Check Nuts = Penalty

[left52side]

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

Well obviously It is set to prevent collusion,but the red tape I speak of that needs to be looked at is simply,that if there is collusion involved don't you think that maybe there would be redtape as far as how much the river bet would have to be ??? why if there is collusion would said partner of the collusion agree to not just min bet the river or set a certain amount with said person in collusion with only to give said amount back on a less obvious hand in the future of the tournamnet,... that is the red tape I spek of

In small league games like that the host decides upon the rules.

And the reason I addressed this is because our league spans three counties and is anything from small. we generally gather roughly 130 players every other sunday. We do have a board that ets the rules for this type of situation,and I happen to sit on said board,so was tring to gain information on a proper way to handle this .
Thanks for your time and sarcasim

 

[OzExorcist]

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.

Then I'd say the conditions for your league's jackpots were poorly conceived... or maybe they were really cleverly conceived, since it makes it even harder for the jackpot to be claimed.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the must bet the nuts in position on the river though. It's a rule that's designed to prevent collusion in all situations, and it only conflicts with your league's jackpot conditions in a miniscule number of situations.

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.

I've heard of that stipulation for jackpots before - as I mentioned above, sometimes it's even done that way on purpose to ensure that the jackpot goes off less often. Bigger jackpots = more draw for people to come and play, so you can see why leagues would want to skew them that way.

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??

The really interesting bit is that it doesn't end there - if the rule does apply when the nuts are on the board then not only is the last player required to bet, but the other player (assuming it's heads up - or the last player with the option to just call if it's multi-way) would be required to raise, and so on and so forth until everyone in the hand is all in.

That's a trivial matter if it's, say, a no limit tournament since everyone can just say "all in" to save time and the pot will be an even split. If it was a limit game with deep stacks though, things could get farcical. And if it was a cash game where the rake cap for the hand hadn't been reached yet then the players would actually lose money to be part of the tie, as opposed to just checking it down.

 

[Caesura]

What happens in the case where the last player has the nuts and is going to get a royal flush bonus, raises and everyone folds?

To get the bonus doesn't your hand have to go to showdown?

 

[SicKBeATz]

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?

I'd be completely po'd if I got a penalty for checking an AKQJT board, that is absolutely ridiculous. I probably wouldn't check it but wouldn't blame someone if they did as you are getting called 99.999% of the time.

 

[WEC]

Anywhere I have played, the Penalty for checking the NUTS on the LAST ACTION, ONLY applied to Tournaments and NEVER cash games. You are generally allowed to soft-play your friends and others in cash games, but not in Tournaments. So the questions about jackpots would not apply for the most part, unless you are in one of the few places that offers it (as they do in one local casino here in Tucson)

 

[RiverMeTimbers]

Well obviously It is set to prevent collusion,but the red tape I speak of that needs to be looked at is simply,that if there is collusion involved don't you think that maybe there would be redtape as far as how much the river bet would have to be ??? why if there is collusion would said partner of the collusion agree to not just min bet the river or set a certain amount with said person in collusion with only to give said amount back on a less obvious hand in the future of the tournamnet,... that is the red tape I spek of

Well this is just a preventative measure against collusion. Nobody ever said it was perfect lol.


And the reason I addressed this is because our league spans three counties and is anything from small. we generally gather roughly 130 players every other sunday. We do have a board that ets the rules for this type of situation,and I happen to sit on said board,so was tring to gain information on a proper way to handle this .
Thanks for your time and sarcasim

I'm sorry if you thought I was being sarcastic, I was just comparing your league to a small one that I play in at my local bar where there is no need for a committee.

Good luck in the hunt for you answers sir!

 

[OzExorcist]

What happens in the case where the last player has the nuts and is going to get a royal flush bonus, raises and everyone folds?

To get the bonus doesn't your hand have to go to showdown?

If the rule where you're playing is the hand has to go to showdown then you're right, they wouldn't get the bonus.

As discussed above, it's actually possible this is a deliberate move by whoever made the jackpot rules, to make it harder for people to win and therefore encourage larger jackpots.

The fact that some people design their jackpot systems this way doesn't make the "no checking the nuts on the river" rule a bad one.

Anywhere I have played, the Penalty for checking the NUTS on the LAST ACTION, ONLY applied to Tournaments and NEVER cash games. You are generally allowed to soft-play your friends and others in cash games, but not in Tournaments.

Good point, it's very possible that some places will enforce the rule in tournaments but not cash games.

Definitely best to check the house rules at your casino or card room if you're unsure though, because there's bound to be places that will enforce the rule in cash games.

 

[left52side]

I'm sorry if you thought I was being sarcastic, I was just comparing your league to a small one that I play in at my local bar where there is no need for a committee.

Good luck in the hunt for you answers sir!

Hey thanks river, it was just me messing around, not ment at you in anyway.
Thanks for youe help. I am continuing to look into this matter for our league

 

[sam1chips]

So how about this...

