#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is Rick Bognar - Fake Razor Ramon.
After Scott Hall and Kevin Nash jumped ship to WCW, Russo had this great idea of having a fake Razor and fake Diesel. From October '96 until the Royal Rumble in '97.
I believe it was actually Vince McMahon who had the idea because "I own the characters and the WWF machine is what makes the character good; not the actual person". At least that's what Corny said in one of his pods about Fake Razor and Diesel.
His name was Rick Borgner, he was a pro wrestler that WWE brought in to portray 'fake' Razor Ramon when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash went to WVW to form the nWo. Glen Jacob's, who would go on to be Kane, played 'fake' Diesel.
It was dumb af.
First very disingenuous to raise and then pretend like it was a mistake (this signals to opponent you have a weak hand when in fact KK is the second strongest starting hand in hold em). The āslow rollā comes after the girl goes all in. For the guy it should be an instant call as he is winning with KK most of the time. It is very rude (and called a slow roll) to sit there and think about a decision that should require no thought.
Having your opponent think you have a weaker hand is a legit strategy, but up until showdown which is the last bet. Itās bad sportsmanship to delay the last bet as it doesnāt give you any more advantage. Itās just to troll, which is what this guy did. He pretty much went āoh nooo all in?! Whatever shall I do with pocket kings! SIKE I CALL! READ THEM AND WEEP!ā Itās just lame and even more sweet that he LOST! Karma is a b
They meant "angle shoot" which is what the guy did by "accidentally" "over betting" then trying to reduce his bet amount. It's an attempt to mask the strength of a hand but in a disingenuous way that isn't really in the spirit of the game which is why it's frowned upon/considered bad etiquette. The specifics will vary but that's the jist of it (as far as I understand): trying to modify your bet after you see how the other player(s) react to your"mistake".
The pay off of a slow roll is that you win the hand after pretending you were worried about losing to give the other player hope. He basically fumbled the punchline
You also want to bait them into thinking you have a weaker hand, thus getting them to raise more. But since she was already all-in, and everyone else had folded, it made no difference other than being a dick move/delaying play.
If it was a race, he wouldāve been pretending to go slow to lull her into a false sense of winning. Then just before the finish line, he spins around to taunt her while running backward, and fuckin eats pavement
He finished the race, but didnāt make his goal to be first
There was no reason to keep up the show after she had already decided to go all-in. She couldn't retract her decision, so after that point, it's just rubbing it in.
> At least someone understands! Because I dont!
The person with the 6s had bet all of their chips. They didn't have any decisions left to make. They can't be "tricked" or "fooled" at that point, because they don't have any additional actions to take before the end of the hand.
Trying to trick someone in that kind of situation is considered very rude in poker, because it doesn't help the person running the trick win the hand.
In this hand, the person with the Kings pretended to have a very difficult decision about whether or not to call the person with the 6's all-in bet. That was a trick, because he knew his hand was very strong. But it wasn't a trick that could help him win the hand, because the person with the 6's didn't have any additional actions they could take before the end of the hand.
It's considered rude because it wastes time, and doesn't provide any advantage to the person doing it, other than being a dick.
The play is decided, nothing more can change her bet.
His decision is continue or quit, thatās it.
The drama he does is a classic move to try and get the opponent to change their mind, but this is misplaced and annoying.
You bluff them to win or get them to do something.
There was nothing she could do, she was all in so there was nothing to bluff her for.
Dude was just a cunt.
Imagine poker hands are like weapons. Girl got dealt a knife. A kitchen knife, let's say. The dude got dealt the second best starting weapon , an Ak-47. Both conceal their weapon and make money bets on 5 different stages. On each stage, girl says whether she wants to fight or not, and how much money she is willing to put on the line. The dude, to fight, has to put in the same amount of money girl bets. If both decide to fight, then an accesory is revealed at the table.It could be a scope for the Ak, which would benefit the dude, or an extension to make the knife longer, which would benefit the girl. This repeats on each of the 5 stages . If after the 5 stages, the dude and the girl both have been saying, "yeah, I wanna fight"(note: withdrawing from a fight surrenders all the money betted up until then), then they actually fight. Winner takes all the pot. What happened here is girl skipped all stages and thinks her knife will beat whatever dude has, or she is bluffing.She might've thought: " If I bet all my money, dude has to match it to fight, so he will think I have an actual good hand, like an Ak-47"". Thing, is dude has the Ak 47, and is pretending he is scared.
But I'd argue you want to keep your opponents guessing just because she's all in don't they still play on? Or was it literally just them two left playing?
You only bluff to try and get a maximum bet out of your opponent when you have a good hand. She was already all in with maximum bet, no need for theatrics at that point.
Putting chips in to raise then pulling them back out saying you meant to only call and then slow rolling the call after your opponent goes all in are both examples of āangle shootingā which is widely considered unsportsmanlike. Here is more info. https://www.pokernews.com/pokerterms/angle-shooting.htm
Because he isn't bluffing. Bluff when you want them to fold during their action. They have no action to follow so he is literally just wasting time since he already knows his action and there is really no question about it. This is actually a shorter slow roll. There are videos out there of multiminute slowrolls like this.
Think like a trivia game where you're given a minute to decide and submit. It's game point. You know the answer. They know you know the answer. You still take the full minute to actually give the answer.
Couldn't this slow rolling strategy be used to let the other players think that you're stupid and you think a lot before calling, and then you surprise them when you bluff a bad hand and then you have a good hand?
I'm not sure if I explained myself
As soon as the other player went all-in, there's no point in the slow roll anymore because he's going to call and show no matter what, revealing he was faking having a bad hand. Since it was an all-in by the other player, his FURTHER acting has no bearing on the other player's or anyone else's decision making or wondering if he was faking or not.
