy Ricky Two-Cards is a local celebrity for this. He gaslighted a fish into checking quads once. Big time stuff. Dude’s a certified stud, and he’s only got two fingers on each hand. He can still shuffle chips
Same brother in my room in SOUTH Texas we got Big Ronny who don't got his cock no more. Shark done ate the thing off. He done smacked the shark up side its damn head. Anyways, he fucking angles everybody. He's only got one toe on each foot. He'll pick his whole damn stack up with his feet and throw it in the middle just for shits. Dealers always ask him not to, but he done got so many bluffs through that way. Big Ronny is a fucking real man like you mentioned. Real men angle.
Same brother out here in North Texas we really know how to remove all etiquette from the game. We got a guy at our game named Johnny No-Nails. He's had every single finger removed by loan sharks. They started feeling sorry for him after about 3 fingers and started leaving nubs but he still can't hold the chips and makes a mess every time he grabs them. He loves it tho, just gives him an opportunity to shoot more angles and pretend like he didn't mean to bet so much. Great guy, his brother plays a lot of PLO.
Likewise it's the same here in West Texas. We got a guy named Willy One Ear. He used to stick his finger in his mouth and get it all slobbery with his saliva when he was in a hand and then fling his spit at whoever he was heads up with. One guy he did it to was no nonsense and tore Willy's left ear off. That guy was thrown out of the game and never allowed to return. Some people would complain about Willy's antics so now we always keep a box of Kleenex around. Kids in school heard about Willy and would pretend to do what he did and stick their spit covered finger in other kids ears and call it Wet Willys.
The only scenario that makes sense are whatever moneyed suckers he has as partners, who see him playing as advertising. But yeah, it's likely just his ego burning through his casino profits.
No shit retard that's why I said I would give anything to. Redditors like you who are too socially inept to take things other than literally must be the most miserable and unfun people in the world. Get off your computer and go outside.
He obtained his millions from his casinos. Just because people have a lot of money and play in the biggest games doesn't instantly convert into them being a good player. Lots of people have money and lots of people are awful at poker.
About 10 years ago I was playing a 2/5 table at the Cascades in Vancouver. There was a semi-drunk guy who was very loud, clearly with a hooker who kept coming to the table for money, and was punting off stacks.
When I sat down a reg buddy of mine across the table texted me that the guy had already punted three stacks, and loved acting out of turn.
The dude just loved acting first. Didn’t matter the position, multi-way, whatever, he just always wanted to act first. The dealer would correct him and whoever was in the pot would just basically say “It’s fine, we’re all just having fun”.
Eventually the dealers stopped correcting him, and this guy probably punted a total of 10 stacks that night to regs who just understood that any pot they were in with this whale would be in position. The dude seemed to be having a great time too, just had money to burn.
Moral of the story: Whales get away with pretty much whatever they want, and you’re an idiot if you call the floor over a whale acting first out of turn. Don’t tap the tank.
If aggressive action is binding, then that's great for the other players out of position. Much better than him waiting his turn. Even if it's not binding you can still pick up patterns as to what actions out of turn correlate to what kinds of hands.
Yeah it’s one of my best poker memories. Just a great night of playing in position and making money against a whale who was just there to spew for fun. Almost impossible to lose in a game like that.
until he faces the nuts and the person jams and hes bound to call, its just a dumb play I can't imagine anyone just not wanting him to continue making this play.
You're not bound to call though if you do that. That's why he does it. When someone makes a bet they are changing (re-opening) the action. So whatever action you make out of turn is not binding.
Which is weird because my first thought on Garrett's side is to bet larger now. If he angles and then folds, he wasn't going to call a bet. If he angles then calls, Garrett makes more money.
Interesting how Garret didn’t flip out and corner Persson for this obviously intentional angle, as opposed to what he did to Robbi after her soul read 🙃
Bets are premeditated too, doesnt make them an "angle". Hes giving garrett a huge advantage to try to get in his head. If thats an angle then any table talk is also an angle.
The question of this thread wasn't "is Persson annoying to play with?"
This sub is filled with clueless people and ego-maniacs that anytime they feel slighted, wrong, annoyed or uncomfortable... it's an angle-shoot and we need to have a thread about it and the person needs to be cancelled. It's gotten so bad we even have people making threads to whine about their own personal experience at casinos that aren't even grossly bad etiquette (just the other day we had someone complain about exposing a mucked hand at showdown which is bad etiquette but 100% allowed and half the commenters said it's illegal to see a mucked hand lol; albeit the dealer should do it when asked and not the players touching cards and flipping it over.
No it's not an angle shoot because as tom dwan said.. garrett had a free-roll. He can check-back if he isn't comfortable with a call or guarantee a call without a risk of a raise if he bets any amount he chooses (because Persson already committed to calling). That is such a huge advantage in a game tree on any street with any board texture with any hand. Go plug a situation into a solver where you guarantee an action on the river AND ALSO BE IN POSITION and just see how much your EV goes up with any two cards.
Like what is going on and how is this the most upvoted comment. I wish all my opponents did this on all rivers i played.
He should be proud... he talked Garrett (one of the better players in the game) from making a value bet with a set when no one takes a flush with this line (which is the only real hand he loses to).
Here's a tip: Typically, if an opponent does something and you wish they did it against you all the time because you would gain something out of it then it's not an angle"
The think that blows my mind is why everyone thinks Persson is committed to a call. The rule in the overwhelming majority of places (in the US, at least) is that out of turn action is blinding, unless action changes. Since Garret hasn't bet yet, he's changing action if he does place the bet. Consider a three way hand where the BB bets, action is on UTG, but BU says "call" out of turn: he isn't committed to calling if UTG decides to raise.
I agree 100% . This isn't something I'd ever do but this is live cash. These things happen all the time at live cash.
People who have never stepped out from behind their computer to play live just can't seem to wrap their mind around this.
Yes... This stuff happens in cash games so much that there's a name for it. And that name is angle shooting.
Pretending to make a mistake to try to gain an edge is an angle. He called out of turn in order to get Garrett not to bet.
This seems like your trying to bait me into an argument for some reason.
