PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: W0lfster on July 26, 2011, 06:06:31 AM
-
Just wondering, Ive heard this rule before but I still am confused as to why you can receive a penalty if you do not bet the nuts when last to act. Can you still be warned/penalised if you check the nuts and everybody else checks on the river?
From what I gather if its checked round and you are lsat to act you have to bet the minimum or more.
What Im unsure of is if there is a bet on the river are you forced to raise or can you just call?
Thanks :)
-
It's my understanding that if there is no one behind you, you must raise.
-
Taken from FIDPA rules:
53-6. In certain situations, a player with the last right of action that “checks” an undisputable winning hand, “the nuts,” will incur a penalty and may be found guilty of soft playing; that may result in “disqualification.”
A similar worded rule also exists on the WSOP ruleset.
Regards
Stuart
-
Has to be the exclusive nuts, at least in our card room... so if you have Broadway and check when last, you could theoretically say "well I put him on the same hand too and knew it would be a chop and didn't want to waste any time." But if you had the nut flush with no board pair or sf possible it is impossible to justify a check when last to act as anything but soft play. I would say a 1-hand penalty would be called for, just so everyone understands the situation. This is an example where soft play can be proven, and proven violations of the rules should have a minimum of a warning applied. Personally, I see a 1-hand penalty as equivalent to a warning.
-
What Im unsure of is if there is a bet on the river are you forced to raise or can you just call?
Thanks :)
First, can someone point out where in the WSOP rules it says this? The only thing I can see are rules 39a and 99 which talk about soft play, but I don't see anything which actually describes soft play. Possibly this falls into the "what other reason than soft play could there be for not raising on the river with the nuts?", to which I would respond "People make mistakes all the time". I've also heard of some ridiculous situations, for example, the board is T,J,Q,K,A (Broadway), with no flush possible, and the last person to act got a penalty for not betting.
Now, on to your question - this is a very specific situation. In order for the penalty to be considered when there is a bet, the player with the nuts must be able to raise without that raise affecting the possible calling action of anyone else.
For example, 3 players on the river, players 1, 2, 3, and act in that order.
Example 1:
Player 1 checks
Player 2 bets
Player 3 (with the nuts) may now call, since they could argue that Player 1 might call if they call, while Player 1 and Player 2 could both fold to a raise.
Example 2:
Player 1 bets
Player 2 calls
Player 3 must now raise since there is no possible loss by putting in a raise.
-
barts, I think you misconstrued the rule slightly it states " a player with the last right of action" That does not mean the last seat in order (for example the button), with regard to the board being broadway I would also cite the wording of the rule: "undisputable winning hand" where broadway exists on the board or for example a four card, four colour broadway draw, you would not hold an undisputable winning hand, you may however well hold an undisputable tying hand.
The aim of any poker tournament is to accrue chips, "I checked because I wished to see his hand" is not a valid argument, and is most certainly an -EV action, and not in the best interests of a tournament.
Regards
Stuart
-
I have to agree with what barts185 is saying in his first example. There is still possible action behind him, with player 1 checking, so I think a call is okay. I also want to point out how important, Brian Vickers reminder, that we are talking about the "exclusive nut hand"
barts185 original post:
Example 1:
Player 1 checks
Player 2 bets
Player 3 (with the nuts) may now call, since they could argue that Player 1 might call if they call, while Player 1 and Player 2 could both fold to a raise.
-
barts, I think you misconstrued the rule slightly it states " a player with the last right of action" That does not mean the last seat in order (for example the button), with regard to the board being broadway I would also cite the wording of the rule: "undisputable winning hand" where broadway exists on the board or for example a four card, four colour broadway draw, you would not hold an undisputable winning hand, you may however well hold an undisputable tying hand.
The aim of any poker tournament is to accrue chips, "I checked because I wished to see his hand" is not a valid argument, and is most certainly an -EV action, and not in the best interests of a tournament.
Regards
Stuart
I guess I need to be clearer.
In the example with Broadway, I was giving an example of how I have seen the rule incorrectly (IMO) applied. Sorry if it came out differently. I would in no way penalize anyone in the hand where the board is Broadway and everyone checks, but I have heard stories where there have been penalties or warnings.
In the examples with the players, I was not using the Broadway board, I was using the example where player 3 had the exclusive nut hand. I tried to make it simple by having just 3 players and having the last player to act also have the exclusive nut hand.
