Soft play rule/just calling with the nuts

[Nick C]

Ken,

 I hope you know that I do agree with most of your suggestions. My frustration comes mainly from the time that we spend on trivial incidents, when we have more serious issues that we put on the back-burner.

 When I worked poker rooms, on a regular basis, I recall soft-play being defined only when it was quite obvious that multiple player's would raise and re-raise each other, and as soon as one or more player's folded from the obvious squeeze, the remaining player's suddenly checked to the river. Now that's what I call soft play.

 Perhaps there are those that are looking for more examples on how, and when to show their hands when a player is all-in? Yes...it's a joke!

[RiverVadas]

Thanks guys, I do understand your guys' position on this subject. I just think that, since everyone assumes it is specifically stated in the rules, that it might as well be written in. A situation may arise where a player gets penalized, wants to see it in the rulebook and the TD is going to show him the rule on soft play. If that player legitimately did not understand the strength of his hand he is going to argue that he was not soft playing. It would be so much easier to have the rule specifically state this. That way the player has no argument.
 Also, there are so many other situations where soft play is not penalized, to pick the one that requires players to know how strong their hand is, is, in my opinion a fundamental mistake for the game of poker
As you can tell, I just really don't like the idea of essentially forcing a player to understand the strength of their hand. 

[Tristan]

Good points RiverVadas.