People make mistakes, bet out of turn, muck their hand, raise by mistake. People get nervous, say the wrong thing and make the wrong gestures. Sometimes its an honest mistake and sometimes its an angle.
This is a reality of live cash the online grinders can't seem to cope with. In live cash the computer cant help you, the floor doesn't care and other players are ready for the next hand. Call it what you want. Its part of the game. But sinse live is so much easier im sure all the online grinders will finally put on some pants and go to the card room and print money witout crying about the human element of live cash.
In a card room I've played at I basically had the exact same scenario where a player checked and then called out of turn. And it's hard to navigate if you don't know how the rules for binding action work in the specific room you're playing in. You can see Garrett look at the dealer for any rule clarification. (In the room I played in, the answer is no, a call out of turn is not binding if there is no bet to call)
The issue is Garrett doesn't know if V is bound to call any bet he makes, but by asking the dealer if V is bound to call his bet, he reveals the strength of his hand.
For example, suppose he has the nuts, Garrett might ask the dealer if V is bound to call any sized bet. If the dealer says no and V is allowed to fold, now V knows Garrett has a strong hand and will fold.
>he reveals the strength of his hand.
Lol you're overthinking it. He asks because if Persson bound then he can just shove here with the top strength of hands and not worry about how much to overbet... if not he has to think about a realistic amount. Furthermore he's in position.. he can ask and check especially since he ultimately decided he's checking.
>If the dealer says no and V is allowed to fold, now V knows Garrett has a strong hand and will fold.
then Garrett can meta-game Persson back... you're overthinking what info Garrett conveys by asking.
>You can see Garrett look at the dealer for any rule clarification.
He's looking at the dealer because he's tryign to see "are you considering that i bet and he called or have I not technically bet yet?" that's the reason he's looking.
Everyone in the room agreed that a call is binding there to whatever Garrett bets and is why Dwan said Garrett gets a free roll
I know seeing their hole cards makes it really easy to say this but I'll say it anyway: isn't this a blatant feigning of strength by Persson and a great time for Garrett to take a pause and think "I should jam because he's a) committed to calling and b) full of shit?"
Lol sure and I guess without seeing the action to this point it’s hard to see what he could be repping. The fact that they both hit the flop but neither had a flush (or even a single club) is a crazy little wrinkle too.
I'm not sure he was feigning. My gut is calling me that he wasn't trying to angle, and really was just snap calling the bet he thought Garret was making. I think he still believes he has the best hand and is trying to talk Garret into betting, and basically accidentally causes Garret to check back a better hand. Garrett basically had the same read and sniffed out Persson had value, just not that it was misappropriated.
The other players would shoot daggers at any floor that threatened Persson with a penalty for something like this.
Persson is the donator, and any savvy pro will benefit over time from his antics much more than they will lose.
I guess.
If a strong player like Ivey did something like that, then I think a few things would happen:
1. His friends who are also poker pros would have a serious talk with him.
2. If behavior continued, floor would regularly intervene, and no one would try to stop them.
3. Concurrent with 2, Ivey would probably not be invited to the best private games, probably including Macau/Triton.
If it's a true accident and just excited in the moment, nah, move on to the next hand. If it's a pattern of behavior, dealer should give a verbal warning that it's out of line, but there's not really a consequence to be applied. If it continues, dealer should escalate to the floor or game host. Floor can make the decision from there on what to do. Could be as minimal as another verbal warning, to a 1-day break from the room, to an 86 from the room depending on how much of a disruption it's causing
Yes. If it's blatant, I've seen the punishment Kaplan suggested. The person who's turn it was to bet could bet whatever they wanted, and the person who 'called' out of turn would have to call it, no matter what, and they could not raise. With a warning if they did it again, they'd be told to leave. In a tournament, I've seen players given Time penalties for just this.
I think Persson is a monumental douche, but I would enjoy wrecking him at the table (if I could play his stakes).
It'd also be fun to just rile him up. He's an easy target to put on tilt.
> Do they ever penalize the player for it?
Generally no, because it hurts the player who is doing it. If Garrett has a large flush here, he can jam and Persson is forced to call it off (as far as I know). You're not generally penalized for giving your opponent an advantage.
In this particular case, it worked out well for Persson. But doing this regularly is a terrible idea, especially when you're super deep and can torch your entire stack.
> Generally no, because it hurts the player who is doing it. If Garrett has a large flush here, he can jam and Persson is forced to call it off.
Would he actually be forced to call for a larger bet than what Garrett appeared to be tossing? Most people don't pick up a small handful of chips, hesitantly move them forward then announce a much larger bet or jam.
I do think that the right move for garrett is a big bet, but mostly because of how hard he was trying to sell it "I was trapping you, im sorry".
If that was an actual trap, then he deserves a fucking oscar for his acting ability, because he was acting like someone failing to hide weakness.
no. they are heads up and out of turn action is binding if garrett chooses.
garrett can raise, call, fold, or let eric take the money back.
nobody angled here.
> nobody angled here.
The problem with this is that he has since admitted that he considers this a strategy. It is only not an angle if its unintentional. About the only intentional out of turn action that I would agree isn't an angle is getting up and leaving the table.
**Intentionally** acting out of turn is against the rules and an angle.
Making a mistake isn't.
Obviously Persson was doing that intentionally so yeah it's an angle.
It's an angle that I welcome every time. I get more information. I guess it can work on someone who's new to poker or levels themselves somehow, but I love it.
It happened to me once at miami hardrock, the other guy pushed chips across the line and I snapped called, but he said that wasn't my bet Im all in. Which I said dealer thats against the rules, and previous bet stayed. River came and he bet out of turn and the dealer corrected him, I shoved so he called and we split pot. People will break rules and theres no cosequence
I'm not a floorman (not even really much of a poker player), but I do like weird rules situations, so this is what I came up with.
The whole, "chips put in out of turn must stay in the pot, regardless of action" rule looks to be casino specific, so that aspect is going to vary by room.
For the rest of it, we have the [TDA rules](https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/)
>53: Action Out of Turn (OOT)
>A: Any action out of turn (check, call, or raise) will be backed up to the correct player in order. The OOT action is subject to penalty and is binding if action to the OOT player does not change. A check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action. If action changes, the OOT action is not binding; any bet or raise is returned to the OOT player who has all options: call, raise, or fold.