Maybe the following will make it clearer, and I'll also point out that the last right of action changes depending on how the betting goes.
So, for example
Player 1 (has the exclusive nuts) checks - this is perfectly fine.
Player 2 bets
Player 3 calls
Player 1 must now raise.
Another example
Player 1 (has the exclusive nuts) checks - this is perfectly fine.
Player 2 checks
Player 3 bets
Player 1 (still has the exclusive nuts) may now opt to call. For the same reason I had given previously. That is, if they raise, both player 2 and player 3 can fold, while if they call, they can possibly get a call from player 2.
Take Care,
Bart
-
Hi all,
in your example 'player 1' is not defined as the last right of action, as players still have a right of action (player 2) who could change the action once more, once action comes back round to them. The last right of action is better defined by a player who if they call or check will end the betting round and proceed the hand to showdown, only then and only when they had the exclusive nut hand would they be eligible for a penalty.
I sure hear you regarding mis-construed interpretation of the rule, it is definitely something that requires some degree of finesse in interpretation.
Regards
Stuart
-
I had this happen in a tournament I was directing where play was down to 5 players. Player A (the husband) caught trips on the flop against Player B (his wife). He made a minimum bet and she called. He turned a nut Boat and checked, she followed by checking. The River came down a blank. He checked and she also checked. I told them to both turn up their cards at the end of the hand. She was playing 2 pair (on the flop) and his Boat was an obvious nut hand. I wasn't sure what kind of penalty to put against him, but it was so obvious he slow played it because it was his wife and didn't want to take her out.
This is a player who is mature enough in the game that if any of us had been in the hand against him he would have made every attempt to break us.
I called him to the side and told him if I see that again I'll disqualify him from the game immediately. I also made a pretty strong announcement on our website and again before the next game.
I've never had to deal with that one before. What is an appropriate penalty for a move that obvious? Its about a 25-30 player weekly tournament and these players have been playing in our game for 2-3 years. However, I consider that cheating and I'm not pulling punches on them based on how well I know them. If it had been someone else I would have done the same thing. Is a verbal warning an appropriate penalty? It does seem to have worked.
Thanks for any responses.
-
I think you handled the situation just fine. With that few players, you don't want to get almost 10% of your base so upset they go somewhere else, but at the same time you need to let them know in no uncertain terms that such action will not be tolerated. It is unfortunate, but once you are at the final table there is NOTHING you can do to separate spouses, brothers, sisters, etc. You just have to be observant and it appears you were doing your job quite well.
chet
-
Pepper_W,
I agree with Chet. I think you handled it perfectly. When you host tournaments on a regular basis, with the same players (mostly), I think that an announcement before the husbands and wives and best friends sign-on, should be enough. Let them know that you appreciate their participation but, there are rules of etiquette that must be followed. Soft play is right at the top of the list.
Nick
-
Thanks for the input. I've been doing this for a while, but there's always room to improve. This is such a dynamic game.
-
I hope that everyone realizes that this thread is about someone who is last to act with the best possible hand.
If someone is not last to act, maybe he or she is hoping to check-raise. Checking any or all streets, while holding the best possible hand and being not last to act, is a situation in which it would be difficult to ethically be penalized.
-
DCJ001,
I thought that I would hear from you long ago. I'm glad you decided to jump in here. You are correct about the ethical side of the game. I believe the rules of soft play, like a husband and wife raising each other pre-flop and putting the "squeeze " on another player, only to check it down after they are heads-up is what needs to be addressed. If you go back to all of the early discussions on earlier threads on the subject, you will see that I was always against a penalty for checking the nuts in any position. The main reason is, I think wanting to see a players hand is good enough. I understand the rule, and "I can live with it," but I still don't like it.
For the record; I'm all for declaring the pot be split automatically among all active players when the nuts are on the board. I know I'll get some arguments with this one.
-
How about I give you that argument right now. I can tell you there has been a couple of times when broadway is on the board and someone had bet out like they own the place and a player has folded.
We live for those mistakes from players, having the dealer automatically stop the play when the river deals broadway is bad, bad, bad for the game......