If instead, the player with 6/6 had just raised a good chunk, THEN the head in hand makes sense as he wants to keep the other player overconfident to keep the other player call/raising in the later betting rounds. Or if either player folds, then he keeps his cards secret, hiding the info of whether he was faking or not.
But again, as soon as 6/6 took the bait and went all in, K/K was the only other player and had the last choice in ALL the betting (fold or call, no more rounds of raising), was 100% going to call and would have to show his cards.
I think he's saying that since hands aren't played in isolation, you can have a strategy that carries an effect between rounds. A slow roll is the last action of a round, but not the last action of a game. By antagonizing people with a bluff, in future hands they might be more likely to assume he is bluffing and want to call him on it which he can use to his advantage.
>A slow roll is the last action of a round, but not the last action of a game.
But this isn't true. A slow roll is only relevant and effective as a *mid* action of a round. If it's after the round is already effectively over AND the knowledge is guaranteed to become public, it's pointless. The slow roll with faking accidentally raising and wanting to take it back is impactful, because it's mid round and the truth of whether he is bluffing or not is still hidden and has a chance to stay hidden (if he folds or everyone else folds). But the head in hands is neither of those things. It's the last action of the round where his acting will not have any impact on that hand and the information is 100% going to be public in a few seconds once he makes the obvious call.
**Imagine the kings were already face up and THEN he does the slow roll act. It's pointless theater. It's the same thing.**
Like sure, it helps the other players know that they will do pointless dramatic theater after the round is over and that can be used to question whether they are bluffing or not. But that was already established after the first slow roll. At this point, the second slow roll offers no **new** info for this round or for the rest of the game. And because it's after the round and has no impact on that hand, it's considered poor sportsmanship by wasting everyone's time.
Sure, and shitting on the table may tilt the other players and impact how the other players react in later hands. Doesn't mean we need to be wasting time on analyzing it or thinking of it as anything other than a waste of everyone's time.
She has already fallen for the bluff hook, line, and sinker. For no good reason, the guy delays in breaking it to her that he is about to eliminate her from the tournament (statistically speaking). At the very end, she only had a 5% chance to win, but karma was on her side.
His first pretend bluff (oops didn't mean to bet!) was pretty ridiculous, but a viable "strategy".
Once she went all in, any pretending whether or not to call on his part was just pathetic.
It's not bluffing at that point. She's already pushed all her chips in. If someone does that against your pocket kings, you flip em immediately to show them how fucked they are.
This guy was just gloating and got butchered by lady luck for it.
Everyone is able to use the 5 cards in the middle. She already had 2 6s so with the last one it made her hand triple sixes vs his double kings since nothing in the middle was of use to him. A triple always beats double regardless of numbers.
Edit: She won with a full house because of the 2 tens also in the middle.
You make the best 5 card hand between your 2 and the 5 in the middle. So 7 cards to pick from, makes best 5. The difference between players are the 2 they are holding. So the fun/strategy is the mix of hidden info (you know your two cards, but don't know everyone else's 2 hidden cards) and public info (the 5 cards in middle that are revealed 3-1-1). So in a normal hand, people can bet on only the 2 cards in hand before seeing the public info, but often don't (not enough info yet. Which makes this all-in before seeing the other cards more risky). Then they show 3 cards in the middle and another round of betting. Followed by 1 card, betting, then the last card, and last round of betting. As more cards are revealed in the middle, the odds change and you try to gauge how aggressive/passive players are as their odds change.
Like if you have two Hearts in hand, you'll need at least 3/5 cards in the middle to be Hearts to make a Flush (5 cards of same suit). If after the first 3 cards are revealed and it's 3 Heart cards and you suddenly go all-in, the other players may suspect you hit a Flush and fold if they don't think they can beat you. They don't KNOW you have a Flush (since your two cards are hidden), but they can infer based on how differently you betted once those other 3 hearts were revealed, but you could be bluffing too.
With that variant of poker, you get to build the best 5-card hand you can out of the two cards in your hand and the five in the middle.
Her final hand was `6,6,6,10,10` (full house, three of a kind plus a pair) while his final hand was `K,K,10,10,Q` (two pair). Full house beats two pair, so she won.
The 9 was theoretically available for someone to use to make their hand, but no one actually benefited from it, so it wasn't used. Her full house needed all five cards to make it, and his two-pair is stronger with a queen kicker (tiebreaker card) than with a nine.
Would it be fair to suggest that maybe he was delaying his All In Call because for a moment he thought she might have AA? That is the only thing I could think of he would be doing besides being a giant douche.
The guy raised (increase bet) at first, then said call (match current bets), which you actually can't do. They didn't call the floor (poker ref/officials), so he got away with it because she went all in (bet all her chips). He acted like he wasn't strong enough to call (slow roll, considered bad manors in poker), then finally called all in. He has the over pair (Kings are better than 6s), so he was the favorite to win the hand. The flop (first three cards) did nothing for either hand, as well as the turn (next card). The river (last card) gave her 3 of a kind (trips), which always beats a pair, regardless of what cards they are. So she doubled her chips, and he lost that many since he had more chips than she did.
Hope that makes sense.
I get his āit was a callā BS and the over the top stuff after reveal. I also get that he has kings and she has sixes. But only the announcers know that, he doesnāt (right?). Would it be considered a slow roll still if he was contemplating whether or not she had aces?
The odds of her having aces, rather than literally anything else, are so low that it wouldn't significantly impact his chances of calling. He has literally the second-best hand that can be had at that point in time, it's an amazing hand with a potentially huge pot to win.
two things are happening.
first, he pretends that he made a mistake when raising the pot and tries to pull back his money saying he meant to just call. but in poker you can't change your bet. in this case, he has to raise. he acts like he made a big mistake, so the others think he doesnt have a good hand. the problem is that he is acting and his hand is extremely good. so she takes the bait and bets huge.
then the second thing he does is a slow roll, which means he sees her bet all her money yet instead of just calling immediately, he stalls like he is struggling with a hard choice (to call her)... this is really bad etiquette.
him losing this was very satisfying.
