Author Topic: nuts on the river  (Read 22763 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 #45 on: December 15, 2010, 04:11:32 PM »
Hello to all,
 I have been looking at some of the older posts and I thought that I would add to the hottest one ever....nuts on the river. We have covered many scenarios on this one. The exclusive nuts where there is only one winner possible, and the nuts that can be held by multiple players or even on the board. There have been many reasons given to defend penalizing a player for checking the nuts. I would like to add one that might give reason to not penalize a player.
 I will give an example using the following board in a hold'em tournament...2H 3H 4H 9D KD, the "exclusive nut hand could be any of the following, 5H 6H ("nut straight flush") or AH 5H (also the "nut straight flush") and even AH 6H, this hand is known by the owner only because he has the highest flush, with the straight flush stopper. The AH and 6H are sometimes referred to as "a lock," in this case, it happens to be the exclusive nut hand. I only mentioned this to show that sometimes the nuts are not as obvious as we think.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 05:59:56 AM by Nick C »

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2010, 05:57:05 PM »
I will give an example using the following board in a hold'em tournament...2H 3H 4H 9D KD, the "exclusive nut hand could be any of the following, 5H 6H ("nut straight flush") or AH 5H (also the "nut straight flush") and even AH 6H, this hand is known by the owner only because he has the highest flush, with the straight flush stopper. The AH and 6H are sometimes refered to as "a lock," in this case, it happens to be the exclusive nut hand. I only mentioned this to show that sometimes the nuts are not as obvious as we think.

Anyone who holds the hands that you've mentioned, is last to act on the river, and does not bet when checked to or does not raise when another player bets, is either lacking intelligence, or is careless in that he has not formed a conclusion of the hand that he holds, or is soft-playing.

Penalizing a player who does this for any of these three reasons should encourage him to make a better effort to understand his holdings, to play more aggressively, and to deter him and others from doing the same thing in the future.

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 #47 on: December 16, 2010, 03:41:50 AM »
DCJ001,
 I know what a nut hand is. I also know that the best players in the world have misred poker hands at a glance, and that includes their own. The last time I played poker, I didn't necessarily request to be seated with the players having the highest IQ's. I mentioned the hands above to point out that some hands might be overlooked. Any two cards could be the "nuts," with the right board.
 I agree that they may be lacking intelligence, or are careless, or might even be playing soft......or they might have just overlooked their hand. Should we also point out how stupid they were for not betting? I remember dealing to some of the locals in Vegas years ago. All they did was ridicule and embarass new players. They would make smart remarks when a player would out-draw them, or chase them down with a bad hand. "How could you play that garbage, where did you learn how to play poker?" "How could you check that hand," you had the nuts!" So the player would pick up his chips, and go to another casino. Everyone knows Phil Ivey missed a flush that he was holding that cost him the pot in a major tournament. Is it possible, that a player could not realize that they have a nut hand? That's why I don't like the penalty.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 09:12:43 AM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2010, 04:20:22 AM »
NickC,

After reading through this entire thread in one sitting, I find that I agree with you up to a point.  It is possible to overlook a particular "nut" hand in some situations.  I am willing to bet we have all done it.  However, I think that the issue of soft play is pretty clear here (in tournaments - most of the time players tolerate/allow certain types of soft play in cash games that could be argued against).  It is simply up to the TD to look at each situation to determine that soft play was a factor and how much of a penalty, starting with a warning, should be given.

I do think that the best thing to have happen is to explain WHY a particular situation is soft play when you have to rule on it.  The fact that every player has equity in a tournament is an important one to understand.  And unless you have nothing but a room full of professional players your are always going to have people that don't understand that and could find themselves in this fairly rare situation.

Someone else said it earlier in the thread, "I don't remember the last time I had a hand like that" lol...

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 #49 on: December 19, 2010, 06:06:16 AM »
Jasper Too,

 Good to hear from you. I agree with you when you talk of soft play. That is very serious and offenders should be penalized. I like what you say about every player having equity in a tournament. Whenever we are ready to begin a tournament, I like to make a brief announcement to go over some very basic rules, like; "Please pay attention to a few basic rules, one player to a hand, don't bet or act out of turn and protect your own hand." I guess telling someone that.... checking the nuts on the river will draw a penalty, is something I've never mentioned.
 Until it is a written rule, I think that a warning, along with an announcement to all players in the tournament, should prevent it from happening again. Repeat offenders should be penalized.
 I have been teaching poker dealers for many years and I always tell them about games with forced bets. Example;  SEVEN CARD STUD- the only forced bet in the game is the bring-in. FLOP GAMES- require the blinds...now I shall tell them that if they ever have the "nuts on the river" that they MUST bet when last to act, or raise when last to act, or face a penalty. Make it a rule and I'll deal with it.
 Jasper, I think you said it right..."It is simply up to the TD to look at each situation to determine that (or if) soft play was a factor and how much of a penalty, starting with a warning (I like this part), should be given."
 I also like what you said about not all players in tournaments are professionals. Wow...you're not kidding. I'm always amazed at some players and how little they know about poker. That is a real good point that you bring up. Nothing like penalizing a new player for checking the nuts, when he just learned that a flush beats a straight!
 By the way, I was the one that said, "I don't remember the last time I had a hand like that."

Thanks for your feedback
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 09:14:28 AM by Nick C »

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: nuts on the river
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2011, 11:40:11 PM »
Wow I am super late adding into this topic(I found it on the forum stats) but I just wanted to add one quick thing

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

I must say I'm with Nick on this one,

Myself being made to enforce soft play in the case where last person to act has the nuts and merely checks is outrageous.

As detailed in my previous thread, if I want to check the river and see my opponents cards then I will, that will make me more in the tourney than betting and forcing them to fold their holding.

Stu
I definately think a penalty is in order. Checking to get information on an opponent will NOT get you more chips than making a bet on the river. Chances are you are not getting a caller anyway but that chance for more chips should drive you to bet. The player you are checking against may still get to muck his hand at the showdown depending on how many players are in the hand. Showdown order is so rarely followed that you may only get to see you opponents hand if you two are heads up. If that is the case then as a TD it looks even more like soft play and collusion to me. Checking to see an opponents cards is a poor excuse to not penalize a player for soft play. Over  the entirety of the tounament there is so little equity in seeing one hand compared to the equity in any chip value whatsoever.