Check Nuts = Penalty

[C00T]

if you weren't involved in the hand you cannot ask to see another players cards...wtf?

I should have said any player involved in the hand. You are 100% right.

The Showdown

1. A player must show all cards in the hand faceup on the table to win any part of the pot.
2. Cards speak, meaning regardless of what a player declares he has in his hand, he only has the hand denoted by his cards.
3. The dealer reads all hands, and declares the winning hand.
4. Players are responsible for holding onto their cards until the winner is declared.
5. Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard a winning hand is unethical, and may result in forfeiture of the pot.
6. Any player, dealer or floorman who sees an incorrect amount of chips put into the pot, or an error about to be made in awarding a pot, has an ethical obligation to point out the error.
7. All losing hands will be killed by the dealer before a pot is awarded.
8. Any player who mucks her winning hand before the dealer has declared the hand as the winner forfeits the pot to the next best live hand.
9. Although it is within the rules for any player who has been dealt in to request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked, it is considered extremely poor etiquette, and insulting, to do so.
10. If a player shows cards to another player during or after a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. This is known as "show one, show all."
11. The player who made the final aggressive action on the final betting round must open his hand first at showdown. This means the player who called on the river can wait for the player who bet on the river to show his hand first.
12. If all players check on the final betting round, the players must open their hands in order of table position. The player closest to the left of the dealer must open first.
13. It is considered a grave breach of etiquette for a player to withhold showing a clearly winning hand at showdown until her opponents have shown first. This is known as slow-rolling. Regardless of position, a player holding the best possible hand is expected to show her cards immediately as the showdown begins.

 

[Hordling]

That's the first time I learned about that rule. Until that show, I had never heard of it before.

 

[nc_royals]

only reason i knew this rule existed is b/c of wathing the wsop and darvin...lame rule imo

How can this be a lame rule. i dont want to be in a tournament where one player in position turns over his nut Ace high flush without betting it.... while his buddy turns over the king high flush and gets off with a minimum loss.

Rule makes 100% sense.

 

[PattyR]

notice i said lame rule IMO...to each his own dude...i felt bad for darvin b/c he had no idea and if i were in his shoes one day to where i had the nuts and checked and got penalized for it id be pissed off ...therefore its 100% lame IMO

 

[nc_royals]

Fair enough Patty... to each his own

 

[PattyR]

Fair enough Brian... to each his own

FYP

<3

 

[nc_royals]

Sorry bout that Brian

 

[OzExorcist]

notice i said lame rule IMO...to each his own dude...i felt bad for darvin b/c he had no idea and if i were in his shoes one day to where i had the nuts and checked and got penalized for it id be pissed off ...therefore its 100% lame IMO

Personally I can't feel bad for anyone that enters a tournament (especially one with a $10K buyin) and doesn't bother to learn the rules of the game.

You're entitled to your opinion, but as has been pointed out above it's not a new rule. It's not even a contentious rule like forward motion vs cut and release that's different depending on where you play. Aside from that you're ignoring the fact that there are no good reasons to check the nuts in position in the river in the first place. So even if you choose not to read the rules of the game there's still no reason to be doing it.

 

[PattyR]

well oz aren't you a dealer in poker rooms or were? so im sure that my perspective and yours is entirely different seeing as i have yet to play a live game.

 

[OzExorcist]

Yes, I deal live games. I don't see how that can change the following facts though:

Fact 1 - Anyone who pays to enter a tournament (especially one with a large buy in) should make it their business to have read the tournament rules. It doesn't cost you any extra to do so and it could save you money and hassles.

Fact 2 - Even if you haven't bothered to read the rules there still aren't any good reasons to be checking the nuts when you're last to act on the river.

 

[jazzaxe]

I have to join Darwin in being clueless, but I have never played a live tourney before. It does make sense that checking the nuts is a soft play. (not making the first checker pay)

 

[belerophon]

I bet the second nut straight aggressively a cpl days ago on the river and the guy with the nut straight and position just called.... :?

Needless to say he busted soon after.

 

[gnk2727]

I honestly didnt know you could be penalized for doing this. Then again it's not something I would normally do so Im not sure what to make of this...

 

[PurgatoryD]

13. It is considered a grave breach of etiquette for a player to withhold showing a clearly winning hand at showdown until her opponents have shown first. This is known as slow-rolling. Regardless of position, a player holding the best possible hand is expected to show her cards immediately as the showdown begins.

As an aside, so this is "slow-rolling"! I think this was asked in another thread a bit ago. This is a good one to know! Not that I ever seem to end up with the nuts and another player still at the table...

 

[arrytus]

I thought he gave a legitmate reason for checking. He got good info on betting and starting hands from a stranger and he knew the person wouldn't call. Obviously assumes however that greed is determined to be the basis of our decisions in poker

 

[Sdtex]

Just learned

I actually just discovered this little known rule last night when playing in a tournament. I can understand why this rule is in effect in order to prevent possible collusion, and most people are saying things that you'd be crazy to NOT bet it becasue why not improve your stack whenever you can. My situation was a little different though as the nuts (A hi straight, no flush possibilities) were all turned up. Only 2 of us were left in the hand, I was first to act and checked when the nuts was made. Other person went all in, I double taked to make sure I wasn't missing anything then called. That's when I was told that if he didn't bet it, he would have incurred a penalty. First time I ever heard of it.....but does the fact that the nuts were all showing make any difference?? How about to all of those who are saying that a person is "crazy" if they don't bet it?