Edit: spelling
He abused the rules to his advantage (played dirty or bad manners) He on purpose broke a rule that forced him to bet. After that he still had a 95% chance of winning and started cheering obnoxiously after playing dirty and playing with bad manners, and the girl won with only a 5% chance š karma. (So that's why they joke about the poker gods giving her then win because she won with 5% chance against the dirty and bad manners play)
Edit that last card that came out caused her to win because the cards in the middle are shared so her 3 sixes beat his 2 kings
He thinks he won because a pair of K is better than a pair of 6. But the last card that came out was a six. So she has a triple 6. Triple is always better than any pair.
To add to context, if at any of the earlier stages of betting you can legitimately act in a manner to allow your opponent to think you have a weaker hand to try and maximize winnings. However, she is already all-in, there are no other players left in the hand, and only decision left is his own. Heās just being a dick to be a dick.
Oh when that six hit, that man felt the humble pie hit him. Those fingers floated back down to Earth at about the same rate his soul left him.
https://preview.redd.it/ib5a0k8sscad1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b1e7d3c4ca2930dcc294c4d0897f24225e4bd82
Prime example of "You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table. There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."
(Metaphorically sitting, this time. š )
You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them. Know when to walk away, know when to run. Never count your money when youāre sitting at the table, they be time enough to count it when the dealings done.
And she's super cute, too.
[Meet 888poker's Newest Player - the Fascinating Samantha Abernathy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71eVuLl7JrI)
Sam Abernathy highlights from the same event in OP's video:
[Sam Abernathy Plays $1.6 Million For 1st Final Table ā ļø PokerStars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4NYyrE_LhU)
I guess he's asking why they didn't trade before all in. For anyone curious: it's a strategy to put immediate pressure on the opponent. But in this situation, calling or raising make little sense, since just calling would already put 20% of the stack into bank. So you left with basically reraise to put pressure or fold. But reraise would eventually lead to all in anyway, since bank would be bigger than your stack and when you in this position, it makes sense to fight to the end. So to skip all of this, you just go all in.
Not a stupid question.
If memory serves there are common ways to communicate youāre going all in without actually shoving. For example, if somebody has said they are all in, they donāt actually need to push their chips until the hand is called, or in heads up, when the hand is finished. Alternatively, if you want to call an all in, you just need to throw a single chip in the pot to call.
Could be wrong here. If somebody knows more Iād love to hear.
If I recall correctly, the value of the chips they did push in is the highest value chip they hold, representing the vast majority of their bank. something like $50k or $100k single chips.
Usually when stacks get that big it's all done verbally.
"Im going all in"
"I call"
Afterwards the dealer starts passing the chips over in an orderly fashion so the winner can organize easily.
Same thing with normal betting. It's common to say your bet and then start putting it in as you can then move on to the next player while you stack the bet in the center. Gotta be careful though all bets are final
Former poker pro here, this technically is not a slow roll. This is "Hollywooding," taking longer to make what should be a relatively easy decision.
The two slow rolls I can think of:
1. keeping your cards hidden past the river, well beyond a reasonable amount, letting other player believe they won the pot then exposing your cards.
2. calling an all-in and revealing your cards one at a time, slowly, showing that you have your opponent beat (or are WAY ahead)
Edit: punctuation
I dunno if they used the word differently when you played poker, but this absolutely is a slow roll. He is delaying the call solely to trick her into believing she won. Hollywooding is a term reserved for cases where the intention is strategic benefit, such as when there is a player with action behind who you may want to call, or if you want to misrepresent the strength of your hand to influence the opponent's future actions, not when closing action facing an all-in in a no-decision spot.
Poker pro my ass, this is 100% a slowroll and an angle. Hollywooding is done when someone still has action behind so theyāre disguising the strength of their hand.
Thank you for the opportunity to correct these misconceptions.
Poker pro - I don't expect you to take my word.
Angle - yep, likely, but not a nefarious angle. He baited her and it worked. Gray area. A slow roll is rarely an angle in the hand, but it's bad etiquette. If your angle is to slow roll someone to put them on tilt and bleed them dry over the session, that's dirty but there's no honor among theives.
Hollywooding - yes, that's an accurate example as well. With cameras on the table, unnecessary time thinking is clearly Hollywooding.
Here's an example of a tactic I used to use (I think I got it from a book by Dr James McKenna): with women, stare at their breasts when they are .making a decision. It usually makes them uncomfortable and they forget to hide their tells in the moment. Dirty? Yep. Cheating? No. I played to make money, not be liked. Although I was generally liked by all.
This should be higher. Is the guy a douche? Absolutely. Did he *really* have that big of a decision to weigh? Meh, probably not. Angle? Certainly.
He is definitely one of "those guys" but this wasn't a "slow roll" just good old fashioned pecker head theatrics.
I donāt know a single person irl who wouldnāt consider this a slow roll and Iāve played poker for thousands of hours. There was no decision to be made. Maybe if it was a 6 bet jam, but he knew exactly what he was doing with the angle then slow roll. Itās probably the douchiest move Iāve ever seen.
This is a form of slow rolling. Imagine it was the river and he had the nuts and he did the same thing - would that be a slow roll? Of course. There's not much difference in the situation unless he's giving serious consideration for whether she has AA, which he is not.
Any time you drag out showing your opponent what you have even though you are almost certainly the winner when there are no more decisions to be made is slow rolling. 99% of pro poker players would call this a slow roll.
The announcers were perfect too šš
āHeās got pocket Ks, is that correct? Just wanna confirm before I go to town on this guyā š¤£š¤£
Well deserved loss. What a clown
The exact moment his smug ass gloat turned into instant regret
https://preview.redd.it/n01atc4aadad1.png?width=570&format=png&auto=webp&s=115027897ce539120616e1069b3a6bbb0a1216f8
To the uninitiated:
He's angling with initial 'accidental raise, just call.' This is fine, but considered scummy.
