Regarding Charles calling and possibly not being good, I don't think there is any way that Garrett would have said "good call" with a hand that is better than AK. I wish I had broken that down seeing the comments here and there are definitely situations where someone might call with a hand that might not beat some bluffs, hoping their opponent would muck. Even if Garrett had A3s here, which would seem the most logical to possibly call turn and bluff the river, he's going to say "just a pair of threes" not "good call" in my opinion. Then again Charles doesn't know that, with I know acknowledge. Lastly I don't really think Charles did much of anything wrong here, especially if he isn't familiar with the high stakes etiquette. I was more interested into exploring why Garrett might have been frustrated by the whole situation. --Bart
While I agree you expect when a player says you win in that situation with AK you are good a bunch. However there's so much on that board that wins. Plus Charles hand is seriously under repped. Not to mention with Garrett's big over bet he may be thinking a Q is the minimal Charles could have here. I realize there's a significant difference in tiny stacks versus massive stacks but there's been a lot of times I thought there's no way my A,K, or Q high is good here and it was in pots worth 100's. Garrett could easily turned 2's, or 7's into a bluff on that flush completing river and thought if he gotten called there's no way he doesn't have at least a Q or better pocket pair.
I posted this and tweeted this to you... Ive played high stakes up to 100/200 ... Garrett's up 1.8M at Hustler but continuously tries to find more edge vs recs. Its not like this isn't going to be made available to Charles later... once Charles says "you show.. I show" it should've ended things. Garrett doesnt need to add "just tell me if you want to see my hand" since Charles clearly said he did. He's calling with AK high... what if he called with J high and Garrett won with an ace. I'm guessing Charles would've been more inclined to show first if he had a semi decent hand
@@thaThRONe agree with you 100%. If my opponent calls a $20k oversized river bet and I had the fourth or fifth pair, let alone AK, I would think he was good also. Thus even with Garrett's declaration he was good, I would squirm a little too if I was Charles. The AK absolutely absolves him of any poor conduct. He truly had doubts he was good. What if he made a hero call with A8 thinking any ace was good? Would Garrett's announcement of "good call" be binding? Just show your cards if the guy won't flip and you don't want to muck. After seeing that AK you gotta be an idiot to not understand why the guy was hesitant.
Hey Bart I only write the comment because I'm a regular viewer so I want to offer up the possible other view. I understand you're a pro poker player so certain etiquette are almost built into you. But consider this Charles player. It's possible he has only been to the US for less than 1 year. It's possible he only speaks casual English. It's possible he has only been playing poker for months, like Wesley. It's possible he doesn't even know the etiquettes for ordering room service in US hotel because it's so different from China. So why is he expected to understand subtleties of etiquette after a "good call". It's just two words that are not binding. The whole point of "etiquette" is about being nice. Well, what's the "etiquette" for treating a rec player that made a big call? I get that emotional reactions can happen in real time but now it's after the fact, I think it's not that hard to understand the POV from Charles.
@@Carlito1980 I agree 100%. Garrett is pro that's up millions playing with rich foreign recs. Certainly rich for him to lecture and criticize others for "etiquette". All Charles meant by "you.. I show" is "either we both show, or we both don't show". It's the simplest idea of equality. None of that matters I guess, when the magical words "you're good" is uttered. Somehow those words are simultaneously not legally binding and elevates the speaker to unassailable status.
The man paid $20,000 to see if his A high was good. I get there are certain “norms” that people do at the poker table, but to make the guy who’s following the rules of the game look like a jerk isn’t right. Also, that “recreational” player is playing nose bleed stakes with some of the best high stakes players in the world. Knowing that garret floated him on that turn with A9o and then overbet the pot on river isn’t completely irrelevant info. I would want ever peice of info I was entitled to from my opponents if I were playing those stakes. Sorry if it’s “discourteous” but that one pot was more then the average Americans yearly income.
Yeah as a small stakes recreational player, I find this confusing. If I'm paying off a 1.5 pot sized bet to bluff catch with A-high, I thought part of what I'm getting is the satisfaction of seeing their hand (?) I get that it might not be super relevant in terms of strategy as far as exactly what kind of air they had. But, I must be misinformed, because I thought as the caller on the river that was one of the perks.
All he had to say is sure, and Garrett would have immediately turned it over. That why Garrett asked if he wanted to see instead of just mucking it immediately
I could see how you think that but once you understand how Garrett plays he will never show a hand he doesn't have to for information purposes, he always asks 2-3 times if they really wanna see the hand when he says good call. He's one of the best for a reason
For sure. If you’re not showing your losing hand and mucking, the winner does not have to show. If you want to see the winners hand, better table your own!!
Wrong, that's the way the game is played. Your new 1/2 player and you are a losing player that's why you do not understand. Eventually you might get it.
I think it was just some confusion from Charles, he had no idea he had the winning hand. He asked if Garrett wanted to show and was OK with him saying no, it's hard to follow the rule if you have no idea if you're the winner or loser.
I think if Charles had a bigger hand this wouldn't happen. But since Charles only had ace high he wanted to make sure Garrett mucks before he mucked as well.
The etiquette is to fastroll a recreational player when they say "you're good" is because you don't want them to feel embarrassed for making them show their bluff. A professional, however, knows there's no shame in bluffing, and I'd argue they are breaking the etiquette by pulling that move instead of just showing or mucking. I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we fastroll a rec after hearing the "you're good" and end up having the worse hand. That's painful enough, but it's the cost of doing business. But now we're opening up the door for the recreational to feel that same pain at the hands of a professional and the biggest winner in the game? For the same reason that we fastroll to begin with, Garrett should just turn his hand over, and certainly shouldn't berate the guy for showing in turn.