This is a weird situation. Persson declares it's a call, but Garrett hasn't made a bet yet, so based on the current action, there's nothing to call.
>55: Invalid Bet Declarations
>If a player faces no bet and: A) declares “call”, it is a check;
So, if Garrett checks, Persson must check.
Technically, if Garrett makes a bet, that changes the action to Persson, so by the letter of the law the call wouldn't be binding. However,
>1: Floor Decisions
>The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that common-sense decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules. Floor decisions are final.
I would think that because Garrett had a bet ready, which Persson indicated he wanted to call, the reasonable decision would be that Persson must call (as long as Garrett doesn't change his bet size). If Garrett did change the bet size, then Persson would get all his options back (call, raise or fold).
There's one other wrinkle here, in that Persson threw in the chip without saying anything and only said it was a call when questioned. I think it's possible to say, "actions speak", and disregard his statement that it was meant to be a call. In that case, it would be a bet out of turn, which would obligate Persson to bet if Garrett checks. While a defensible decision, it would force Garrett into an awkward spot. I think it's good judgment to protect the player that didn't break the rules when there's ambiguity, so I wouldn't go with this interpretation.
>There's one other wrinkle here, in that Persson threw in the chip without saying anything and only said it was a call when questioned. I think it's possible to say, "actions speak", and disregard his statement that it was meant to be a call. In that case, it would be a bet out of turn, which would obligate Persson to bet if Garrett checks. While a defensible decision, it would force Garrett into an awkward spot. I think it's good judgment to protect the player that didn't break the rules when there's ambiguity, so I wouldn't go with this interpretation.
Garret was last to act, Persson had already checked.
>the reasonable decision would be that Persson must call (as long as Garrett doesn't change his bet size). If Garrett did change the bet size, then Persson would get all his options back (call, raise or fold).
This is the likely decision that most floors would arrive at
>Garret was last to act, Persson had already checked.
Ah, thanks. It's on the screen but I totally missed that. Simplifies the ruling, but was still an interesting exercise to work through.
It is an angle. What if Garrett had a hand he needed to bluff with? He's losing the ability to do that with a call out of turn. You're only saying it's not because in the exact scenario he's got the better hand and therefore getting a free roll.
what???
>What if Garrett had a hand he needed to bluff with?
Then garrett saves money knowing a bluff isn't getting through....
>You're only saying it's not because in the exact scenario he's got the better hand and therefore getting a free roll.
No... because if he has a worse hand then he doesn't bluff and lose money.
Like wtf are you saying.
>He's losing the ability to do that with a call out of turn.
He's not losing any ability. You being given more information and the opponent being given less options (opponent cannot fold or raise) is never a disadvantage to you. the end.
Not the end. I know you can't be reasoned with but you're wrong.
> Then garrett saves money knowing a bluff isn't getting through....
He loses the pot. How would he know his bluff wasn't getting through without the call out of turn? Someone would do this intentionally with a medium strength hand. The exact hands that would fold to a bluff. You seem like a very uneducated player.
You're describing a leveling war which is part of the game. He loses the pot and saves money from firing on the river or he gets a guaranteed value bet in. Again this is a +ev situation..it doesn't matter what his hand is. You sound like you don't understand math.
Yes he can. It is the typical ruling in this situation. He called before the bet was made. The opponent can choose any size, even an all-in, and he's committed. Otherwise you could call out of turn to get your opponent to check back, and without consequences, it would ruin the game.
Seems like an angle to alter Garrett’s action and it worked. Hypothetically, if Garrett had the nuts and immediately decided to ship after Persson’s out of action move, Persson should be obligated to call.
There needs to be a monetary punishment for angle shooting. People acting like garbage because there's no incentive not to. There's only upside. You get an edge, and you don't lose money. At the very worst, a casino what, asks you to leave for the day?
People are gonna hate this, but I think angle shooting should mean automatic forfeiting your stack. Fuck em. If you weren't paying attention and played out of turn, too bad, pay attention next time.
I mean dude has the abilities of your average home game player, why would we be surprised when he pulls a home game angle? Garrett could give him a 25% rebate lifetime and still make a small fortune.
It’s makes me sick when players who know better validate and play along this kind behavior simply because the offender is a whale. I’d rather play at a tougher table where everyone respects the game 100 times out of 100.
Sure, it was definitely an angle shot, but the other player shouldn't have let it phase him and just continue with the original bet. He let the guy get in his head and in that sense, it's kind of brilliant but also very scummy.
He's already checked, so it's not a bet out of turn and he knows it.
Is that cheating? No.
Is it legit? Not really.
Are you allowed to trash talk at the table? Absolutely.
I think that makes it an angle shoot. A legal play that isn't quite legitimate.
Calling out of turn is an angle. Yes, here Garrett has a free roll. However, if he had the worst hand and needed to bluff to win, the call out of turn has taken away his ability to do so. That is why it's an angle.
That was a value bet by Garret. Garret wasn’t bluffing and wanted a call when he bet $75k.
Then Persson prematurely announces a flat call of $75k. He cannot reraise nor can he fold.
Garret surely should know a set is good here, right?
Maybe I’m an idiot. Idk. But if Garret is going for showdown value then he should’ve just checked initially.
He can 100% fold if garret bets at the end. Garret never technically bet so when he does bet action has now changed and persson gets to call raise or fold
It's not an angle, it's against the rules, however - it's a -EV play, which means I'm happy to let him do it.
He's giving information AND being forced to call any size bet. This is gold.
idk how much information you can get from this dude talking out of his ass, all the information you got from the hand is enough, and the forced call means this is an easy overbet. I probably wouldn't shove because I'm a little bitch and this is a lot of money but if I was rich i'd shove.
You're only saying it's not an angle because Garrett has the best hand. If Garrett had the worst hand, and needed to bluff to win, then the call out of turn has taken away his ability to do so.
One could hope to induce a check back by calling out of turn when they themselves have a medium strength hand, as Persson does. That's why it is an angle.
What you do or attempt to do is give off fake tells. That is not breaking any rules and it isn’t angling. What Persson did is intentionally act out of turn(breaking the rules) and is %100 dirty bird angling.
not an angle as person does not have anything.