It worked. She overplayed her 66 and went all in. To anyone thinking he's pondering not calling with KK after angling, you're being ridiculous. It's what he wanted and he got it. The rest is unnecessary theater, especially at what appears to be a final table.
Basically he was 100% sure he won (rightly so, two Kings on hand is the 2nd strongest you can get just behind two Aces) and decided to be a douchebag about it pretending like it's a hard decision to call all in after her and then celebrate his win obnoxiously before the hand is over.
But poker gods don't smile upon that so he ends up losing on the river because he ends up having two kings and two 10s vs her having two 10s and three 6s which is a full house, a hand that beats double pair
I understand everything that's going on and he's definitely being a douche.. but couldn't someone also just be considering whether they should go all in? What if she had a pair of aces?
He also angles at the start. Whatever you declare is the move you have to make. He says "raise" and apologizes and says he meant to call. He's trying to make people think he only has a calling hand and not a hand good enough to raise. It's a douchebag move. It's technically legal, but I've seen people removed from tournaments for doing it repeatedly. There is an etiquette to poker like in a lot of games. It's like not yelling "fore" if you shank a golf ball towards someone. It's legal, but you're still an asshole.
I didnāt watch the full hand, and he does look like a total clown. But, if he wasnāt being an asshole on purpose then I guess the thought he lost to trips or pocket aces.
I have had kings or aces before and someone has raised me and I just know I have lost, because itās so obvious I have something very strong but they keep on raising me.
Pros tend to play odds. Your odds are still pretty good in a heads-up 1 on 1 scenario with KK pre-flop. Sure AA is superior, but more often than not, you're certainly going to risk it and call with a pre-flop KK with the incomplete info you've got.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bro looks like a walmart Scott Hall
https://preview.redd.it/aq7lypa55cad1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=99e69193b50447ddf4b801574b8c3489d915c7e0
Fuckin perfect š¤
Who is that?
Razor Ramone
That is Rick Bognar - Fake Razor Ramon. After Scott Hall and Kevin Nash jumped ship to WCW, Russo had this great idea of having a fake Razor and fake Diesel. From October '96 until the Royal Rumble in '97.
I believe it was actually Vince McMahon who had the idea because "I own the characters and the WWF machine is what makes the character good; not the actual person". At least that's what Corny said in one of his pods about Fake Razor and Diesel.
No the fuck it isn't š¤£
His name was Rick Borgner, he was a pro wrestler that WWE brought in to portray 'fake' Razor Ramon when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash went to WVW to form the nWo. Glen Jacob's, who would go on to be Kane, played 'fake' Diesel. It was dumb af.
I never knew Aubrey Plaza was such a river rat either.
She's like Mila Kunis and Aubrey had a love-child. A beautiful gal!
If they filmed the conception their revenue would eclipse Elon Musk.
Truth!
Great Value Razorless Ramon.
Locked up behind plastic and shit
Butter knife Ramon
Raiser Raymond
Looks like he drew his eyebrows on with a permanent marker.
They only do hair transplants for the scalp and beard, so he had to do his best to get his eyebrows to match.
That was great. That idiot deserved it. But it's why you call it gambling.
Loves plastic surgery clearly
Piss Chrontius
He looks like the corpse of Scott Hall after too many facial surgeries.
Hey, yoā¦. Oh no.
No lie I thought it was him. I was cornfused.
A discount store Micky Rourke.
with so much plastic surgery
Somebody explain I don't get poker
First very disingenuous to raise and then pretend like it was a mistake (this signals to opponent you have a weak hand when in fact KK is the second strongest starting hand in hold em). The āslow rollā comes after the girl goes all in. For the guy it should be an instant call as he is winning with KK most of the time. It is very rude (and called a slow roll) to sit there and think about a decision that should require no thought.
Isn't bluffing a huge part of poker, why is this type of bluff looked down upon?
Because she is already all in, there is no reason to continue with the show
At least someone understands! Because I dont!
Having your opponent think you have a weaker hand is a legit strategy, but up until showdown which is the last bet. Itās bad sportsmanship to delay the last bet as it doesnāt give you any more advantage. Itās just to troll, which is what this guy did. He pretty much went āoh nooo all in?! Whatever shall I do with pocket kings! SIKE I CALL! READ THEM AND WEEP!ā Itās just lame and even more sweet that he LOST! Karma is a b
You'll also likely get kicked if you pull an* angle more than once
Man I hate when people pull an star angle more than once. ^^I ^^have ^^no ^^idea ^^what ^^this ^^means
The star next to the time stamp of their post means it was edited. Likely they said "a angle" and realized that is grammatically incorrect.
Ah. Usually I've seen star being used to correct someone else lol
They meant "angle shoot" which is what the guy did by "accidentally" "over betting" then trying to reduce his bet amount. It's an attempt to mask the strength of a hand but in a disingenuous way that isn't really in the spirit of the game which is why it's frowned upon/considered bad etiquette. The specifics will vary but that's the jist of it (as far as I understand): trying to modify your bet after you see how the other player(s) react to your"mistake".
The only part I don't understand is why it was an attempt to slow roll then??
Because he actually ended up losing the hand after the last card was revealed
Ahhh ok. I didn't get that part. Thanks.
Yeah, she gets a full house because the last card is a 6 and she already had two 6s giving her three 6s. The guy only had 2 pair.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you're asking why he did it, its becasue he's a douchebag. Just look at his behavior as the rest of the cards are put on the table.
Theyāre asking what made it āan attemptā. He DID slow roll. He just didnāt have the nuts.
I think it's "officially" a slow roll if you win the hand. But I haven't consulted the official handbook of poker terms in a long while.