The awkwardness of this whole situation could have been avoided if Charles had better tact and replied to G-man saying "you're good" by saying "maybe, I don't know dude, I called you pretty light". I've literally been in Charles' exact situation before and have used this line when the bluffing villain refuses to muck but also refuses to table his hand. It puts the ball back on the court of the villain to either show or muck.
I have to disagree a bit. I played many years stakes up to 200/400 in vegas and europe. I saw quite alot of regs don't follow this etiquette. Definitely more than 10%. Thus if somebody doesn't follow this, there is in my mind no point of discussing it or asking "you want to see my hand". This is just slowing the game down and hence, bad etiquette.
You played with miserable people who do not really know how poker is played. This is a game of people and a gentlemen game. You most likely played with brainwashed sheep's.
I've been In this spot before where guy says nice call and I show either ace high or low pair and then guy shows 3rd pair and says sorry thought you had the Q. So I don't think Charles is wrong here. Small pairs are often turned into bluffs in theory , more so on the turn as a sdv bluff. If we don't see the cards I think Charles did the right thing. Doesn't want to give free info away and doesn't want gman to show his hand either. If gman said ace high or king high then Charles would show but Charles doesn't know what gman is bluffing with.
Few shows ago gman and Andy got into similar spot where it was AQ vs AT I believe and they didn't want to show at first and just said ace high then it's like what ace high? These things happen. Not a big deal
I 99% agree, but I think in this exact spot Garrett knows he didn't get called with less than A9. I think if Garrett has a low pair or even AK he just flips it over
Garrett knew his hand was the loser, that's why he said what he said. If he had a pair, he's not going to say "good call", he would have tabled it. Listen to Bart again, he explains it fairly well. Garrett is a good enough player that he knew no one was going to hero call with less than A9, even if it's a bluff catcher. Charles may not have been as experienced with this high stakes etiquette, which is why Garrett asked if he wanted him to table his hand.
lost some respect for one of the best poker analysts around (amazing content, ty!). but holding G-Man sacrosanct, with his teflon-swiss-coastal-elitist-politician appearance is almost like bending over for him. insane. let the guy play in some tougher line-ups and see how smooth he'll stay, instead of berating whale-recs when they bluff-call luck once in a while. that shows the true character.
Lost respect for Garrett. Lost respect for Bart for not understanding a very basic RULE and the reasons WHY the rule exists. Poker is war. There is NO responsibility of anyone to follow some stupid 'unwritten rule' in order to make it even easier for the pros.
So tired of Garrett getting this treatment like he can do whatever he wants and that this is his game. For chrissakes, just show your hand or muck. Don't chide Charles for making a good call, and saying to him "well ill see your hand later." Garrett is totally in the wrong here.
Garrett being a gentleman in this. Where's the Charles was a gentleman in this? Charles outplayed and outgentleman garrett in all this. Garrett was using an ungentleman tone, while Charles was calm in his responses. Charles was the real and true gentleman in this play.
Garrett doesn't get to be immune from the rules just because he's Garrett. He's totally in the wrong, and frankly this comes close to an angle. He's trying to get to see his opponents cards without having to show himself!
What the f are you talking about? There is a silent rule that you don’t force to see the losing hand. He was just asking if the guy is going to make him show or not. That is why he clarifies for morons, just say yes or no. Now there is also a silent rule to show your winning hand when somebody says you are good. You just show yours and take it. Now garret is saying that if you don’t want to show i will make you show the hand by showing mine, that is it.
@Art Kirakosyan We get it, the silent rule, Garrett so special, it's high stakes, blah blah blah. Charles doesn't want him to show his hand because he could have 22 or some A3 that he turned into a bluff. So Charles would rather he quickly mucks. But the fact Garrett wants to be able to muck, AND see his opponents cards (even though Garrett by rules is supposed to show) is having his cake and eating it too.
Best part about this whole thread is many months ago Vertucci was explaining ‘poker etiquette’ to Wesley about not making opponent show a losing hand. VERY NEXT NIGHT Vertucci was in a pot with his nemesis Luda Chris and at showdown Vertucci says ‘I WANT TO SEE THAT HAND’ after Luda MUCKED A LOSING HAND.
That’s because there was a thing during the hand. Too long to explain. But I’d never do that otherwise. From your view I see why you think that as it would be accurate.
@@nickvertucci6222 But why NOT do it Nick? Why not wait for them to show when you make a speculative call? I really don't understand this particular etiquette. Knowing your top competitors bluffing range is +EV. Refusing to show your hand (or muck), when you know you've lost, so you can see your opponents cards, seems more like the angle here. There's real money value in knowing your opponents cards, every bit of information gives you an edge. Why are players willingly giving up that information when they don't have to? And I'll tell you what, If I've made a great read, I want to know it.
Garrett is a gentleman without any doubt, but I see a bias towards G here. What’s the big deal to turn your bluff up? If you reckon you are a professional poker player, and you want to speed up the game, just turn your hands straight away.
A gentleman wouldn't try and angle for information he's not entitled to. Just muck your hand or show. What is the point in saying "you win" and not mucking your hand? Also a gentleman wouldn't get so salty when he gets caught bluffing or loses a pot.