 

[OzExorcist]

I actually just discovered this little known rule last night when playing in a tournament. I can understand why this rule is in effect in order to prevent possible collusion, and most people are saying things that you'd be crazy to NOT bet it becasue why not improve your stack whenever you can. My situation was a little different though as the nuts (A hi straight, no flush possibilities) were all turned up. Only 2 of us were left in the hand, I was first to act and checked when the nuts was made. Other person went all in, I double taked to make sure I wasn't missing anything then called. That's when I was told that if he didn't bet it, he would have incurred a penalty. First time I ever heard of it.....but does the fact that the nuts were all showing make any difference?? How about to all of those who are saying that a person is "crazy" if they don't bet it?

So... if I'm reading this correctly you both had the nuts and split the pot?

Even in that case no, it doesn't make any difference. You're in the clear as you were first to act (and I'm assuming you were checking in the hope your opponent would bet). But if he were to check behind you then yes, he should be subject to a penalty because he couldn't know that you had the same hand.

Only time I'm not 100% sure what happens is in a situation where the nuts is the five cards on the board (a royal, AAAAK, quads with an ace, AKQJT rainbow... I think that's all of the possibilities). In that case everyone at the table (assuming they're paying attention) knows the hand is going to be a chop and there's no point betting, but I don't know if you're technically required to bet just to satisfy the rules.

 

[bezobrazny]

ahaha first time I saw this, so stupid

Hi, guys

Look at this: YouTube - 2010 WSOP Episode 8 1/4 Main Event - DAY 1D

Darvin moon gets a penalty for NOT betting the nuts in position on river. What the heck? Have you ever heard of that rule? How lame..

Then I remembered I saw this video:
YouTube - NBC Heads Up Poker - Kristy Gazes vs Chad Brown
where kristy gazes does something INCREDIBLY stupid, but the guy playing her isnt much smarter himself, he didn't bet the river with the absolute nuts!!
But you don't see him get a penalty do you ? How long does this rule exist? Never heard of it

I could even understand if it was 3 way or more hand on beginning but it wasn't. It was one on one from the start and the guy wanted to see the other guys cards, so legitimate. Wow, they are pushing now how to play. LoL

 

[left52side]

I have had this discussion with my leaque as well.
I an nderstand if you are the last to act to some degree,but where I come in to a problem is say said event has hi hand or straight flush jakpot,like our league games do.
It has to be a played out hand and our straight flush fund gets up to like 1000 bucks at times,if I am heads up with a tight player and I know I cant get any more value out of my hand,why would I intise a fold from them by betting and losing my straight flush fund,and probably the high hand of the night as well.
The rule in some situations doesnt make any since to me at all really.
But there as above has been some good stated points,so I suppose there is some red tape that has to be looked at.

 

[RiverMeTimbers]

wow I just learn something new, I never knew that.

Yeah hahah me too..

You can check the nuts on the river if your UTG in hopes of a check raise though right??

 

[RiverMeTimbers]

I have had this discussion with my leaque as well.
I an nderstand if you are the last to act to some degree,but where I come in to a problem is say said event has hi hand or straight flush jakpot,like our league games do.
It has to be a played out hand and our straight flush fund gets up to like 1000 bucks at times,if I am heads up with a tight player and I know I cant get any more value out of my hand,why would I intise a fold from them by betting and losing my straight flush fund,and probably the high hand of the night as well.
The rule in some situations doesnt make any since to me at all really.
But there as above has been some good stated points,so I suppose there is some red tape that has to be looked at.

Okay well for your very specific example this rule obviously doesn't apply. They are talking about big multi table tourneys.
In small league games like that the host decides upon the rules.

And there's no red tape that needs to be looked at lol?? This rule is set in place to prevent collusion. Period.

 

[RiverMeTimbers]

So... if I'm reading this correctly you both had the nuts and split the pot?

Even in that case no, it doesn't make any difference. You're in the clear as you were first to act (and I'm assuming you were checking in the hope your opponent would bet). But if he were to check behind you then yes, he should be subject to a penalty because he couldn't know that you had the same hand.

Only time I'm not 100% sure what happens is in a situation where the nuts is the five cards on the board (a royal, AAAAK, quads with an ace, AKQJT rainbow... I think that's all of the possibilities). In that case everyone at the table (assuming they're paying attention) knows the hand is going to be a chop and there's no point betting, but I don't know if you're technically required to bet just to satisfy the rules.

this is definitely an interesting question though! What happens when the board pairs the nuts and the table checks round to last person to act?
Is he/she req'd to bet??

 

[ssean759]

Yeah hahah me too..

You can check the nuts on the river if your UTG in hopes of a check raise though right??

ya only if your last to act the rule goes into effect It makes sense in an event like wsop. It prevents cheating. I have never heard anything like this in a cash game even tho i think the rule would work better in a limit cash game.

 

[ssean759]

this is definitely an interesting question though! What happens when the board pairs the nuts and the table checks round to last person to act?
Is he/she req'd to bet??

yes if the person has quads and there is no straight flush possible. Its a simple rule why so may questions about it.

 

[ssean759]

I have had this discussion with my leaque as well.
I an nderstand if you are the last to act to some degree,but where I come in to a problem is say said event has hi hand or straight flush jakpot,like our league games do.
It has to be a played out hand and our straight flush fund gets up to like 1000 bucks at times,if I am heads up with a tight player and I know I cant get any more value out of my hand,why would I intise a fold from them by betting and losing my straight flush fund,and probably the high hand of the night as well.
The rule in some situations doesnt make any since to me at all really.
But there as above has been some good stated points,so I suppose there is some red tape that has to be looked at.

never heard of a place needing a show down to hit the high hand or straight flush jackpot. if you last to act bet, he folds just turn your hand over and you should still get credit for the high hand or whatever promo you playing for. If not you play at a messed up place. It makes sense in all situations.