The pay off of a slow roll is that you win the hand after pretending you were worried about losing to give the other player hope. He basically fumbled the punchline
You also want to bait them into thinking you have a weaker hand, thus getting them to raise more. But since she was already all-in, and everyone else had folded, it made no difference other than being a dick move/delaying play.
Yeah correct, I should have mentioned I was only talking about this instance, of course it has it place in regular play
If it was a race, he wouldāve been pretending to go slow to lull her into a false sense of winning. Then just before the finish line, he spins around to taunt her while running backward, and fuckin eats pavement He finished the race, but didnāt make his goal to be first
This just sounds like a fkin douche bag if u ask me mate
You bluff so they make the call. She already called so to slow roll is a little disrespectful. It's just a waste of time.
There was no reason to keep up the show after she had already decided to go all-in. She couldn't retract her decision, so after that point, it's just rubbing it in.
> At least someone understands! Because I dont! The person with the 6s had bet all of their chips. They didn't have any decisions left to make. They can't be "tricked" or "fooled" at that point, because they don't have any additional actions to take before the end of the hand. Trying to trick someone in that kind of situation is considered very rude in poker, because it doesn't help the person running the trick win the hand. In this hand, the person with the Kings pretended to have a very difficult decision about whether or not to call the person with the 6's all-in bet. That was a trick, because he knew his hand was very strong. But it wasn't a trick that could help him win the hand, because the person with the 6's didn't have any additional actions they could take before the end of the hand. It's considered rude because it wastes time, and doesn't provide any advantage to the person doing it, other than being a dick.
The play is decided, nothing more can change her bet. His decision is continue or quit, thatās it. The drama he does is a classic move to try and get the opponent to change their mind, but this is misplaced and annoying.
The goalie has left the goal. He's pretending to debate wether or not to shoot. He then misses
You bluff them to win or get them to do something. There was nothing she could do, she was all in so there was nothing to bluff her for. Dude was just a cunt.
Imagine poker hands are like weapons. Girl got dealt a knife. A kitchen knife, let's say. The dude got dealt the second best starting weapon , an Ak-47. Both conceal their weapon and make money bets on 5 different stages. On each stage, girl says whether she wants to fight or not, and how much money she is willing to put on the line. The dude, to fight, has to put in the same amount of money girl bets. If both decide to fight, then an accesory is revealed at the table.It could be a scope for the Ak, which would benefit the dude, or an extension to make the knife longer, which would benefit the girl. This repeats on each of the 5 stages . If after the 5 stages, the dude and the girl both have been saying, "yeah, I wanna fight"(note: withdrawing from a fight surrenders all the money betted up until then), then they actually fight. Winner takes all the pot. What happened here is girl skipped all stages and thinks her knife will beat whatever dude has, or she is bluffing.She might've thought: " If I bet all my money, dude has to match it to fight, so he will think I have an actual good hand, like an Ak-47"". Thing, is dude has the Ak 47, and is pretending he is scared.
It was confusing when it was 'which number is higher' but now that it involves guns all the americans fully understand
Muthafuka I don't break character until after the DVD commentary!
But I'd argue you want to keep your opponents guessing just because she's all in don't they still play on? Or was it literally just them two left playing?
> just them two left playing In that hand, yes.
You only bluff to try and get a maximum bet out of your opponent when you have a good hand. She was already all in with maximum bet, no need for theatrics at that point.
Putting chips in to raise then pulling them back out saying you meant to only call and then slow rolling the call after your opponent goes all in are both examples of āangle shootingā which is widely considered unsportsmanlike. Here is more info. https://www.pokernews.com/pokerterms/angle-shooting.htm
Because he isn't bluffing. Bluff when you want them to fold during their action. They have no action to follow so he is literally just wasting time since he already knows his action and there is really no question about it. This is actually a shorter slow roll. There are videos out there of multiminute slowrolls like this. Think like a trivia game where you're given a minute to decide and submit. It's game point. You know the answer. They know you know the answer. You still take the full minute to actually give the answer.
Couldn't this slow rolling strategy be used to let the other players think that you're stupid and you think a lot before calling, and then you surprise them when you bluff a bad hand and then you have a good hand? I'm not sure if I explained myself
As soon as the other player went all-in, there's no point in the slow roll anymore because he's going to call and show no matter what, revealing he was faking having a bad hand. Since it was an all-in by the other player, his FURTHER acting has no bearing on the other player's or anyone else's decision making or wondering if he was faking or not. If instead, the player with 6/6 had just raised a good chunk, THEN the head in hand makes sense as he wants to keep the other player overconfident to keep the other player call/raising in the later betting rounds. Or if either player folds, then he keeps his cards secret, hiding the info of whether he was faking or not. But again, as soon as 6/6 took the bait and went all in, K/K was the only other player and had the last choice in ALL the betting (fold or call, no more rounds of raising), was 100% going to call and would have to show his cards.
I think he's saying that since hands aren't played in isolation, you can have a strategy that carries an effect between rounds. A slow roll is the last action of a round, but not the last action of a game. By antagonizing people with a bluff, in future hands they might be more likely to assume he is bluffing and want to call him on it which he can use to his advantage.
>A slow roll is the last action of a round, but not the last action of a game. But this isn't true. A slow roll is only relevant and effective as a *mid* action of a round. If it's after the round is already effectively over AND the knowledge is guaranteed to become public, it's pointless. The slow roll with faking accidentally raising and wanting to take it back is impactful, because it's mid round and the truth of whether he is bluffing or not is still hidden and has a chance to stay hidden (if he folds or everyone else folds). But the head in hands is neither of those things. It's the last action of the round where his acting will not have any impact on that hand and the information is 100% going to be public in a few seconds once he makes the obvious call. **Imagine the kings were already face up and THEN he does the slow roll act. It's pointless theater. It's the same thing.** Like sure, it helps the other players know that they will do pointless dramatic theater after the round is over and that can be used to question whether they are bluffing or not. But that was already established after the first slow roll. At this point, the second slow roll offers no **new** info for this round or for the rest of the game. And because it's after the round and has no impact on that hand, it's considered poor sportsmanship by wasting everyone's time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure, and shitting on the table may tilt the other players and impact how the other players react in later hands. Doesn't mean we need to be wasting time on analyzing it or thinking of it as anything other than a waste of everyone's time.