Garrett did nothing wrong. I think the other guy just didn't understand the usual unspoken agreement, and didn't quite understand what Garrett was asking or why. Seemed he was used to waiting his turn to show. The winning hand has to show anyway. The "gentlemen's agreement' is usually that the hand informed it is the (likely) winner shows, and unless they were bluff catching super light that's it. There is no need for pros to embarrass each other by exposing how bad a bluff is, which is why the agreement exists. Last thing you want if you are a pro is to embarrass a fish and he leaves because of it.
I think there is an aspect of the hand that is missing from your analysis. It's the fact that Charles only had Ace high, and he wasn't trying to force Garrett to show his hand to gain information; rather like Garrett, Charles did not want to show his hand unless he had to. Charles let Garrett know that, but Garrett did not extend any courtesy to Charles by mucking so that Charles didn't have to show, and instead revealed his cards (that he was confident were not good) for no reason other than to force Charles to show his hand. If Charles had a Q or even 99 or some kind of made hand, I suspect that Charles probably would have followed "proper etiquette" and turned his cards up right away. I'm not disagreeing that it's normally good etiquette to turn over a winner when your opponent says "good call" or "I missed", but there are circumstances when it's perfectly fine to wait for your opponent to show or much. As you mentioned, one circumstance is when your opponent has a history of slow rolling. I'd suggest that a very light call is another.
The awkwardness of this whole situation could have been avoided if Charles had better tact and replied to G-man saying "you're good" by saying "maybe, I don't know dude, I called you pretty light". I've literally been in Charles' exact situation before and have used this line when the bluffing villain refuses to muck but also refuses to table his hand. It puts the ball back on the court of the villain to either show or muck.
@@jeremymorley5670 The awkwardness of this whole situation could have been avoided if... Garret mucked or showed. If he doesn't want to show, then just muck. If he doesn't mind showing, then show. Either way, stop wasting time and stop behaving a passive aggressive baby. Charles can EASILY have a hand like A4s here. He could have EASILY made the same hero call with a slightly worse ace high. Or even a king high. Out of all possible etiquette, why is it expect for him to turn over a potentially worse hand when Garret is bluffing with hands as good as ace + medium kicker?
"You're good" or "good call" is something ya say running a 9 high bluff. Garrett should have said "ace high" because clearly he thought he still had a chance to win with it.
Have you ever had an opponent turn up a hand and then realize he made a mistake? Or done it yourself? Garrett was just protecting his hand until he saw he was beat.
On a side note here's where I disagree with Bart. You can't have it both ways. If information isn't that important than why are players so hesitant to show their bluffs? If you are technically expected to show 1st and the info isn't a big deal then that player should flip his cards the min he's called.
Agree 100%. Aggressive pros can use this to their advantage by mucking their bluffs and getting to see what the guy called down with. Either both players should show or both players muck. Anything else is an angle by the bluffer to get info they’re not entitled to
He's saying the information a PRO gains from making a REC show their hand isnt that big of a deal, and is why a pro will just flip their hand when a rec says you're good
@@SoulfightPoker OK but if that's the case Garrett should have shown his hand the second he's called. Garrett didn't want to give away information which is why he did what he did. He wanted to see what called him without showing what he bluffed with.
Of course you’re right. These poker guys are bust out degenerate gamblers. Maybe a couple make decent money. But a lot them sell off huge parts of their action. They want every angle they can gain.
This has been discussed before, on this channel as well. And I always stick with muck or show. I will always wait for the other person to show. And if they don't show, I will not show either. I agree with those that say that there is huge bias in Garret's favor in similar cases. There are two specific points in Bart's analysis that I disagree with. 1. I don't think that what Garret meant with "I will see yours anyway" is that he thought he would see it later on replay. I think that he meant specifically right there and then, in next 5 seconds. I'd be interested if someone asked Garret what he meant. But I think it's pretty obvious. You can see in the video that Charles went to not show the hand and Garret objected to that. So he definitely WANTED to see the hand. 1a. Why did he want to see the hand that much, if it's true that "etiquette" at high level says you don't need to see the hand? 2. I disagree that there is no info to be gained from seeing the hand. After all, see point 1 and 1a, why did Garret want to see the hand? Definitely there is a big difference if Garret raised UTG, called turn and bluffed river with A9o or 74o.
11:14 the but I love it... all he had to do was show or muck (i am high stakes so f the rules) good call you win the new rule. I am going to see your hand. and out come the g man kneepads. who cares what his cards are who cares how the bets went. "I call" show or muck. and if the caller wants to see the hand...to bad you wanted to muck, I never feel bad for the person who now must show there hand. nobody made you bet so grow a pair and muck or show and if you forced to show. go play hopscotch. "you want to see my hand". This is just slowing the game down and hence, bad etiquette. nope nope just follow the rules and the game does not slow down at all. MOney talks BS walks so keep your mouth shout and play the game.
@@Pzychotix What do you mean? The way I understand it in this casino you don't have to show to win the pot. If you DO have to show to win the hand, then for sure Charles didn't know about this rule, because you can see that he was intending to not show and take the pot. Just to summarize this point: 1. Bart said that this casino does not have the show to win rule and that Garret meant he would see the hand in replay. 2. I claim that from available info it seems that they don't have show to win rule and that Garret wanted to see his hand right there, as can be seen from the fact that Charles goes to not show the hand and Garret then changes his mind and turns over his own hand. If Garret did think that he was going to see the hand right there, then one of the following things would have to be true: 1. Either they do use show to win rule and Charles & Bart (commentator) and plenty of other people claiming it don't know about it 2. There is no such rule and Garret & Nick (commentator) and a few other people are incorrect about it existing. Whether the rule exists or not completely changes the entire situation.
