Author Topic: nuts on the river  (Read 22768 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2010, 01:31:46 PM »
If you care to debate a non-existing rule, I am more than happy to continue. Can you be more specific on the numerous accounts of players checking the nuts in the WSOP? I will repeat myself again, I understand where you would consider it collusion, I just don't know of a rule that clearly defines "checking the nuts," when last to act. Make it a rule. I won't object.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2010, 07:18:25 PM »
Nick:

I agree that it would be nice if each and every possible situation could be covered by a written rule, but we both know from years of experience that it would not be practical.  What MIGHT help would be a better definition of "soft play", but I can see where that may also open a can of worms.  

What everyone is saying is that if a player has the absolute NUT hand and is last to act, that player must either bet or raise.  A check or call is considered 'soft play'.  But remember this ONLY applies if the subject player is the last to act.  For example, if subject player has two players in front of him/her who have already checked and two players behind him who have yet to act, subject player can also check (should he/she so desire) since there is the possibility of a bet behind him.  If, however, a player behind subject player then bets, subject player then must "check-raise".

Hope this helps instead of mucking this up more!
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 07:06:03 PM by chet »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2010, 06:25:34 PM »
Chet,
 It's good to hear from you. I'm surprised it took you this long to respond. I want to know why I haven't gotten an answer on a question that I mentioned earlier. Is the minimum bet acceptable? Early round with blinds 5/10. Can the same player, holding the nuts after making a large bet on a previous round, then make a minimum wager? Example; After the turn bet 1000 chips, after the river (and last to act after everyone checks) bets 10 chips..........or are we going to tell them what they have to bet, too.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2010, 07:16:43 PM »
Several years ago, I saw an article from somewhere (A LOT of help I am) that discussed either a rule or an interpretation of slow play for this exact situation.  If I remember correctly, it was discussing new rules or new interpretations that would apply to the WSOP that was soon forthcoming.  I have looked and looked and looked, I remember printing it off the 'net, but for the life of me I cannot find it.

While I think we have, for the most part, sufficient rules, I do think some kind of addendum or appendix which gave non-inclusive examples would be helpful.  For example, I would like to see 2 or 3 (different) examples of situations that arise which fall under the generally accepted definition of soft play, this being one of them.

I realize that interpretations may differ from place to place, but one of the reasons for the TDA, as I understand it, is to promote consistency in rule interpretation, at least as much as is allowed by gaming regulatory agencies.  Perhaps this can be addressed at the next TDA Summit.

Chet

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2010, 11:51:50 AM »
Chet,
 It's good to hear from you. I'm surprised it took you this long to respond. I want to know why I haven't gotten an answer on a question that I mentioned earlier. Is the minimum bet acceptable? Early round with blinds 5/10. Can the same player, holding the nuts after making a large bet on a previous round, then make a minimum wager? Example; After the turn bet 1000 chips, after the river (and last to act after everyone checks) bets 10 chips..........or are we going to tell them what they have to bet, too.
The minimum bet is acceptable.

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2010, 04:44:13 AM »
in response to your question regarding betting the minimum when last to act holding the exclusive nuts, if we are to accept that players must bet, I would surmise that betting the min in this situation would be just as soft a play as checking the nuts on the end.

In a pot of, for example 2,800 I would feel that the player should be betting substantial proportion of that pot and not 100 where the blinds are 50/100.

Best Regards
Stuart
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2010, 06:48:31 AM »
Stuart,

 Thank you for your response. That is exactly what I have been trying to get across. If you read my earlier posts on this subject, I indicated that, beyond a warning, I see no way to enforce such a rule. The rule would have to put a percentage or an amount or some other foolish demand on any player that checked the nuts, (intentionally or unintentionally). I would like to go to the local casino and intentionally check the exclusive nut hand on the last betting round, just to see what happens. I can't remember the last time I had a hand like that.

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2010, 12:52:45 PM »
in response to your question regarding betting the minimum when last to act holding the exclusive nuts, if we are to accept that players must bet, I would surmise that betting the min in this situation would be just as soft a play as checking the nuts on the end.

In a pot of, for example 2,800 I would feel that the player should be betting substantial proportion of that pot and not 100 where the blinds are 50/100.

Best Regards
Stuart
But, by suggesting that a player should be betting a substantial proportion of the pot and not 100 where the blinds are 50/100, in a pot of, for example, 2,800, you're leaving room for judgment as to whether or not the action constitutes soft play and whether or not to penalize a player.

If, after the river is dealt, the first person to act (who is holding the nut flush on an unpaired board) checks, in the hopes that someone will bet so that he can check-raise, his action is fine and within the rules. Similarly, the last person to act (who is holding the nut flush on an unpaired board) after being checked to, can bet the minimum in the hopes that someone will check-raise his apparently weak bet.

This concept is really not as complex as some are making it out to be.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2010, 08:46:43 AM »
DCJ001,
 Great point that you make on betting the minimum. Another valid reason why we can't put a required % on what should be bet. You mentioned a player holding the nut hand when last to act after everyone checked, but that argument is valid in any position. After a topic that I thought would bring little discussion (turned into the hottest in the history of the Discussion Forum), where are we?

 1.) You must bet the exclusive nut hand on the last betting round when first to act.