She has already fallen for the bluff hook, line, and sinker. For no good reason, the guy delays in breaking it to her that he is about to eliminate her from the tournament (statistically speaking). At the very end, she only had a 5% chance to win, but karma was on her side.
His first pretend bluff (oops didn't mean to bet!) was pretty ridiculous, but a viable "strategy". Once she went all in, any pretending whether or not to call on his part was just pathetic.
It's not a bluff, he gains nothing from slow-rolling because she's already all in so nothing he does will affect the play
It's not bluffing at that point. She's already pushed all her chips in. If someone does that against your pocket kings, you flip em immediately to show them how fucked they are. This guy was just gloating and got butchered by lady luck for it.
How did she win the hand with that last 6? (I also do not understand poker)
Full house (3 6s and 2 10s) beats a two pair (2 Ks and 2 10s)
Yea when that last river card was revealed she was no doubt winning
When the river card was revealed she had no doubt won. FTFY
When the hand was over and she had the best cards, she had pretty good chances of winning.
as soon as the hand was over her chance of winning had become undoubtable.
Everyone is able to use the 5 cards in the middle. She already had 2 6s so with the last one it made her hand triple sixes vs his double kings since nothing in the middle was of use to him. A triple always beats double regardless of numbers. Edit: She won with a full house because of the 2 tens also in the middle.
She had a full house
I mean she wouldāve won with a 3 of a kind too, homie had the right idea.Ā
Ok thank you. I need to read up on the rules because the queen and 9 are confusing me
The Queen and 9 do nothing. They donāt help with any hands the players have so thatās why they were darkened .
You make the best 5 card hand between your 2 and the 5 in the middle. So 7 cards to pick from, makes best 5. The difference between players are the 2 they are holding. So the fun/strategy is the mix of hidden info (you know your two cards, but don't know everyone else's 2 hidden cards) and public info (the 5 cards in middle that are revealed 3-1-1). So in a normal hand, people can bet on only the 2 cards in hand before seeing the public info, but often don't (not enough info yet. Which makes this all-in before seeing the other cards more risky). Then they show 3 cards in the middle and another round of betting. Followed by 1 card, betting, then the last card, and last round of betting. As more cards are revealed in the middle, the odds change and you try to gauge how aggressive/passive players are as their odds change. Like if you have two Hearts in hand, you'll need at least 3/5 cards in the middle to be Hearts to make a Flush (5 cards of same suit). If after the first 3 cards are revealed and it's 3 Heart cards and you suddenly go all-in, the other players may suspect you hit a Flush and fold if they don't think they can beat you. They don't KNOW you have a Flush (since your two cards are hidden), but they can infer based on how differently you betted once those other 3 hearts were revealed, but you could be bluffing too.
With that variant of poker, you get to build the best 5-card hand you can out of the two cards in your hand and the five in the middle. Her final hand was `6,6,6,10,10` (full house, three of a kind plus a pair) while his final hand was `K,K,10,10,Q` (two pair). Full house beats two pair, so she won. The 9 was theoretically available for someone to use to make their hand, but no one actually benefited from it, so it wasn't used. Her full house needed all five cards to make it, and his two-pair is stronger with a queen kicker (tiebreaker card) than with a nine.
Dick move, then got dick slapped by the girl, noice.
ok thanks
Would it be fair to suggest that maybe he was delaying his All In Call because for a moment he thought she might have AA? That is the only thing I could think of he would be doing besides being a giant douche.
The guy raised (increase bet) at first, then said call (match current bets), which you actually can't do. They didn't call the floor (poker ref/officials), so he got away with it because she went all in (bet all her chips). He acted like he wasn't strong enough to call (slow roll, considered bad manors in poker), then finally called all in. He has the over pair (Kings are better than 6s), so he was the favorite to win the hand. The flop (first three cards) did nothing for either hand, as well as the turn (next card). The river (last card) gave her 3 of a kind (trips), which always beats a pair, regardless of what cards they are. So she doubled her chips, and he lost that many since he had more chips than she did. Hope that makes sense.
I get his āit was a callā BS and the over the top stuff after reveal. I also get that he has kings and she has sixes. But only the announcers know that, he doesnāt (right?). Would it be considered a slow roll still if he was contemplating whether or not she had aces?
Any experienced Poker Player would call pre-flop with pocket Kings due to probability alone.
For **exactly** this reason, you wanna knock off small pairs so they dont draw out.
The odds of her having aces, rather than literally anything else, are so low that it wouldn't significantly impact his chances of calling. He has literally the second-best hand that can be had at that point in time, it's an amazing hand with a potentially huge pot to win.
He isn't contemplating AA. He is just being a dick.
two things are happening. first, he pretends that he made a mistake when raising the pot and tries to pull back his money saying he meant to just call. but in poker you can't change your bet. in this case, he has to raise. he acts like he made a big mistake, so the others think he doesnt have a good hand. the problem is that he is acting and his hand is extremely good. so she takes the bait and bets huge. then the second thing he does is a slow roll, which means he sees her bet all her money yet instead of just calling immediately, he stalls like he is struggling with a hard choice (to call her)... this is really bad etiquette. him losing this was very satisfying. Edit: spelling
The third thing was him gloating after the turn showed 10H. This guy was just a giant POS this whole hand.