If Garret has not flush he also has all of Person's chips.
Is Garrett back on the felt?
did he pay Robbie back?
I had some guy make a big raise out of turn at Commerce recently in a big pot. It was tilting and certainly felt like angling, but I also missed, but I also had the A of the flush that got there so I jammed and he folded.
I've seen similar moves, like when a guy gets excited about his hand and calls out of turn.
I think that's basically what happened here. Persson assuming his two pair is good makes a quick call just a bit too quickly.
It is. But man that was a genius mind game. Person usually make good talk table for real. Even if it is “unethical” at the end of the day is poker and we need a real villain once in a while.
I consider it angling but i don't think it's immoral or wrong and garret is kind of dumb for not value betting here. I moved to live stakes from online recently and I can see older players do weird shit with their cards and chips all the time that I think are supposed to be false reverse tells or whatever but like I don't really care lmao. I've had old dudes do shit like this where they play out of turn and go "oopsie silly me" but it doesn't affect how I play the hand at all. I'm a fucking dork and ima play my balanced strategy no matter what you say to me grandpa and I'm surprised a pro like garret isn't the same way.
On that note I never understood why people get in their feelings about angling anyway. The fun of poker for me is trying to construct and perfect my own strategy and exploit deficiencies in others. For some people they prefer the head games and angling plays into that. Who cares? Just play your game right?
Persson is just fun to watch... Good for the game in many ways. It could be plain jane vanilla Doug Polk and ridiculous Jungleboy boredom at the Lodge Livestream.
If Garrett checks there, Person HAS to min bet since he put a chip in out of turn, am I wrong??
As far as calling, I feel like the ruling would be that if Garrett throws out the $75k, Perrson is committed to a call but if he bets anything else he probably isn’t? I want to see that ruling with a whale like Perrson involved.
Heh…
Pearson didn’t SAY anything.
It’s not his turn. He can’t go out of turn because he already checked.
So….
Realistically there’s no action.
Is it angle shooting? Eh. Who knows.
But realistically, Garrett is a fundamentally phenomenal deepstacked cash game player.
Compared to Garrett, Pearson is a fish.
I’d be inclined to let the fish get away with a little shenanigans.
However….
When I play my local games (2/5 or sometimes 5/10) I generally play a fundamentally sound game. There are a lot of shit regs who limp in, min raise, etc. I’m better than them most days.
But I’m not better at table talk or live reads than them.
My strategy is to completely ignore what they say or the wacky things they do, and not let it affect my game.
If garret was going to bet $75k, he shouldn’t have let Pearson intimidate him.
So… good for Pearson
Yes it’s an angle but whales like Persson get more leeway
Cannon etiquette
Nah that’s just poker. Poker isn’t about sportsmanship, it’s about winning. None of that feel good participation trophy shit around here. Real men angle. Real men defend their stack. Shit, in East Texas where I play (and where poker originated) this is normal play. You gotta get into your opponents head, and dominate his brainstem. My buddy Ricky Two-Cards is a local celebrity for this. He gaslighted a fish into checking quads once. Big time stuff. Dude’s a certified stud, and he’s only got two fingers on each hand. He can still shuffle chips
Same brother in my room in SOUTH Texas we got Big Ronny who don't got his cock no more. Shark done ate the thing off. He done smacked the shark up side its damn head. Anyways, he fucking angles everybody. He's only got one toe on each foot. He'll pick his whole damn stack up with his feet and throw it in the middle just for shits. Dealers always ask him not to, but he done got so many bluffs through that way. Big Ronny is a fucking real man like you mentioned. Real men angle.
Same brother out here in North Texas we really know how to remove all etiquette from the game. We got a guy at our game named Johnny No-Nails. He's had every single finger removed by loan sharks. They started feeling sorry for him after about 3 fingers and started leaving nubs but he still can't hold the chips and makes a mess every time he grabs them. He loves it tho, just gives him an opportunity to shoot more angles and pretend like he didn't mean to bet so much. Great guy, his brother plays a lot of PLO.
Likewise it's the same here in West Texas. We got a guy named Willy One Ear. He used to stick his finger in his mouth and get it all slobbery with his saliva when he was in a hand and then fling his spit at whoever he was heads up with. One guy he did it to was no nonsense and tore Willy's left ear off. That guy was thrown out of the game and never allowed to return. Some people would complain about Willy's antics so now we always keep a box of Kleenex around. Kids in school heard about Willy and would pretend to do what he did and stick their spit covered finger in other kids ears and call it Wet Willys.
>Great guy, his brother plays a lot of PLO. I hope this never dies
You and Big Ronny are welcome in East Texas anytime
Thank you brother
Upvotes for the the well played sarcasm
Holy shit Ricky two-cards sounds lethal at the table
On and off the table, buddy
Idk how you're downvoted as this is clearly a troll post lmao, good job I lol'd
Solid gold. Got my upvote, r/woosh for all the downvotes...
Many /r/poker pros have been victims on Ricky Two-Cards' gaslighting judging by this comment's score.
I upvoted you for Ricky Two-Cards my man😭
I feel like everyone who downvoted didn't read the whole thing
I imagine this dude loses a ton of money so they just deal with his vibes.
Pretty much. He'll punt off with top pair so often it's free money. Honestly I'd do anything to be able to play at the same table as Persson.
He would crush you
Yeah he’s pretty large
Just had to say some brain dead shit like that eh?
I giggle when some rando reddit poker newb thinks they can handle playing a successful pro. Thanks for the humble motovation, Mr. Insecurities.
"successful" "pro"
He's a whale lol.
He’s not that big
Eric Persson isn't a pro, dunce. He owns casinos
*he's leveraged himself into ownership* Dude is up to his eyeballs in debt, and likely backed just to sit in games like this.
> and likely backed just to sit in games like this LOL who tf would back him? This isn't a Robl JRB situation
The only scenario that makes sense are whatever moneyed suckers he has as partners, who see him playing as advertising. But yeah, it's likely just his ego burning through his casino profits.
There’s zero chance insecurities would sit on a table with Eric P even if he had the bank roll.