I've seen Garrett get annoyed with Wes in a similar situation. Garrett physically was mocking him after they both checked the river. Garrett started moving his hand up and down saying "check check check". He lost that hand too. I think Garrett has to take the good with the bad. If he's going to rake in 6 figures from rec players then he has to expect laspses in etiquette.
Garrett isn't the goat that people would like him to be. He is a pretty annoying player, especially during pivotal moments when he pressures players by asking them for stack-counts.
This wasn’t even an etiquette thing. The guy called very light and legitimately wasn’t 100% confident “you’re good” guaranteed his AK high as good. When someone turns a weak pair into a bluff and gets a huge overbet called they very commonly say “you’re good” because they assume they got called by at least a top pair kind of hand. If Garrett would say “just a 3” as Bart says, then he should have said “Ace high”. People in these games call with King high, heck, we’ve seen J high call.
I'm glad you commented on this because I was going to address this exact point. While I understand your thoughts, I will say that I've seen Garrett in other spots bluff with 1 pair and say "you're good". Yes I understand they're different spots but even pros can be wrong a small percentage of the time. With your logic we would have to make large assumptions on Garretts ability to read EVERY situation as 100% accurate which isn't the case. Imagine Charles had K high? Seems ridiculous but we really don't know or we shouldn't make that assumption that its not possible. Which brings me to my other point, which is Charles understanding of the situation. Everyone can think differently in poker. His understanding can likey not be the same as Garretts, and in this moment he is likey not capable of knowing without a doubt his A high. If you think about it, this about as light as you can call here. So again, we can't assume everyone is going to think the same as us, he probably is genuinely worried about having a losing hand. Unless I see more damning evidence like Charles doing this in the same spot while holding a nutted hand, I think its only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. I do understand the poker etiquette in showing and agree obviously until someone slow rolls you. I try to just show my hand quickly to keep the game going. I may play differently vs recreational plays though vs pros. I think there is more gained than you say though, as I think Garrett believes the same, otherwise he would just show instantly and move to the next hand. He tries not to show because he understands the value in the table seeing his cards.
First time I've disagreed with you Bart. Either fold or show. How often have we bluff caught someone who was bluffing with bottom pair or a better A high? Ive had people say good call, flipped over my hand, and he says "oh, wait, I have that beat."
I'm really getting tired of these Garret 🍆 riders. He was in the clear wrong, etiquette wise. Everyone is always saying how he doesn't allow his emotions to take over. Well, he was certainly perturbed by the call. And the fact how he said I'll see your hand either way. And then Bart saying it's probably about how he will see it after the Livestream. Well obviously that's true, and also true for the other dude here.
100% agree. he has all the edge in the world, makes millions in this soft sandbox and gets annoyed when getting bluffcaught. then his super-reflected, valley-girl-i-love-edm switzerland persona crumbles.
If Charles had a hand better than A high then he should be flipping it over after garret said you are good. But in this case, theres no way he can know if A high is 100% the best hand after Garrett said you are good. Garrett made it more awkward than it should be.
not to mention that by showing your hands first, it kinda encourages other players to bluff more willingly. this is the same mentality behind garrett always insisting on running it once - because he doesn't want others to loosely shove all in, hoping to run multiple times
I totally understand the confusion on the other player! Why didn't Garrett just muck his hand? Because he wanted to see his opponent's hand and not show his bluff. He was using etiquette as a quasi angle, you guys always give the G-man the benefit of the doubt?
So according to this "etiquette" rule, you have to show your hand after calling the river bet and let your opponent muck his bluff to ease his 'shame'? Because that's an unfair information advantage, as your opponent sees your hand while you don't see his. Since when is playing a game by the rules bad etiquette? Etiquette is not an excuse to bend the rules to gain an advantage.
Regardless of stakes or who you are playing against, if YOU are the final caller in the hand and they say “good call”, make them show their hand first. This intel is huge to see what the person was bluffing with and it’s completely legal. They can muck their hand if they want and you will muck after. This is not a poker etiquette situation either.
I don't get how you say that when these people who DO play these stakes are all saying that it is an etiquette issue primarily rather than a rules issue.
@@Oatriumph it’s not an etiquette issue… If someone jams all in on me OTR and I hero call with a bottom pair or high card, I’m not going to show my hand until my opponent shows. I’m the one paying for information. If he has me beat, he shows and I muck. Information is critical at any stake - this should not be considered bad etiquette.
It is literally an etiquette issue. We are arguing in circles. You are right about the rules. You are right about the strategy, although Bart at least implies that you really don't glean that much info as you might think in this scenario. What "should" be etiquette is a different question, but whatever.
Charles called. The last aggressor shows their hand first. Period. Any information is an advantage in poker. That's the etiquette. If Garrett didn't want to show his hand then he should have mucked. He didn't want to show because he didn't want to give any information to the table. A player can say "you're good" then you show and you're still beat or slow rolled. In that case just simply don't show your hand until the last aggressor shows.