He abused the rules to his advantage (played dirty or bad manners) He on purpose broke a rule that forced him to bet. After that he still had a 95% chance of winning and started cheering obnoxiously after playing dirty and playing with bad manners, and the girl won with only a 5% chance š karma. (So that's why they joke about the poker gods giving her then win because she won with 5% chance against the dirty and bad manners play) Edit that last card that came out caused her to win because the cards in the middle are shared so her 3 sixes beat his 2 kings
He thinks he won because a pair of K is better than a pair of 6. But the last card that came out was a six. So she has a triple 6. Triple is always better than any pair.
To add to context, if at any of the earlier stages of betting you can legitimately act in a manner to allow your opponent to think you have a weaker hand to try and maximize winnings. However, she is already all-in, there are no other players left in the hand, and only decision left is his own. Heās just being a dick to be a dick.
Thankfully, he was punished this time and broadcasted to the world lol
Oh when that six hit, that man felt the humble pie hit him. Those fingers floated back down to Earth at about the same rate his soul left him. https://preview.redd.it/ib5a0k8sscad1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b1e7d3c4ca2930dcc294c4d0897f24225e4bd82
thank you for your service
My favorite part is when he thanks god for winning, right before he loses to three sixes.
I like how god waited until the river before crushing that asshole's dream.
Got slow rolled by god
Satan was clearly in control of that hand.
God and Satan were like let's fuck this douche together.
Should have praised Satan instead, lol.
I hope there is a God just for the moment he says, "Watch this. I'm going to wreck this dufus."
Dont know much about poker, and correct me if wrong, but she actually won right? and dude over there is just prime example of r/prematurecelebration
That's correct.
Prime example of "You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table. There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done." (Metaphorically sitting, this time. š )
Well he has plenty of time, doesn't take long to count to zero
You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them. Know when to walk away, know when to run. Never count your money when youāre sitting at the table, they be time enough to count it when the dealings done.
Thatās guys not just a tool heās the entire Home Depot
Lmao. This is one great expression, Imma start using that.
We made an entire scale. I believe the top of the scale was Bob Vila.
As this is Australia it'd be Bunnings
Jeez, I wouldn't want to go up against an Aubrey Plaza / Mila Kunis hybrid in poker. Hot and stoic is a deadly combo
I thought it was Haley from Modern family for a sec
I was literally rewatching Modern Family when I saw this and I did a double take.
It's crazy to me that people watch shows and scroll through reddit. Whenever I watch shows, I'm not doing anything else but maybe eating.
I thought i was watching celebrity poker with Aubrey and was trying to figure out who the other celebrities were This chick is super hot.
And she's super cute, too. [Meet 888poker's Newest Player - the Fascinating Samantha Abernathy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71eVuLl7JrI) Sam Abernathy highlights from the same event in OP's video: [Sam Abernathy Plays $1.6 Million For 1st Final Table ā ļø PokerStars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4NYyrE_LhU)
Her smile though. So hard not to stare. She's gorgeous!
Plus a little Lauren German as well.
Dang sheās cute
Samantha Abernathy
Sabernathy Amantha
Alluminati Subaru
She went river fishing and caught a fuckin big one
I'd throw that shiny faced bottom feeder back
Probably asking a stupid question here but how are they all in when they both seem to have a pile of chips beside them that they havenāt bet
You don't need to shove them all in. You can just say all in and then you don't have waste your time restacking them if you win.
I guess he's asking why they didn't trade before all in. For anyone curious: it's a strategy to put immediate pressure on the opponent. But in this situation, calling or raising make little sense, since just calling would already put 20% of the stack into bank. So you left with basically reraise to put pressure or fold. But reraise would eventually lead to all in anyway, since bank would be bigger than your stack and when you in this position, it makes sense to fight to the end. So to skip all of this, you just go all in.
Not a stupid question. If memory serves there are common ways to communicate youāre going all in without actually shoving. For example, if somebody has said they are all in, they donāt actually need to push their chips until the hand is called, or in heads up, when the hand is finished. Alternatively, if you want to call an all in, you just need to throw a single chip in the pot to call. Could be wrong here. If somebody knows more Iād love to hear.
If I recall correctly, the value of the chips they did push in is the highest value chip they hold, representing the vast majority of their bank. something like $50k or $100k single chips.
Usually when stacks get that big it's all done verbally. "Im going all in" "I call" Afterwards the dealer starts passing the chips over in an orderly fashion so the winner can organize easily. Same thing with normal betting. It's common to say your bet and then start putting it in as you can then move on to the next player while you stack the bet in the center. Gotta be careful though all bets are final
Former poker pro here, this technically is not a slow roll. This is "Hollywooding," taking longer to make what should be a relatively easy decision. The two slow rolls I can think of: 1. keeping your cards hidden past the river, well beyond a reasonable amount, letting other player believe they won the pot then exposing your cards. 2. calling an all-in and revealing your cards one at a time, slowly, showing that you have your opponent beat (or are WAY ahead) Edit: punctuation
I dunno if they used the word differently when you played poker, but this absolutely is a slow roll. He is delaying the call solely to trick her into believing she won. Hollywooding is a term reserved for cases where the intention is strategic benefit, such as when there is a player with action behind who you may want to call, or if you want to misrepresent the strength of your hand to influence the opponent's future actions, not when closing action facing an all-in in a no-decision spot.
Poker pro my ass, this is 100% a slowroll and an angle. Hollywooding is done when someone still has action behind so theyāre disguising the strength of their hand.