You have the nuts on the button, and your opponent leads out with a bet. Are you now required to raise?

 

[wagon596]

As I understand it,,it only applies if it is the last action of the hand. Could be wrong.

 

[nc_royals]

So how about this...

You have the nuts on the button, and your opponent leads out with a bet. Are you now required to raise?

Yes, that's the rules. The question is why would you not raise him in that situation?

 

[kmbpoker]

didnt see that hand but saw alot of em and thought moon did play a pretty good game. but i do agree it is a good rule.

 

[OzExorcist]

So how about this...

You have the nuts on the button, and your opponent leads out with a bet. Are you now required to raise?

As I understand it,,it only applies if it is the last action of the hand. Could be wrong.

Correct, it applies if you're the last to act in the hand. So in sam's example if the hand is heads up and the other player leads then yes, the button is required to raise because if they just called, that'd be the last action.

If there were three players left in the hand, say the big blind, a middle position player and the button, middle position bets and it's the button's action, then they've got the option of just calling with the nuts because there's still the BB to act and you could argue that you were hoping the BB would raise, or you were hoping you'd get paid off by the BB as well. Whether that's the best play is another question, but it would be legal.

 

[sam1chips]

Yes, that's the rules. The question is why would you not raise him in that situation?

Right, of course. Everybody that recognizes the situation will obviously raise. I was just curious, I had never heard of this rule either (Granted, I haven't played too many live hands...)

 

[OzExorcist]

Right, of course. Everybody that recognizes the situation will obviously raise. I was just curious, I had never heard of this rule either (Granted, I haven't played too many live hands...)

No reason the rule wouldn't apply online too - I don't think I've heard of any sites with software that enforce it automatically, but if you make a habit of it their collusion detection teams will probably be sending you a "please explain"...

 

[WEC]

Right, of course. Everybody that recognizes the situation will obviously raise. I was just curious, I had never heard of this rule either (Granted, I haven't played too many live hands...)

Don't feel bad, in over 20 years of playing live tournaments, I have only seen it come a couple of times, and I think always in Los Angeles, Home of the Degens

 

[needaGF]

I don't really understand... Why didn't he bet IN POSITION on the river? There is no point in checking actually.

 

[Sdtex]

Clarifying......

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.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly and for that I apologize, but in this case the nuts WAS all 5 on the board (A Hi rainbow straight with zero possibilities of a flush). So.......if I'm reading all of the other posts correctly, if my only opponent left in the game (on the button), only makes a minimum bet after I checked (which is legal because I wasn't last to act), then I HAVE to raise, because now I would be last to act?? Of course his "all in" took away that option.......buy what if he just made a minimum bet? Now do I get the penalty if I only call?

 

[10058765]

No reason the rule wouldn't apply online too - I don't think I've heard of any sites with software that enforce it automatically, but if you make a habit of it their collusion detection teams will probably be sending you a "please explain"...

I actually did it once online in a Badugi-game. Had the nuts and last to act I used my slider to go All-In, but after that by accident clicked call instead of raise.
If I would make that mistake to often I'm sure I would get a male from pokerstars about it, but , yeah it could happen by misclicking.

Btw, there's a little movie on youtube, "worst fold ever" where a royal flush is on the board.
One player shoves and the other one folds.
If that would happen live, would there be a penalty too ?

We could say the folding player was chipdumping, right ?

 

[Rappyness]

Wow, I have never heard of that rule ever until now. That is pretty whack if you ask me. But then again why would you not bet if you have the Nuts so I guess that's what the rule is basically telling you.

 

[dmorris68]

Wow, I have never heard of that rule ever until now. That is pretty whack if you ask me. But then again why would you not bet if you have the Nuts so I guess that's what the rule is basically telling you.

Because you're colluding. Which is why the rule is in place.

 

[RiverOfDreamz]

Yep, the rule penalizes:

1. collusion
2. stupidity

 

[masondub]

Wow I did not know this was a rule.. Makes sense though. I dont know why anyone would want to check the nuts anyways unless thier opponent was a friend and they were just trying to save them money, which would make sense as to why this rule is there.

Thanks for posting this!

 

[aa88wildbill]

The rule makes sense in most set of circumstances, but there is times when the information that might be gathered, is more important than getting someone to fold, or the few chips you might get.Maybe in certain circumstances there should be an exemption to the rule.

 

[rawone]

It's a lame rule, but from what I can see it can only apply when you have the absolute nuts, with no other possible hands that can beat you, no matter what, AND you are the last player to act.

If you can imagine any other hand that can beat you, then you don't have the absolute nuts and are under no obligation, from what I can see. Basically, four of a kind with no possibility of a royal, an ace high flush with no possibility of 4 of a kind or a straight flush, and so on. It's a pretty rare situation where you absolutely, totally, and completely have the nuts. Any pair on the board makes a nut flush not really the nuts, as someone else could have the same pocket pair and four of a kind.

This is one rule that would be incredibly, incredibly hard to enforce, as any argument of a potential better hand negates it.