Here's the issue w/ Bart's take. Imagine -- and I've seen this happen to other players before -- Garrett is bluffing with the best hand, is called, says "good call" and demands to see the better hand. Charles turns over a worse hand. "Oh!" Garret exclaims, "I've got that beat!" and turns over the winner. Now, Garrett just tricked Charles into showing a hand that he didn't have to show. I know, of course, that this was not Garrett's intent, but if I were Charles in this hypothetical situation, I'd be livid.
Well said, David. That’s why Charles was hesitant in showing his hand and didn’t want to see Garrett’s hand because Charles’ hand isn’t that strong. Since Garrett verbally forfeited/surrendered his hand without mucking his hand, Charles should’ve said, well if you said “good call, YOU WIN,” then muck your hand Garrett. I can’t blame Charles for not speaking English well. This is another example of commentators glorifying Garrett. Garrett could do no wrong in the commentators eyes. They claim Garrett to be the best cash game player in poker. There’s no such thing as the best player in poker. Glorifying anyone creates a fan base for such person.
@@lakerfan1855 True. These are the type of players who plunk down $5k to play in WSOP tournaments and, unlike recs, make the final table. Except, in the $5k Event 29 of the 2004 WSOP, at the final table, with a first place prize of something like $360k at stake, a player bluffed with king high and was called by a player with queen high. "Nice call," the player said, turned over K8 for king high, and was stunned to learn he had won. Can you imagine if he refused to show until his opponent showed his QT?
Very interesting that this “unwritten etiquette” only benefits the bluffer, not the caller. What happens if someone says “you’re good” and you table your hand and they actually have a better hand? Does “poker etiquette” require that the person saying “you’re good” give you the pot regardless?
I agree with this - it does seem to only benefit the bluffer. This proposed reasons for this etiquette seem strange to me. If it's in the interest of speeding up the game, as is often suggested, why not say "good call" and table your hand, or say "good call" and muck?
I've been playing for years, and I wasn't aware of this courtesy. If I call on a difficult river, I just paid to see the other guys cards, and I want to see them. However, I don't play high stakes either.
@@montezuma6962 You nailed it. It's the Nick Vertucci rule and his majesty Garett. This shit honestly makes my blood boil. Also, how Nick handled a situation with Wesley in a spot where he wanted to see Wes cards when he said "you're good" was the first time I had animosity towards the show. And now you have Bart going full defense of Nick on the matter. This really enrages me to a point where I would die irl arguing over it. Nick also is very categorical in his sayings on the matter and calling anyone else that disagree with him a troll or shit like "if you like being wrong, keep thinking this way". As much as I enjoy this show, because it's a great show, stuff like this really leaves me with a bad taste to the point I can no longer even watch a stream where Nick is playing.
Lmao. I live in Australia and every single person I've played with knows this. Even in $1/1 home games. It's fine if you don't know the convention, but pretending that it's made up by Garrett and Nick is amazingly hilarious.
@@matthewwestcott9138 No, but etiquette and ruling are 2 separated things. Nick presents it as a "must do" and Garett acts like a "princess" because the other player won't oblige. Garrett is the one slowing the game and no one else here. He's a reg crushing poker and he should be above this and the moment Charles show any form of reluctance of showing first, Garrett should have shown his hand immediately. In that sense, it's their fucking own ruling, move on you are slowing the game down. "I want to see it either way", "just say it you want to see my hand". Charles dosen't care about Garrett hand, but if Garrett wants to see Charles hand, he just have to press resume on the game which he's the one currently pausing. The rules are clear.
@@oinkaments Nick was referring to a convention. He literally didn't say it was a rule. Making someone show who is clearly emotional they've lost is poor form. It seemed to me (and I don't know much about Charles) that there might have been a language barrier. I don't think it seems like he was trying to be a dick. But Garrett not only turned over his hand, he also congratulated him. People don't have to like Garrett, but he's genuinely one of the nicest poker players out there. The moment he does anything even slightly wrong people love to blow it up. It's absurd, frankly.
The reason Garrett says "Imma see yours either way" is because he's NOT going to fold until Charles shows, whether he has to table his hand or not. He'd prefer NOT to show his hand because thats Poker Etiquette 101 after Garrett says "You're good". Bart sometimes I wonder how illogical you can be sometimes.
The whole point of the controversy is, etiquette 101 is just what a bunch of people believes. There used to be whole books of etiquette on forks and hats. What people are saying is, maybe etiquette doesn't need to be respected just because "it's always been this way".
@@charlesli1555 agreed. Idgaf about etiquette in showdown situations. I want to see what the other person is doing for the info. If hes leading or calling me down i want to know after it all. That info is so valuable and im not letting etiquette keep me from getting info that could possibly save me or cost me money later.
