Last to act with nuts must bet?

[Dave Miller]

Last night at my poker league, the 'rule' where you're required to bet/raise if you're the last to act and holding the nuts got discussed.

I pointed out that even pros hate this rule and that I wasn't even sure it was still an active rule. I also pointed out that it's a bad rule because sometimes, rookie players don't realize they're holding the nuts - which led to a discussion about the nuts.

So it left me with a few questions.

Is this / was this ever a TDA rule? If not, where did it come from? Is it still a rule?

[Uniden32]

As far as I am aware, there was never a specific rule that addressed this.

It could be covered under Rule 64/66 regarding soft play.

Personally, I credit this so called rule to house rules that players talked about to give it urban myth status.

[GreggPath]

Yeah, I have never heard of anything like that. I can see how it applies to soft play, but I've never heard of a rule that penalizes what could be soft play (the player may not realize he has the nuts).

[Nick C]

There are several discussions on the forum this is just one: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1085.0

[MikeB]

General TDA language is stern regarding soft play. The question is whether not betting with the absolute nuts is always soft play. The Association has never reached super-majority conclusion on this at prior Summits; it will likely be re-visited in 2017. One reason against hard-wiring a penalty for not betting the exclusive nuts is that the bettor may be convinced his opponent will fold to a bet and he'd like a chance to see the hand. Otherwise a player may simply not realize he has the nuts, it is possible. 

But the general language that soft play will be penalized is unmistakable, but in this instance left to the TD. Personally I take non-aggressive action with the exclusive nuts to be soft and thus would tend to penalize it unless there's a compelling reason not to. After all the tournament environment is competitive by nature and soft-play effects all participants.

[Dave Miller]

Nick -

Yeah, I guess I should have done a search first. Oops.

But now that Mike also responded....


Yeah, when talking about it in my league, I've said that the desire to see the opponents hand, with the likelihood that they'll just fold to a bet, is why pros are against it.

Not knowing you have the nuts is another reason the rule is bad, and why I started that other thread.

Thanks.

[mooredog]

In our room we usually warn the offending player in a small buy in tourney with a lot of inexperienced players but in bigger buy in tourneys we penalize the player one hand. One hand isn't much of a penalty unless there's antes or you're in one of the blinds but a lot of the time the player doesn't realize they have the nuts. Now if it happens again and we know the offender is protecting a friend then we would make the penalty more severe.

[Nick C]

moooredog: Makes sense to me.

[Dave Miller]

... the player doesn't realize they have the nuts...

Precisely the point of my other thread on this topic.

[Nick C]

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=460.0