last to act with nuts

[W0lfster]

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

[Nick C]

It's my understanding that if there is no one behind you, you must raise.

[Stuart Murray]

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

[Brian Vickers]

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.

[barts185]

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.

[Stuart Murray]

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

[Nick C]

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.

[barts185]

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

[Stuart Murray]

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

[Pepper_W]

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.

[chet]

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

[Nick C]

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

[Pepper_W]

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.

[DCJ001]

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.

[Nick C]

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.