Samuel Touil takes brutal angle shot at Matt Glantz at $10k Dealers Choice

https://www.pokernews.com/tours/wsop...ips.165414.htm

The article is a bit inaccurate, but Matt Glantz clarified for me, so read the cliffs below.

Cliffs: In a NL hand, Touil raised to 4200, Matt Glantz 3 bet to 11k, and Touil grabbed all of his remaining chips (54k), closed fisted in 2 hands, and started moving them forward toward the bet sitting in front of him. Glantz said that he "did a full motion across his cards, and arms fully extended in a circular motion", out front. His fists touched the felt, but the chips did not.

Matt jumped the gun a bit and believed that was Touil going all in, said out loud, "I call", and tabled his AK.

Turned out Touil only had AJ, saw he was likely going to lose, and then said he never actually went all-in.

A ruling was requested from the floor, and surprisingly they ruled on Touil's favor, because apparently the WSOP rule states that the chips aren't considered bet unless they leave your hand!

Glantz protested, but everything stood. They got the chips in anyway on the flop, and Touil rivered Glantz to double up.


Just in case you think Touil perhaps did this accidentally, read this report about him from Phil Galfond in 2016, where Phil called him out as both a scammer and routine angle-shooter.

Galfond did report a few months ago that Touil did eventually pay him back, after being called out.

Regardless of the rules, tournament directors have the ability to, at their discretion, disqualify players or make rulings at their own interpretation as to what's best for the game.

Clearly Touil was angling here, and it should have been forced as an all-in.

Furthermore, he should have been warned that he would be disqualified and banned from the WSOP if any further angle shots were reported against him.

Also, the ruling that he had to "just call" the 11k (and not go all-in) is odd. Because if they ruled it wasn't an all-in, then he should have had the option to either fold for just the 4200, or take another action of his choice. Sounds like the "had to call, but not all-in" ruling was just a weird middle ground which was incorrect. But honestly it should have been ruled an all-in.

Here is a pic of Sam Touil:

https://pnimg.net/w/articles-attachm...20e65ae55a.jpg

Hopefully you have permission to post that picture. I'd hate to see any frivolous copyright infringement lawsuits happening.

How did the guy go all in on the flop if he was behind? Makes no sense, you said that glantz got rivered. Never mind clicked link and read more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz3sBRy_K6s

Shit like this is why I always take my time ask "your all in?" in mtts unless "all in" has already been stated. This move or moves like it, have been done many times. Poker is war, and when you are going to war you need to know all of the rules. Yes it was a dirty angle, but this Sam obviously knew the rules better than Glantz did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SetofKs

Shit like this is why I always take my time ask "your all in?" in mtts unless "all in" has already been stated. This move or moves like it, have been done many times. Poker is war, and when you are going to war you need to know all of the rules. Yes it was a dirty angle, but this Sam obviously knew the rules better than Glantz did.

---

In most casinos, what Sam did is illegal and is constituted an all-in, but I believe in Vegas casinos that as long as you don't let go of your chips and pull them back, forward motion is a legal (and scummy) move.

I've seen Matusow do it before, hand example here starting at 4:09:
https://youtu.be/LPxYGQs28mg?list=PL...E41641E0&t=250

I believe this particular angleshot was one of Puggy Pearson's favorites.

the 4 thread on this one is a shit show of shit shows.


No one's linked that video of Mouth making the same move in '05 yet (as far as i can see).

re: Puggy Pearson

Stuey Ungar hated Puggy the most out of all the people he played against in the 70's and 80's.

He said that he hated puggy so much, any time he played against him it was fucking war. that he just wanted to slap the grin off his face. One time, they got it in, AA vs KK pre and stuey had the Kings and Puggy just laughed at him like he was some genius, when in reality the hands played themselves.

Puggy was also a terrible tipper. And just generally an asshole to the people inside the HS poker room.

It happens in this hand too....again, totally legal in Vegas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq8agSKov40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz3sBRy_K6s

This is from a while ago, but all the information doesn't seem right. I think Glantz had KK. They ruled that there was 23K in the pot with 40K behind. Touill moved allin on the flop knowing he was way behind, on the semibluff hoping Glanz would fold thinking he had to be beaten. Glantz then got rivered.

Presumably the floor has the discretion not to go by the letter of the rules when there is a clear angle shot, and the angle shooter could be penalized.

In the other video, Matusow was just looking for a reaction. Touil tried to make it look like he had called to get Glanz to turn his cards over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by betgo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz3sBRy_K6s

This is from a while ago, but all the information doesn't seem right. I think Glantz had KK. They ruled that there was 23K in the pot with 40K behind. Touill moved allin on the flop knowing he was way behind, on the semibluff hoping Glanz would fold thinking he had to be beaten. Glantz then got rivered.

Presumably the floor has the discretion not to go by the letter of the rules when there is a clear angle shot, and the angle shooter could be penalized.

In the other video, Matusow was just looking for a reaction. Touil tried to make it look like he had called to get Glanz to turn his cards over.

---

This is the hand that Druff was talking about in OP...