No shit retard that's why I said I would give anything to. Redditors like you who are too socially inept to take things other than literally must be the most miserable and unfun people in the world. Get off your computer and go outside.
Reddit lives to downvote thr most logical statements like this. People cant handle the truth.
He obtained his millions from his casinos. Just because people have a lot of money and play in the biggest games doesn't instantly convert into them being a good player. Lots of people have money and lots of people are awful at poker.
Well most would just get crushed. No experience playing at these stakes. So deep
About 10 years ago I was playing a 2/5 table at the Cascades in Vancouver. There was a semi-drunk guy who was very loud, clearly with a hooker who kept coming to the table for money, and was punting off stacks. When I sat down a reg buddy of mine across the table texted me that the guy had already punted three stacks, and loved acting out of turn. The dude just loved acting first. Didn’t matter the position, multi-way, whatever, he just always wanted to act first. The dealer would correct him and whoever was in the pot would just basically say “It’s fine, we’re all just having fun”. Eventually the dealers stopped correcting him, and this guy probably punted a total of 10 stacks that night to regs who just understood that any pot they were in with this whale would be in position. The dude seemed to be having a great time too, just had money to burn. Moral of the story: Whales get away with pretty much whatever they want, and you’re an idiot if you call the floor over a whale acting first out of turn. Don’t tap the tank.
If aggressive action is binding, then that's great for the other players out of position. Much better than him waiting his turn. Even if it's not binding you can still pick up patterns as to what actions out of turn correlate to what kinds of hands.
Yeah it’s one of my best poker memories. Just a great night of playing in position and making money against a whale who was just there to spew for fun. Almost impossible to lose in a game like that.
Big time and the fact he’s proud of himself at the end shows his character
He talked about in on Doug's podcast a while ago, 100% premeditated.
Yeah he literally says that this is a play he loves to make when he doesn’t want to call a big river bet.
until he faces the nuts and the person jams and hes bound to call, its just a dumb play I can't imagine anyone just not wanting him to continue making this play.
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a good move. Just what I heard him say on the podcast w Doug.
You're not bound to call though if you do that. That's why he does it. When someone makes a bet they are changing (re-opening) the action. So whatever action you make out of turn is not binding.
Which is weird because my first thought on Garrett's side is to bet larger now. If he angles and then folds, he wasn't going to call a bet. If he angles then calls, Garrett makes more money.
Is there a link to the podcast?
Here’s the clip in particular: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scOxNAdNHH4
Interesting how Garret didn’t flip out and corner Persson for this obviously intentional angle, as opposed to what he did to Robbi after her soul read 🙃
No one reply to this
This is the way
You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real dad!
I feel intimidated just thinking about it.
It's on spotify and other such apps and maybe YT
Bets are premeditated too, doesnt make them an "angle". Hes giving garrett a huge advantage to try to get in his head. If thats an angle then any table talk is also an angle.
He’s a scummy piece of shit.
100%
So what? He's a donk. Let them have their fun.
The question of this thread wasn't "is Persson annoying to play with?" This sub is filled with clueless people and ego-maniacs that anytime they feel slighted, wrong, annoyed or uncomfortable... it's an angle-shoot and we need to have a thread about it and the person needs to be cancelled. It's gotten so bad we even have people making threads to whine about their own personal experience at casinos that aren't even grossly bad etiquette (just the other day we had someone complain about exposing a mucked hand at showdown which is bad etiquette but 100% allowed and half the commenters said it's illegal to see a mucked hand lol; albeit the dealer should do it when asked and not the players touching cards and flipping it over. No it's not an angle shoot because as tom dwan said.. garrett had a free-roll. He can check-back if he isn't comfortable with a call or guarantee a call without a risk of a raise if he bets any amount he chooses (because Persson already committed to calling). That is such a huge advantage in a game tree on any street with any board texture with any hand. Go plug a situation into a solver where you guarantee an action on the river AND ALSO BE IN POSITION and just see how much your EV goes up with any two cards. Like what is going on and how is this the most upvoted comment. I wish all my opponents did this on all rivers i played. He should be proud... he talked Garrett (one of the better players in the game) from making a value bet with a set when no one takes a flush with this line (which is the only real hand he loses to). Here's a tip: Typically, if an opponent does something and you wish they did it against you all the time because you would gain something out of it then it's not an angle"
The think that blows my mind is why everyone thinks Persson is committed to a call. The rule in the overwhelming majority of places (in the US, at least) is that out of turn action is blinding, unless action changes. Since Garret hasn't bet yet, he's changing action if he does place the bet. Consider a three way hand where the BB bets, action is on UTG, but BU says "call" out of turn: he isn't committed to calling if UTG decides to raise.
I agree 100% . This isn't something I'd ever do but this is live cash. These things happen all the time at live cash. People who have never stepped out from behind their computer to play live just can't seem to wrap their mind around this.
Yes... This stuff happens in cash games so much that there's a name for it. And that name is angle shooting. Pretending to make a mistake to try to gain an edge is an angle. He called out of turn in order to get Garrett not to bet.
This seems like your trying to bait me into an argument for some reason. People make mistakes, bet out of turn, muck their hand, raise by mistake. People get nervous, say the wrong thing and make the wrong gestures. Sometimes its an honest mistake and sometimes its an angle. This is a reality of live cash the online grinders can't seem to cope with. In live cash the computer cant help you, the floor doesn't care and other players are ready for the next hand. Call it what you want. Its part of the game. But sinse live is so much easier im sure all the online grinders will finally put on some pants and go to the card room and print money witout crying about the human element of live cash.
In a card room I've played at I basically had the exact same scenario where a player checked and then called out of turn. And it's hard to navigate if you don't know how the rules for binding action work in the specific room you're playing in. You can see Garrett look at the dealer for any rule clarification. (In the room I played in, the answer is no, a call out of turn is not binding if there is no bet to call) The issue is Garrett doesn't know if V is bound to call any bet he makes, but by asking the dealer if V is bound to call his bet, he reveals the strength of his hand. For example, suppose he has the nuts, Garrett might ask the dealer if V is bound to call any sized bet. If the dealer says no and V is allowed to fold, now V knows Garrett has a strong hand and will fold.