@@davepalex This is not HIGH STAKES etiquette, this is etiquette for some people in a specific part of the world. You have all these HIGH STAKES player coming here inadvertently offending a bunch of stupid babies because they don't play with this etiquette even at much higher stakes elsewhere. There used to be a lot of "etiquette" that we don't follow anymore because they make no sense. This is one of them. Where's the etiquette to the caller? What if the caller is embarrassed he's nitrolling? And he doesn't want to show if you don't want to show? What if the caller called super light like with 10 high in the recent Triton hand and loses to Garrett bluffing with ace high? What if Charles has a slightly worse ace than A8 and loses with his hero call and gets inadvertently slowrolled? If your etiquette ends up causing accidental slowrolls even some of the time, then it's a dumb fucking etiquette. And it goes to show how bad this etiquette when you can't even defend it except to say "this is how we've always done things". Hansen is talking some BS about a rec who barely speaks english extending "professional courtesy" to Garrett. Gtfo
@@facemaskfrank2726 This is how high stakes works AMONGST PROS. PERIOD. Clearly Charles either doesn't know, or doesn't care, and if its the latter, then he's just a dick. In your exact scenario of "What if Charles was calling super light?" (Which of course is a preposterous situation), a NORMAL frequenter of the live streams would say "Oh... MAYBE Im not cuz I called you super light"... THEN Garrett would understandably show. But since this scenario is pretty rare, maintaining this standard of etiquette is completely reasonable and the way it should still be. Just because you play $1/$2 with $60 in quarters doesn't give you a right to change how these players like to do things. But you keep doing you and forcing your opponent to show so you can use the information about a busted draw or complete air to win your next pot against said opponent.
G said you're good or you win, which is not binding, unless G mucks his hand. Charles is not sure where his AK stands, regardless what G said. Why do you expect Charles should show first
Don't you get it. Because those American pros know the "etiquette". And they get to enforce "etiquette" on the recs. I get dealer and floor doesn't know the rules, the biggest pro is the one who enforces the rules.
Bart, we all love G-Man...but it is completely obvious here that he tries to at least get some free information from his opponent after he got caught bluffing, just to gain his edge over these recs..Garrett knows that this info could be worth a huge amount of BB especially during this exact session.
Bunch of BS. You bet then you show first..its just moves the game faster. If you don't want to show your hand then just muck it. All levels should play it by the rules
First and foremost, Garrett got caught bluffing. Once he said good call! Garrett mucks his hand or opens his hand for show down! PERIOD BS that Charles should have opened once Garrett said good call. I would have told Garrett, open your hand or muck your hand.
I like Garrett and totally understand etiquette but the "I'm going to see your hand anyway" makes it sound like Garrett is in charge of the casino with Nick, which is true. Real shock you agree with Nick who's your boss,
It wasn't even more than a second after Charles called the river that Garret already asking if Charles wanted to see his hand. Charles was probably thinking Garrett was bluffing with a much worse hand and Garrett probably thinking Charles was calling with a much stronger hand. And in either case, Garrett was already embarrassed with his bluff there and was taking it out on Charles immediately. Charles did absolutely nothing wrong, not even the so call high stakes etiquette. Garrett asking if Charles wanted to see his hand was out of line, especially in the manner that he was saying it. If Charles turned over a worse hand with a spade, what is Garrett then gonna say. How many rules of high stakes etiquette would Garrett had broken. And nick, way out of line saying that Charles had to show his hand to win the pot. Charles does not have to show his hand, Garrett should have folded his hand when called. You can't say "you call you win", not much, and then be upset.
Common among some "info anglers" is to behave like Garrett when caught bluffing, and when they catch someone bluffing who says "good call" to say "I called you", not turning over their cards, waiting for the bluffer to open, and if he then mucks, the angler gets to win the pot and hide his cards. The short of it is that you should open your cards if you are caught bluffing if you want to see what he called you with. "Info angling", slowing down the game, and hard feelings arise otherwise.
I m a professional poker player and I play poker for a living. I totally dont agree with you. I play poker in Europe. I m in position. It s your turn to act, you want free info with what hands i call in that spot? well i want info with what hands u bluff in that spot. there is no "curtosey" there is just free info and i m not willing to give that.
100% agreed! Garret could just muck without seeing Charles hands. If Garret didnt want to show his hands, he should muck and Charles mucks and money goes to Charles
I completely disagree with Bart here. First of all Charles is a recreational player. Even If you didn’t pick that up from his play you can see that he is from his background. Secondly, regardless if you are a recreational or not Charles still has every right to see Garrett’s hand if Garrett wants to see what Charles has. Letting Garrett not show his hand would be a generous thing to do but by no means is Charles required to show his hand if Garrett doesn’t show first. Furthermore Garrett could be turning small pairs into a bluff which would make this an unintentional gross slow roll spot. On a side note I think that Bart is clearly biased towards Nick and Garrett. Nick runs the game so that makes sense and he also has a friendship with Garrett from playing with /commentating on Garrett over the years. I just feel like if the roles were reversed here Bart wouldn’t make the same case he is now or at least he wouldn’t come out with a video about it. Just saying I’m not sure Bart has ever even made a video that disagrees with Nick or Garrett’s stance on something.
High stakes courtesy? We all know that's bullshit. Charles didn't want to see Garrett's hand. All Garrett had to do was muck(which he didn't) or show his cards.
Does Garrett take 22s or a 3 and turn into a bluff? Probably. Does Garret expect a worse hand to ever call 20K on the river? No. Newer players will stick to the rules, experienced players understand the more subtle nuances of the game. Garrett is not a victim here, he knows this. He’s simply frustrated and out of line in this situation.
I realize there's an etiquette vs rules issue here, but the attitude with which Garrett says "Just say 'yes i wanna see your hand'" is what really annoyed me.
Gman would play pocket fours the same way, how would high stakes courtesy etiquette deal with Gman bluffing with the fours and then saying good call, Charles shows AK and then Gman has to slow roll him... High stakes courtesy is understood, but leaves you open to these things accidentally and that's just not good
Could a pro bluff here w p2's, get called and say, "you're good"? If AK rolls over he will be super mad and feel like he just got angled. Never just say, "you're good"; always give an indication of your hand.