-
I see NO positive results from allowing play to continue. I understand how you feel and, I know many others feel that way too. I think it can do more harm than good, having a new player toss his hand away and become so embarassed that they don't come back. I know because I was dealing in a game when that very "move" was made on a new player and, it got so bad afterwards, the guy that bet with the nuts on board, wound-up splitting the pot with the guy a few hands later. I'll grant you, it was a cash game but, I remember how bad I felt for that player, and that was about 12 years ago. By the way, he never did return to that house game. Every now and then, the best players overlook their hands. What I am waiting for, is the players that bet and keep raising each other. Talk about a waste of time.
-
Yes, a bit sad that the player didn't learn something and come back. Tuition is a bitch.
The real point is .... it is not up to the dealer to decide that the hand is over just because the nuts are on the board. It's up to the players.
-
I have to agree with Jasper on this one. Poker is a game in which we profit from the mistakes of other players. Yes, it can be expensive sometimes to learn from your own mistakes. Making a mistake like that can also set the ego back a little bit, but putting a player to the test and placing them in a position of possibly making a mistaken fold is an integral part of the game. I would bet that you couldn't make that move on that particular player again without a call.
Now, I agree that there is no reason for endless raising in the hand. I would even go so far as to say it is a waste of time to do so, but experienced players will see the move and make the call.
In any case, its not the responsibility of the dealer to end a hand they they feel, in their opinion, that there's no point in playing the hand out. Allowing a dealer to make that call is also allowing the dealer to influence the outcome of the game. As a dealer I've bit my tongue while I watched that move happen countless times when the nuts hit the board on the river and the last remaining player makes a move. As a player, I've also called such a bet in a 3-handed pot and watched one player fold allowing us to split the pot 2 ways instead of 3.
I get the feeling in your example the player may not have been reacting to losing the hand to a misguided fold as much as he was reacting to the feedback he received from the other players. Players can be kind of harsh with their feedback at times. Yes, its a hard lesson to learn, but this game is full of hard lessons.
We can all empathize with the rotten feeling the player had at the end of the hand. No doubt the temperature in the room went way up for that player. However, IMO, as long as bluffing remains a part of the game I wouldn't be in favor of a rule that gives a dealer the option to remove a bluff possibility in a hand and change the outcome of the game and provide an unfair advantage to a weak player.
-
by stopping the hand when the board is the nuts you're helping players with their decisions in violation of "one player to a hand."
-
To Jasper, Pepper and DCJ001,
I understand how you feel and I agree that new players need to learn lessons. I always get a "kick" out of all the players that don't want the dealers to do anything,..... except:
make sure the pot is correct before they deal, make sure players don't bet out of turn, make sure that cards are not exposed when dealing, remind players to protect his or her hand, prevent stray discards from fouling a players live hand, and correcting the player that is ready to muck his winning hand........that's okay.
Pepper, How do you see that as a dealer stopping a bluff? It's not a damn carnaval game, it's poker. " Step right up," step right up," ..."Here you go little lady, have I got a seat for you!" " We don't do a damn thing in our cardroom to protect you....so, you better be on your toes." Watch out for the smoke and mirrors and play at your own risk."
Reminds me of a game I played in years ago. If you were lucky enough to survive the action at the table, you had a fifty-fifty chance of making it to your car with your wallet. Nice friendly poker game. :)
-
Nick: I think you are totally wrong, with one possible exception. That would be if it was obvious that the player was being taken advantage of in some way. Perhaps that player was unable to see the board because of a disability. In that or a similar case I could see the dealer having a responsibility to ensure each player knows what the board is. Otherwise, no, the dealer should NOT take any action.
I would NOT support the dealer doing anything with an inexperienced player, that is just part of the learning experience and as is said, "You gots to pay your dues"
That is how I see it anyway.
Chet
-
Chet,
At the showdown, the dealer has a responsibility to stop any error that is about to be made. That includes reading every hand that is properly tabled, even if the owner of the hand thinks he has a loser. That is not what the rule should be directed at.
FOR DCJ001-The dealer is excluded from "one player to a hand" in this case, and any time he is doing his job.
Chet,
Where in the heck are we getting all these disabled people from? Poker is not a game for a blind man (without assistance) or any other disability, that would compromise their chance to win. That is what the new TDA rule #6 is for.
-
Nick, I understand your point, but the dealer is not there to influence the outcome of a hand or the outcome of the game. If a dealer is deliberately influencing the outcome of the game in any way, as a player, I'd have serious questions as to why they were involved in protecting a particular player from making a mistake in folding or calling. I'd also be cash out and go down the street to play.