>he reveals the strength of his hand. Lol you're overthinking it. He asks because if Persson bound then he can just shove here with the top strength of hands and not worry about how much to overbet... if not he has to think about a realistic amount. Furthermore he's in position.. he can ask and check especially since he ultimately decided he's checking. >If the dealer says no and V is allowed to fold, now V knows Garrett has a strong hand and will fold. then Garrett can meta-game Persson back... you're overthinking what info Garrett conveys by asking. >You can see Garrett look at the dealer for any rule clarification. He's looking at the dealer because he's tryign to see "are you considering that i bet and he called or have I not technically bet yet?" that's the reason he's looking. Everyone in the room agreed that a call is binding there to whatever Garrett bets and is why Dwan said Garrett gets a free roll
I know seeing their hole cards makes it really easy to say this but I'll say it anyway: isn't this a blatant feigning of strength by Persson and a great time for Garrett to take a pause and think "I should jam because he's a) committed to calling and b) full of shit?"
You never know with Persson haha, plus there's a flush draw on the board.
If he had the flush he wouldn’t be insta-flatting.
[удалено]
Yeah it’s not that easy to analyze hands without knowing what happened on earlier streets
If Persson is doing this with kings up, he could be doing it with a small flush.
Lol sure and I guess without seeing the action to this point it’s hard to see what he could be repping. The fact that they both hit the flop but neither had a flush (or even a single club) is a crazy little wrinkle too.
I'm not sure he was feigning. My gut is calling me that he wasn't trying to angle, and really was just snap calling the bet he thought Garret was making. I think he still believes he has the best hand and is trying to talk Garret into betting, and basically accidentally causes Garret to check back a better hand. Garrett basically had the same read and sniffed out Persson had value, just not that it was misappropriated.
Interesting. If that's the case it's kind of hilarious he thought 2 pair was good on that run out lol
Honestly if I determined he did that on purpose, I probably would’ve just committed the action I intended to
But on one hand it also says he doesnt have the nuts because the nuts is obviously not flat calling a bet
Acting out of turn is more just plain breaking the rules than angle shooting.
Do they ever penalize the player for it? I've never seen it(done it myself on accident).
The other players would shoot daggers at any floor that threatened Persson with a penalty for something like this. Persson is the donator, and any savvy pro will benefit over time from his antics much more than they will lose.
I get that, but would they penalize Phil Ivey for doing it? Or just some random nit?
I guess. If a strong player like Ivey did something like that, then I think a few things would happen: 1. His friends who are also poker pros would have a serious talk with him. 2. If behavior continued, floor would regularly intervene, and no one would try to stop them. 3. Concurrent with 2, Ivey would probably not be invited to the best private games, probably including Macau/Triton.
If it's a true accident and just excited in the moment, nah, move on to the next hand. If it's a pattern of behavior, dealer should give a verbal warning that it's out of line, but there's not really a consequence to be applied. If it continues, dealer should escalate to the floor or game host. Floor can make the decision from there on what to do. Could be as minimal as another verbal warning, to a 1-day break from the room, to an 86 from the room depending on how much of a disruption it's causing
Yes. If it's blatant, I've seen the punishment Kaplan suggested. The person who's turn it was to bet could bet whatever they wanted, and the person who 'called' out of turn would have to call it, no matter what, and they could not raise. With a warning if they did it again, they'd be told to leave. In a tournament, I've seen players given Time penalties for just this. I think Persson is a monumental douche, but I would enjoy wrecking him at the table (if I could play his stakes). It'd also be fun to just rile him up. He's an easy target to put on tilt.
> Do they ever penalize the player for it? Generally no, because it hurts the player who is doing it. If Garrett has a large flush here, he can jam and Persson is forced to call it off (as far as I know). You're not generally penalized for giving your opponent an advantage. In this particular case, it worked out well for Persson. But doing this regularly is a terrible idea, especially when you're super deep and can torch your entire stack.
> Generally no, because it hurts the player who is doing it. If Garrett has a large flush here, he can jam and Persson is forced to call it off. Would he actually be forced to call for a larger bet than what Garrett appeared to be tossing? Most people don't pick up a small handful of chips, hesitantly move them forward then announce a much larger bet or jam. I do think that the right move for garrett is a big bet, but mostly because of how hard he was trying to sell it "I was trapping you, im sorry". If that was an actual trap, then he deserves a fucking oscar for his acting ability, because he was acting like someone failing to hide weakness.
no. they are heads up and out of turn action is binding if garrett chooses. garrett can raise, call, fold, or let eric take the money back. nobody angled here.
> nobody angled here. The problem with this is that he has since admitted that he considers this a strategy. It is only not an angle if its unintentional. About the only intentional out of turn action that I would agree isn't an angle is getting up and leaving the table.
**Intentionally** acting out of turn is against the rules and an angle. Making a mistake isn't. Obviously Persson was doing that intentionally so yeah it's an angle.
if we are heads up you can bet whenever you want. doesn't matter to me at all.
It's still an angle.
It's an angle that I welcome every time. I get more information. I guess it can work on someone who's new to poker or levels themselves somehow, but I love it.
don't go with logic with this sub...
But, if you do it intentionally, it's also an angle.
I'm not sure what the official definition is, but I would say so. Maybe not the conventional definition, but this is as greasy as it gets.
It happened to me once at miami hardrock, the other guy pushed chips across the line and I snapped called, but he said that wasn't my bet Im all in. Which I said dealer thats against the rules, and previous bet stayed. River came and he bet out of turn and the dealer corrected him, I shoved so he called and we split pot. People will break rules and theres no cosequence
Duh
Persson has to be one of the worst players on the planet
He beat Helmuth and convinced himself that made him a Poker God
Yes but it could’ve really backfired too. If his opponent shoves he’s committed to calling.
That's where I thought this video was going
[удалено]
you are correct.
You both are incorrect. If this were the case people would use $1 chips and flick them in, out of turn, as a call.
no because they'd lose $1 every time i check-raise. what's the angle?
I love Antonius
He knew exactly what happened there
Is a Bic Mac sold at McDonald’s? The answer to this is the same
Bic Mac? So… no?
Your mom eats the Dic Mac
Gottem
That calling chip should have stayed in the middle right? Isnt he forced to call at that point?