 2.) You must bet the exclusive nut hand on the last betting round if it is checked to you, especially when last to act.
 
 3.) If you must bet, you must wager a specific percentage of the pot.

 4.) You may wager any amount (allowed), even the minimum.

 5.) You may check any time you want. Even when holding the exclusive nut hand.

If a must bet rule is established, because violation is considered soft play, what penalty should be enfofced? What is your vote? I like #5.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 02:08:28 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2010, 10:04:42 AM »
This topic is also the subject of a specific thread on a recent Darvin Moon WSOP hand here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=228.0
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 11:14:48 AM by MikeB »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2010, 02:45:48 PM »
DCJ001,
 Great point that you make on betting the minimum. Another valid reason why we can't put a required % on what should be bet. You mentioned a player holding the nut hand when last to act after everyone checked, but that argument is valid in any position. After a topic that I thought would bring little discussion (turned into the hottest in the history of the Discussion Forum), where are we?

 1.) You must bet the exclusive nut hand on the last betting round when first to act.  (NO, Unless you are facing a bet, in which case you MUST Raise, you can check as long as there are players to act after you!!)

 2.) You must bet the exclusive nut hand on the last betting round if it is checked to you, especially when last to act. (YES and NO,  Unless you are the last to act the answer is NO.  If you are the last to act the answer is YES)
 
 3.) If you must bet, you must wager a specific percentage of the pot.  (NO, see #4 below)

 4.) You may wager any amount (allowed), even the minimum. (YES)

 5.) You may check any time you want. Even when holding the exclusive nut hand.  (See #2 above)

If a must bet rule is established, because violation is considered soft play, what penalty should be enfofced? What is your vote? I like #5.  Penalty to be applied depends upon the specific facts in the situation.  It makes a HUGE difference if the player is new and doesn't have any knowledge, compared to a very experienced player who knows or should know about this.  I don't think you can make a 'one size fits all' penalty to this (as is true for most situations, regardless of the rule in question).


« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 02:48:06 PM by chet »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2010, 03:56:56 PM »
Chet,

 Now we're getting somewhere. I like the way you have clarified the rule. Let me see if I have it right.

 Whenever a player is HOLDING THE EXCLUSIVE NUT HAND, on the last round of betting, the following rules will apply:

    1) The player may check in any position other than last to act.
 
    2) When last to act, and the round is checked, the player holding the "exclusive nut hand" MUST make a wager, (even the minimum).

    3) When last to act facing a bet, the player holding the "exclusive nut hand" MUST raise if all other players have acted.

    4) There will be a penalty issued to the offending player. However, the experience of the player and deliberate intent of the player will always be considered whenever a penalty is assessed.

I might not agree with all of the rules but, if they are written like this, I would accept it as a clearly defined and fair rule.

Thanks Chet. I think we need more of this.

Tim Zellers

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2010, 11:20:27 AM »
So if I understand correctly what many of you are saying, when acting as a player instead of the TD, I would be penalized for (a) checking the nuts if I'm last to act or (b) simply calling if there was a bet to me.  Basically you're telling me that when I know I have the best hand, I'm not allowed to gather information on how my opponents have played their cards in a certain hand?  You're telling me that I'm not allowed to know that they tried to bluff me with 7-2 off, that they were willing to leak chips away chasing their draw to the river, or that they actually had a hand and then got rivered? 

So you're saying that I'm not allowed to use all my mental resources when competing.  You're saying that when I have the nuts, I've got to discard one of my strategies that will help me win the entire tournament, not just this particular hand?  I've got to bet or raise, possibly causing my opponent(s) to fold and thereby denying me the opportunity to gather more information and insight into their game strategy?

I've enforced soft play before and it was always because there were other actions taken or circumstances occurring that led me to believe that a particular action constituted soft play.  Minus other contributing circumstances and events, I would be hard pressed to ever penalize a player for soft play for simply checking the nuts.  I would always contend that the singular act of checking the nuts is not in itself soft play, but is indeed a valid competitive strategy of the game.  I think that you need some other facts or circumstances to be able to contend that soft play is involved.

Tim


chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2010, 09:33:19 PM »
Tim:

What you need to remember is we are ONLY talking about those extremely few situations where you have the absolute NUT hand and the action is on you at the last round of betting.  Basically what is being said is that you cannot check or call, you must bet or raise.

Also there is a difference between the "best hand" and the absolute nuts.  This whole discussion applies ONLY to the absolute nut hand.

I would be interested in the thoughts of those of you with more experience than I as to the frequency of this happening.

Hope this helps!!

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #44 on: October 26, 2010, 07:12:05 AM »
Hi Chet,
It has happened three times in my experience.
Once when the players pointed it out - there was quite a debate as you can imagine; once when I was involved and I gave a warning because the player was not only totally unaware he had the nuts but he didn't know the rule existed and once when I saw it happen but no one picked it up.
The major problem seems to be that so few people are aware this is against the rules that a debate/dispute arises along the lines of this thread. Indeed, it was only after the first time that I saw this happen that I checked it out and was, therefore, prepared when I saw it happen in play I was involved with.
Best,
« Last Edit: October 26, 2010, 07:13:26 AM by MaxH »
Max