So, do dealers only do this for novice players they know? Do they protect players who are regulars to the game? Do they offer this service to players who are the best tippers? Any rule that would allow this level of subjective influence from a dealer holds the potential to change the fundamental concept of the game. We make our profits from other players making mistakes. However, we typically lose money when a player is working as a team with the dealer.
Any dealer in one of my games who makes the decision to stop the action at any point because the nuts are showing on the board, or even announces this to the table, will find themselves looking for another game to deal.
-
Pepper_W,
Wow!..Relax, I was only making a suggestion on a subject that I have thought about from time to time. I've never enforced such a rule, because, it isn't one. Let the players bet and raise all they want with the nut straight on the board. That's fine.
I will however, disagree with you when you accuse a dealer of taking sides because he reads the hands of players at the showdown. Are you telling me that you don't want the dealer to read your hand at the showdown? I've got news for you, if any dealer failed to correct any mistake, from any player that properly tabled their hand, I would have a nice talk with him or her, and it might result in some time off.
There are dealers that do things right, and there are dealers that can't seem to get it right. I'm talking about a good dealer that knows what to do in all situations, and one of the functions of a good dealer is to read all hands that are tabled at the showdown, whether you like the idea or not.
I also question what you are referring to when you said: "We make our profits from other players making mistakes." I hope you mean that they make a bad decison by folding the best hand when you bluff. Other than that, the best hand should win the pot.
-
Nick:
You are just plain and simple wrong. If a player wants to fold his hand when the "nut hand" is on the board, (see reply #15) I do not believe the dealer has ANY responsibility or even RIGHT to prevent that hand from being folded. I agree that it is an expensive lesson, but it is a lesson that has to be learned and this is the way it is.
You can rule otherwise in any room you are running, but I would not allow a dealer in any room I am running to do so, PERIOD and end of discussion on my part.
Chet
-
That is exactly my point Nick. If there are 3 left in the hand and the nut straight hits the board on the river. If one player raises, the second calls and the third makes the mistake of folding, they split the pot 2 ways instead of three. I'd call that a bluff. You are putting a player in the position of making a mistake. If the dealer gets in the middle and stops the action they have changed the outcome of the hand, if not the game.
We can agree to disagree. That's all the input I have on the subject too.
-
Chet and Pepper,
Why don't you read what I just wrote. Forget the "nuts on the board." I told you I have never made a ruling like that. The bigger issue is what you are suggesting. Betting in that situation is a bluff? No, it's not a bluff. It's an atempt to take advantage of other players and is not in the best interest of the game.
I will repeat what I wrote on my last post that you both missed. I've never enforced such a rule, because, it isn't one. Let the players bet and raise all they want with the nut straight on the board. That's fine.
I will however, disagree with you when you accuse a dealer of taking sides because he reads the hands of players at the showdown. If either of you would like to debate what a dealer should or should not do, at the showdown, I'm ready.
-
Nick: I am not talking about the showdown, that is a totally different situation. I am referring to the situation in reply #15, which in which the dealer stops the action because the NUTS are on the board.
At the showdown, the dealer has a responsibility to accurately reach (correction, should say "read") EACH AND EVERY TABLED HAND. That said, I do not think it is the dealers responsibility to stop a player from folding IF THE HAND HAS NOT BEEN TABLED.
Chet
-
Great suggestion Nick. I'd be happy to discuss the responsibilities of the dealer. Not from an argumentative point of view, but I'm always willing to discuss something like that and maybe learn something along the way. However, I think that's a general enough topic that we should start a new thread. I'd also be curious what other points of view are regarding the responsibilities of the dealer.
-
Nick. You are confused.
No one has said anything about not reading tabled hands at showdown.
You also said that you would not stop the action because the nuts are on the board because there's no rule that says to do it. But you have said in other threads that you disagree with some rules, suggesting that you may not enforce them.
And when you say that when the nuts are on board and players bet and raise, causing a player to fold, is not in the best interests of the game, your confusion is further illustrated. I won't waste my time writing a logical explanation because I doubt that it would make a difference to you.
When no one agrees with you, there's a good chance that you are wrong.
-
DCJ001,
Do you have any opinion that is original? Or do you do everything by the book? I'm not confused about this subject. I'm confused at your interest at targeting every comment that I make on this forum. When you have something of importance to contribute, I'll listen....bye ;D