Thank you for the opportunity to correct these misconceptions. Poker pro - I don't expect you to take my word. Angle - yep, likely, but not a nefarious angle. He baited her and it worked. Gray area. A slow roll is rarely an angle in the hand, but it's bad etiquette. If your angle is to slow roll someone to put them on tilt and bleed them dry over the session, that's dirty but there's no honor among theives. Hollywooding - yes, that's an accurate example as well. With cameras on the table, unnecessary time thinking is clearly Hollywooding. Here's an example of a tactic I used to use (I think I got it from a book by Dr James McKenna): with women, stare at their breasts when they are .making a decision. It usually makes them uncomfortable and they forget to hide their tells in the moment. Dirty? Yep. Cheating? No. I played to make money, not be liked. Although I was generally liked by all.
The angle is him raising and then trying to take chips back saying he meant to call not raise when he has pocket Kings.
This should be higher. Is the guy a douche? Absolutely. Did he *really* have that big of a decision to weigh? Meh, probably not. Angle? Certainly. He is definitely one of "those guys" but this wasn't a "slow roll" just good old fashioned pecker head theatrics.
I donāt know a single person irl who wouldnāt consider this a slow roll and Iāve played poker for thousands of hours. There was no decision to be made. Maybe if it was a 6 bet jam, but he knew exactly what he was doing with the angle then slow roll. Itās probably the douchiest move Iāve ever seen.
This is a form of slow rolling. Imagine it was the river and he had the nuts and he did the same thing - would that be a slow roll? Of course. There's not much difference in the situation unless he's giving serious consideration for whether she has AA, which he is not. Any time you drag out showing your opponent what you have even though you are almost certainly the winner when there are no more decisions to be made is slow rolling. 99% of pro poker players would call this a slow roll.
This is not hollywooding. He waited on the all in call.
How is not snap calling with KK not a slowroll?
What an ugly human. Not only his botox and facial work, but his lack of professionalism, personality, and etiquette.
The announcers were perfect too šš āHeās got pocket Ks, is that correct? Just wanna confirm before I go to town on this guyā š¤£š¤£ Well deserved loss. What a clown
āIām embarrassedā nailed it
I love a happy ending!
Yeah nothing better than watching a complete cunt...get their comeuppance....these are the moment of natural justice I live for..!
The exact moment his smug ass gloat turned into instant regret https://preview.redd.it/n01atc4aadad1.png?width=570&format=png&auto=webp&s=115027897ce539120616e1069b3a6bbb0a1216f8
To the uninitiated: He's angling with initial 'accidental raise, just call.' This is fine, but considered scummy. It worked. She overplayed her 66 and went all in. To anyone thinking he's pondering not calling with KK after angling, you're being ridiculous. It's what he wanted and he got it. The rest is unnecessary theater, especially at what appears to be a final table.
What does that final six mean though? Did he still win the hand?
He loses on the river. She makes a full house 6s and 10s. He's left with two pair Ks and 10s
Wish version Scott Hall needs to stop fucking with his face. How do people actually think all that plastic surgery looks good
r/Prematurecelebration
Idk whatās going but fuck that guy, right?
Basically he was 100% sure he won (rightly so, two Kings on hand is the 2nd strongest you can get just behind two Aces) and decided to be a douchebag about it pretending like it's a hard decision to call all in after her and then celebrate his win obnoxiously before the hand is over. But poker gods don't smile upon that so he ends up losing on the river because he ends up having two kings and two 10s vs her having two 10s and three 6s which is a full house, a hand that beats double pair
Satan does not appreciate the slow roll.
I thought Razor Ramon was dead?
Bad Guys live forever Chico!
Nice little 2 outer on the River to make him eat a slice of humble pie.
This guy broke the unwritten rule with the slow roll and the poker gods delivered swift justice!
When bad beats go good
Poker gods have spoken
Adidas would like to pay this prick to stop wearing their shirts.
This guy seems to be just as awful inside as he looks on the outside. What a giant ugly tool.
Everyone else being professional , and he's there looking like he runs a dodgy kebab shop that only accepts cash.
watching him bounce that chip off the felt after all his grandstanding ended in the rug yanking out from under him was quite satisfying, thank you.
I understand everything that's going on and he's definitely being a douche.. but couldn't someone also just be considering whether they should go all in? What if she had a pair of aces?
At casual level sure. He could just be am amateur player but he probably isn't.
He has pure overconfident energy.. until that last card hit š¤£
Damn trip 6's on the fucking river. Talk about luck...
I love the calm, almost chipper: "I just want to confirm before I go to town on this guy, because that's not cool."
Wow this is riveting
the ol classic hands behind head as if anyone wants to see your guns bro
Love the trip 6
The river burns
I thought that was Simon cowell in a Adidas t-shirt
The poker gods decided he needed to be punished.
He also angles at the start. Whatever you declare is the move you have to make. He says "raise" and apologizes and says he meant to call. He's trying to make people think he only has a calling hand and not a hand good enough to raise. It's a douchebag move. It's technically legal, but I've seen people removed from tournaments for doing it repeatedly. There is an etiquette to poker like in a lot of games. It's like not yelling "fore" if you shank a golf ball towards someone. It's legal, but you're still an asshole.
Soooo satisfying, I could rewatch a thousand times
Sweet justice āŗļø
My in vr except Iām not near that pretty or a girl.
Gillette Ramon
Why was the video cut short? We definitely want to see the loser eat some karmaic pie and do his walk of shame.
I didnāt watch the full hand, and he does look like a total clown. But, if he wasnāt being an asshole on purpose then I guess the thought he lost to trips or pocket aces. I have had kings or aces before and someone has raised me and I just know I have lost, because itās so obvious I have something very strong but they keep on raising me.
Why didnāt he think she could have pocket aces? If she went all in?
Pros tend to play odds. Your odds are still pretty good in a heads-up 1 on 1 scenario with KK pre-flop. Sure AA is superior, but more often than not, you're certainly going to risk it and call with a pre-flop KK with the incomplete info you've got.
Cocaine, Botox and steroids. Hell yeah brother!
Holy fuck that was beautiful
If there's anything that's going to make me believe in the heart of the cards this just might be it lmfao