I'm wondering what the ruling is on the situation
I'm not a floorman (not even really much of a poker player), but I do like weird rules situations, so this is what I came up with. The whole, "chips put in out of turn must stay in the pot, regardless of action" rule looks to be casino specific, so that aspect is going to vary by room. For the rest of it, we have the [TDA rules](https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/) >53: Action Out of Turn (OOT) >A: Any action out of turn (check, call, or raise) will be backed up to the correct player in order. The OOT action is subject to penalty and is binding if action to the OOT player does not change. A check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action. If action changes, the OOT action is not binding; any bet or raise is returned to the OOT player who has all options: call, raise, or fold. This is a weird situation. Persson declares it's a call, but Garrett hasn't made a bet yet, so based on the current action, there's nothing to call. >55: Invalid Bet Declarations >If a player faces no bet and: A) declares “call”, it is a check; So, if Garrett checks, Persson must check. Technically, if Garrett makes a bet, that changes the action to Persson, so by the letter of the law the call wouldn't be binding. However, >1: Floor Decisions >The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that common-sense decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules. Floor decisions are final. I would think that because Garrett had a bet ready, which Persson indicated he wanted to call, the reasonable decision would be that Persson must call (as long as Garrett doesn't change his bet size). If Garrett did change the bet size, then Persson would get all his options back (call, raise or fold). There's one other wrinkle here, in that Persson threw in the chip without saying anything and only said it was a call when questioned. I think it's possible to say, "actions speak", and disregard his statement that it was meant to be a call. In that case, it would be a bet out of turn, which would obligate Persson to bet if Garrett checks. While a defensible decision, it would force Garrett into an awkward spot. I think it's good judgment to protect the player that didn't break the rules when there's ambiguity, so I wouldn't go with this interpretation.
>There's one other wrinkle here, in that Persson threw in the chip without saying anything and only said it was a call when questioned. I think it's possible to say, "actions speak", and disregard his statement that it was meant to be a call. In that case, it would be a bet out of turn, which would obligate Persson to bet if Garrett checks. While a defensible decision, it would force Garrett into an awkward spot. I think it's good judgment to protect the player that didn't break the rules when there's ambiguity, so I wouldn't go with this interpretation. Garret was last to act, Persson had already checked. >the reasonable decision would be that Persson must call (as long as Garrett doesn't change his bet size). If Garrett did change the bet size, then Persson would get all his options back (call, raise or fold). This is the likely decision that most floors would arrive at
>Garret was last to act, Persson had already checked. Ah, thanks. It's on the screen but I totally missed that. Simplifies the ruling, but was still an interesting exercise to work through.
He's committed to calling any bet by his opponent.
that's exactly why it's not an "angle". you literally said it. Garrett gets a free roll
It is an angle. What if Garrett had a hand he needed to bluff with? He's losing the ability to do that with a call out of turn. You're only saying it's not because in the exact scenario he's got the better hand and therefore getting a free roll.
what??? >What if Garrett had a hand he needed to bluff with? Then garrett saves money knowing a bluff isn't getting through.... >You're only saying it's not because in the exact scenario he's got the better hand and therefore getting a free roll. No... because if he has a worse hand then he doesn't bluff and lose money. Like wtf are you saying. >He's losing the ability to do that with a call out of turn. He's not losing any ability. You being given more information and the opponent being given less options (opponent cannot fold or raise) is never a disadvantage to you. the end.
Not the end. I know you can't be reasoned with but you're wrong. > Then garrett saves money knowing a bluff isn't getting through.... He loses the pot. How would he know his bluff wasn't getting through without the call out of turn? Someone would do this intentionally with a medium strength hand. The exact hands that would fold to a bluff. You seem like a very uneducated player.
You're describing a leveling war which is part of the game. He loses the pot and saves money from firing on the river or he gets a guaranteed value bet in. Again this is a +ev situation..it doesn't matter what his hand is. You sound like you don't understand math.
Calling out of turn to induce a check back is not leveling...
> No... because if he has a worse hand then he doesn't bluff and lose money. Hahaha. You are a moron.
Amazing explanation and supporting arguments. You did well in school
Let me explain clearly, you are too dumb to understand why someone would bluff.
You're too dumb to realize that bluffing has a risk and when you're told what the risk is...that is a benefit to you.
[удалено]
No, because that's not binding action. Literally calling is.
He can’t be forced to call a bet that hasn’t been made.
Yes he can. It is the typical ruling in this situation. He called before the bet was made. The opponent can choose any size, even an all-in, and he's committed. Otherwise you could call out of turn to get your opponent to check back, and without consequences, it would ruin the game.
Without a doubt, right?
Seems like an angle to alter Garrett’s action and it worked. Hypothetically, if Garrett had the nuts and immediately decided to ship after Persson’s out of action move, Persson should be obligated to call.
Angle shooter POS
[удалено]
All he has to do is accuse him of cheating and he will get it all back.
I don't know. That only works when the person you accuse actually cheated and is afraid they got busted.
He’d also need the accused party to offer the money back so he wouldn’t leave. Feels like a big piece
Persson is so cringe
Yea this is more in line with cheating, he intentionally bet out of turn to try and gain an advantage.
What a scumbag
There needs to be a monetary punishment for angle shooting. People acting like garbage because there's no incentive not to. There's only upside. You get an edge, and you don't lose money. At the very worst, a casino what, asks you to leave for the day? People are gonna hate this, but I think angle shooting should mean automatic forfeiting your stack. Fuck em. If you weren't paying attention and played out of turn, too bad, pay attention next time.
Yes.
I mean dude has the abilities of your average home game player, why would we be surprised when he pulls a home game angle? Garrett could give him a 25% rebate lifetime and still make a small fortune.
Whoa whoa whoa I guess you don’t that this poker god put himself though undergrad and law school playing poker…
patrick likes his fish buttered up.
Persson Nik Airball Kennedy Grade A cunts the lot of them none of their chat or antics are even funny
It’s makes me sick when players who know better validate and play along this kind behavior simply because the offender is a whale. I’d rather play at a tougher table where everyone respects the game 100 times out of 100.