If etiquette and courtesy is so “important” to a poker player. When the other player calls and is waiting on you to show, you can respect that and in turn, either muck your junk, or show . And another thing to point is, some small pair can also be considered a bluff in this spot. It still beats ace high. I’ve also called down big all in pots with ace high , the other person says good call, and they show me bottom pair. So… 🤷🏻🤷🏻🤷🏻🤷🏻 . I dunno, lots of sass in this clip 💁🏻♀️
So if poker etiquette is that the player who started the action says you're good , and so you show your hand, but then they actually have you beat , is it binding when they say "you're good?". I am going to assume its not binding since most of the time these players say you're good but have not yet mucked their hand. It would be really interesting to see a situation like this play out to see if the player who said your good will still muck their winning Ace high.
You didn’t explain this at all, you just said that it’s etiquette but did nothing to justify why it should be etiquette. Every other piece of etiquette can be justified. You did nothing to justify it. I personally am not into following other peoples rules if they can’t be justified. Then you condescend low stakes players (your customers and your bread and butter).
Etiquette - "'Rules' followed by professionals" Rules - "Rules that must be abided by period". Situation where a recreational player who's following rules is berated for following the rules. You get why Poker is a game that puts so many people off from playing?
Thanks for clarifying this. As a low/mid stakes rec player I didn't know about this, at least now I can lose my money courteously when I play the high stakes pros.
Charles did everything 100% right! And let me tell you why: 1) Why is Charles the one who we expect to speed up the game? Why not Garret just muck his hand real quick in order to speed it up? 2) (This might be irrelevant vs a decent pro like Garret, but regardless) By showing first you open yourself up to be slowrolled. 3) Most importantly, some of the time your opponent will have something like pocket 22 and you get unintentionally slow rolled. 4) Even worse, if somehow they have mucked or half way mucked their 22 or AK by the time you show your AK, all the hell gets loose - they start trying to retrieve their hand from the muck, floor person gets called and instead of speeding up the game, you get a half an hour break. Let alone the possibility of losing the pot that technically belongs to you. Charles is the OG in this case. Stop giving sheet to Charles. 😉
The awkwardness of this whole situation could have been avoided if Charles had better tact and replied to G-man saying "you're good" by saying "maybe, I don't know dude, I called you pretty light". I've literally been in Charles' exact situation before and have used this line when the bluffing villain refuses to muck but also refuses to table his hand. It puts the ball back on the court of the villain to either show or muck.
I agree with everything you said especially the unintentional slow roll, even if Garret says you are good its hard to really be sure with AK on that run out. Only thing I disagree with is your OG comment lol that is not used in the right context at all
Yeah you’re right - I tend to have such glitches in my English sometimes. Let me edit it into “he played it like a OG” which at least makes some more linguistic sense and leave it at that ... 😊
@@jeremymorley5670 quit victim blaming. if someone pays to call your bluff, you show the bluff, or muck your hand. don't flip it back around and point fingers at the other guy for not following your ambiguous definition of etiquette. since when does etiquette supersedes the actual rules? he who was the last aggressor, simply shows their cards or mucks. what is so difficult about that to understand?
Bart, thanks for explaining the culture amongst pros and at high stakes. For what it is worth, the majority of us low stake recs hate the 'courtesy' you describe because it is logically inferior to the order in which hands are revealed per the rule. (If you disagree, would you please comment on whether you have ever seen a "you're good" call that turned out to be wrong?)
I play 100/200 in Europe and Vegas, and you get some big whales. Sometimes there are some very educated players, which Charles is in this case which is why he didn't want him to show. I'm tired of Garrett never being criticized when he does something wrong. People in the chat always run to defend him no matter what he does. What's the point of Garrett saying "well I'm gonna see your hand later on?" It's totally unnecessary and kind of poking to tell the guy you made a good call here now, but I'll see what kind of garbage you called me down with later. Just show your hand or muck and move the game along. Garrett doesn't get special treatment because he was on a reality TV show, and is up 2 million dollars, and the chat loves him, and he has his own picture in Hustler Casino. He's a player just like the rest of us and human.
First video I've disliked in a long time. You don't need to be a "recreational" player to know that Garrett and Nick were in the wrong here. Garrett was out of line. He was embarrassed that his bluff didn't work. Garrett has only 2 moves once his bluff was called, 1) turn his hand over immediately or 2) muck his hand immediately. Charles had every right to wait until Garrett performed one of these actions. Waiting for someone who just called you to turn their hand over is poor etiquette. No need for theatrics just turn your hand over or muck it. Justifying Garrett and Nick's boorish behavior deserves a downvote.
Is it just me or everyone is missing the one basic rule? If someone calls your hand, you either show or muck. Saying "good call" is sign, etiquette, in high stake players tables with pros work differently, blah blah...come on, really? Poker is poker and rules are same(should be) in any poker tables around the world. If someone calls your bet, that someone is paying to see your cards and the pot. If you are showing courtesy to other player to just take the pot and not see the cards, you should not be expecting the same from other people. BASIC RULES should be respected and maintained, not altered or changed under some different situations. I have respect for everyone except for people who does not stick to basic rules. I just dont get the people who dont want to show the cards when called but want to see the winning hand. No excuses.
If you don't demand the right to be shown your opponent's hand, how will you ever find out if you are being exploited by him? Can anyone explain this to me?