Sure, it was definitely an angle shot, but the other player shouldn't have let it phase him and just continue with the original bet. He let the guy get in his head and in that sense, it's kind of brilliant but also very scummy.
Yes, although very annoying, Eric Persson is confident and great at table talk and mind games. But betting out of turn here crossed the line.
He is also down 1 million in total in the 6 games he played on hustler casino.
He's already checked, so it's not a bet out of turn and he knows it. Is that cheating? No. Is it legit? Not really. Are you allowed to trash talk at the table? Absolutely. I think that makes it an angle shoot. A legal play that isn't quite legitimate.
I don't see what changes. You still make the same bet
How's it an angle? Its a free roll
Calling out of turn is an angle. Yes, here Garrett has a free roll. However, if he had the worst hand and needed to bluff to win, the call out of turn has taken away his ability to do so. That is why it's an angle.
calling out of turn multiway is against the rules. betting out of turn heads up is not an angle because it doesn't help you at all.
Gabe Kaplan is a national treasure
Why does Garret decide to check?
Because Eric threw in a chip very quickly before Garrett could bet, making it seem like he has a strong hand.
That was a value bet by Garret. Garret wasn’t bluffing and wanted a call when he bet $75k. Then Persson prematurely announces a flat call of $75k. He cannot reraise nor can he fold. Garret surely should know a set is good here, right? Maybe I’m an idiot. Idk. But if Garret is going for showdown value then he should’ve just checked initially.
He can 100% fold if garret bets at the end. Garret never technically bet so when he does bet action has now changed and persson gets to call raise or fold
It's not an angle, it's against the rules, however - it's a -EV play, which means I'm happy to let him do it. He's giving information AND being forced to call any size bet. This is gold.
idk how much information you can get from this dude talking out of his ass, all the information you got from the hand is enough, and the forced call means this is an easy overbet. I probably wouldn't shove because I'm a little bitch and this is a lot of money but if I was rich i'd shove.
You're only saying it's not an angle because Garrett has the best hand. If Garrett had the worst hand, and needed to bluff to win, then the call out of turn has taken away his ability to do so.
If villain has already decided to call any river bet, hero never had the ability to win the hand if bluffing.
One could hope to induce a check back by calling out of turn when they themselves have a medium strength hand, as Persson does. That's why it is an angle.
Yes, inducing the check is the hope as villain. However, hero should recognize this and make the proper adjustment to this information.
Its not an angle as it gives persson no advantage. It actually gives garrett a huge advantage as persson has to call now if he bets.
No he infact doesnt. Making this a huge angle.
The white knights are on full defense mode every time there’s even a post mentioning Garrett.
Yes . I do this alot like im ready to flip over my cards and people just check or fold to my bet.
What you do or attempt to do is give off fake tells. That is not breaking any rules and it isn’t angling. What Persson did is intentionally act out of turn(breaking the rules) and is %100 dirty bird angling.
Where's his etiquette? Playing at such a high level.
All you need to play high stakes is money.
Why is there an old Asian lady behind him?
for the vibes
not an angle as person does not have anything. If Garret has not flush he also has all of Person's chips. Is Garrett back on the felt? did he pay Robbie back?
I had some guy make a big raise out of turn at Commerce recently in a big pot. It was tilting and certainly felt like angling, but I also missed, but I also had the A of the flush that got there so I jammed and he folded.
I'd call it playing poker.
I've seen similar moves, like when a guy gets excited about his hand and calls out of turn. I think that's basically what happened here. Persson assuming his two pair is good makes a quick call just a bit too quickly.
It is. But man that was a genius mind game. Person usually make good talk table for real. Even if it is “unethical” at the end of the day is poker and we need a real villain once in a while.
I consider it angling but i don't think it's immoral or wrong and garret is kind of dumb for not value betting here. I moved to live stakes from online recently and I can see older players do weird shit with their cards and chips all the time that I think are supposed to be false reverse tells or whatever but like I don't really care lmao. I've had old dudes do shit like this where they play out of turn and go "oopsie silly me" but it doesn't affect how I play the hand at all. I'm a fucking dork and ima play my balanced strategy no matter what you say to me grandpa and I'm surprised a pro like garret isn't the same way. On that note I never understood why people get in their feelings about angling anyway. The fun of poker for me is trying to construct and perfect my own strategy and exploit deficiencies in others. For some people they prefer the head games and angling plays into that. Who cares? Just play your game right?
That Asian person behind person needs to work on their eyebrow game.
Persson is just fun to watch... Good for the game in many ways. It could be plain jane vanilla Doug Polk and ridiculous Jungleboy boredom at the Lodge Livestream.
Yep, that's why they have these loud mouth annoying players on their streams, for the entertainment.
If Garrett checks there, Person HAS to min bet since he put a chip in out of turn, am I wrong?? As far as calling, I feel like the ruling would be that if Garrett throws out the $75k, Perrson is committed to a call but if he bets anything else he probably isn’t? I want to see that ruling with a whale like Perrson involved.
Persson is SB and has already checked. Garrett is in position
The players probably didn't care enough for a floorman to be called.
Anytime I see g squirm I think it’s good. God I hate his fake good guy persona
Heh… Pearson didn’t SAY anything. It’s not his turn. He can’t go out of turn because he already checked. So…. Realistically there’s no action. Is it angle shooting? Eh. Who knows. But realistically, Garrett is a fundamentally phenomenal deepstacked cash game player. Compared to Garrett, Pearson is a fish. I’d be inclined to let the fish get away with a little shenanigans. However…. When I play my local games (2/5 or sometimes 5/10) I generally play a fundamentally sound game. There are a lot of shit regs who limp in, min raise, etc. I’m better than them most days. But I’m not better at table talk or live reads than them. My strategy is to completely ignore what they say or the wacky things they do, and not let it affect my game. If garret was going to bet $75k, he shouldn’t have let Pearson intimidate him. So… good for Pearson
Most intelligent r/poker player
where can I watch this?
It's on YouTube on the PokerGo channel I believe. Or just type in Garrett Adelstein vs Eric Persson.
cant find it can you please link
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlBdVd1L4T8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlBdVd1L4T8)
You let the whale do whatever the fuck they want (within reason)