Fake news. I mean neither of them seem upset in the slightest after the hand is over and Garrett tells him "good call" again. How did Reddit get so worked up about this?
I don't mind how garrett played. Hey, if you want to see your opponent's hand - flip your own hand over. If you say "good call / you're good", then muck your cards! If you're so sure you're no good, then you can muck your hand! By not instantly mucking, you're angling for free information which you would normally only obtain after the fact.
I 100% agree that in a game like this if you don’t wanna show when you’re caught bluffing you shouldn’t have to… however the hero caller shouldn’t be expected to show to win. Muck your hand.what if Garrett had 22?? He probably still would have thought he was beat after his overbet getting called. Then dude would have tabled his AK and then Garrett would have showed winning hand. Now the guy that called was forced to show his hand and it wasn’t even a winner. If you really think the other dude made a good call and you don’t wanna show your hand, that’s fine. Muck it and move on
For the people that are on Garret's side, y'all are bunch of simps. All Garret had to do was show his hand and then the hand is over. Because he made a bluff and got called, was embarrassed, wanted to muck his hand AND he wanted to see his opponents hand (which he could of in an hour...), this whole thing turned into a complicated situation. Charles played the game perfectly and professionally. I can't imagine this even being a thing if the tables were reversed. And Garret said "Muck or show." The commentators would be all about the rules then. If I were Charles and got any heat from the casino or anybody, I wouldn't come back. Why play poker when you get shit on for playing by the rules... This is a competitive game, play by the rules.
Great point. If the table is reversed, then it's Charles fault for "not knowing the rules". It's totally unfair because it's obvious that Charles is not going to start acting aggressive or frustrated because of lapse in Garrett's etiquette. This entire fiasco is like inviting someone from a foreign country for dinner and then berating the person all night on etiquette of forks. F them.
I love how Bart showed the comment of telling Vertucci to stfu just so Bart doesn’t have to say it lool. Idk how it’s hard for ppl to grasp, if you win the hand, show it, its obvious & it’s etiquette. Idc what I have, I will always see your hand.
I don't understand why Garret says I"m gonna see your hand anyways when the same thing is true that Charles and everyone will eventually see Garrets hand, just show it already or muck
What's the point of this etiquette if you don't muck your hand after you say good call? It's not like hes calling with a pair he literally has ace high.
the point seems to be to bully rec players that recently arrived from China for information. "Why do I have to show"? "Sigh, it's the etiquette, don't you know?" eyeroll. "You gotta learn the etiquette". give me a break
@@robclark7380 What misunderstanding? It's obvious that G-man is a "gentleman" and a "class act". And Charles is a ignorant rule breaker and possible angler. No misunderstanding.
@@charlesli1555 Charles isn’t sure he isn’t being slow rolled even if unintentionally, but Garrett is, that’s what caused confusion…Garrett waited to muck which I agree is kinda odd but more just habit…agreed being hard in Charles but u are taking personal and out of context
If G-man ever makes a statement says that when he says "you are good" or something equivalent, he is surrendering his hand no matter what his opponent has, Bart may have a point here. Otherwise, it's BS.
This isn't golf...poker is mental warfare...the whole etiquette thing is getting out of control...Great video and explanation by the way, Bart...well done!!
I disagree. In this instance, Garrett could of been turning a small pocket pair into a bluff (however unlikely), in which case he's good. Therefore it makes sense for the hero not to reveal his hand in the off chance he's beat and doesn't want to reveal information about the hand he called with. As a general rule, I agree with the poker etiquette rule but you could make an exception in this case.
disagree. the "etiquette" is bad. there is nothing unsportsmanlike or rude or berating about wanting to see the hand you called. let alone that there is a thought charles may think he might still lose even if Garrett thinks he lost... you paid for that info. that's part of poker. if its different at high stakes, it shouldn't be.
I think for a pro to know he lost the hand caught bluffing and not mucking the hand and just giving up the pot but rather say "you're good" and wait to see what you were caught with is not fair. If you want to get the information (when I get caught bluffing I instantly show my hand because I want to see what my opponent was bluff catching me with. This is more valuable then giving away what I was bluffing with) then you must provide your side of the equation first! Otherwise, to me, this is sort of dirty play. I have no idea why this "poker etiquette" was developed in the first place.
The man paid for information. If your not gaining that much information Garett wouldn't have an issue showing his hand. This type of information can be critical for future references
The caveat here that has been mentioned is Charles only had nut NO PAIR. Many things beat him. Lucky had a straight. Completely different. Garrett can throw his cards in the muck if he doesn’t want to show.
This particular “etiquette” probably requires some change then. Charles could easily have called with A8 with the ace of spades and then he ends up having the worst hand. That 100% has happened and will happen again (over and over) with this etiquette. I understand it’s usually much more clear and dry but when you’re hero calling with something like ace high, the “etiquette” becomes a disadvantage for the calling player
I was a HS online pro for 14 years and a live one for 3 This is absolutely wrong. If you do this, you are effectively angling your opponent for information and breaking the rules of the game. When you're unwilling to turn your hand over after being called, you are gaining an informational advantage on your opponent. I've seen this happen so often in live HS games and it's totally absurd to assume it's ok to give a "professional courtesy". You're breaking the rules of the game. When it is your turn to turn your hand over, you either turn it over or you muck. You're massively underplaying this advantage versus people you play with regularly. I'll never let another pro get away with this angle on me especially because I follow the rules of the game and always turn my hand over when it's my turn.
