Check Nuts = Penalty

[OzExorcist]

rules rules rules.....
what is the rule about standing behind your chair while the dealer is shuffling and about to deal?
Will i be dealt in or will my cards be folded because i was not sitting?
When does a "hand" begin?
In Melbourne at the Crown casino there seems to be no consistency in this regard so where can i find the exact rule to copy and show the dealer and TD next time????

I can't find any specific reference to whether you have to physically be in your seat in the general Crown poker room rules: http://www.crownmelbourne.com.au/Assets/Files/Poker Rules Version 11 0 _chinese poker_.pdf

My general experience at Crown has been they'll deal and then fold your cards if you're not in your seat by the time UTG makes their first action. I don't know what the actual rule is though, so that could be some of the staff being generous.

Safest bet is if you want to play the hand have your butt in your seat before the dealer starts pitching. If you want to stand up or go for a wander, be prepared for the possibility of being dealt out.

 

[MTCashman]

Never knew about that rule but I guess it makes sense to avoid collusion, mistakes do happen though

 

[Sdtex]

A lot of you are missing the point to my question. Most of you are saying things like "why wouldn't you bet the nuts......" and so on, but my situation was the nuts was all on the board after the river. There was no need for me to bet (1st position), but my opponent made a sizeable bet, I, naturally did a double take, thinking I was missing something before I made the call, resulting in a split pot. It was then that my opponent announced that if he didn't bet it, even though the nuts was all on the board, he would have been subject to a penalty.

 

[Samango]

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?

Yes this a very interesting case, There are no FH or Flush possibilites here so Rainbow Broadway on the board is as much the absolute nuts as some of the massive hands that Oz quoted earlier.

If the second player just raises, the first player is now the last to act. They also have the nuts.
Are they both obliged therefore to keep re-raising until one of them is all-in in order to satisfy the ruling?
Perhaps Oz can tell us

A lot of you are missing the point to my question. Most of you are saying things like "why wouldn't you bet the nuts......" and so on, but my situation was the nuts was all on the board after the river.

As a side note though, and I understand that this is not your question, but in this situation, with the nuts on the board, where you are first to act, I think you should always bet big here just in case your opponent could misread the situation and you could take it all.
It is a Tournament so you have nothing to lose in rake.
You may be afraid that some of the other players may think that you didn't understand the situation — I wouldn't be worried about that, let them underestimate you, that is a good thing
Betting here is win-win with no risk

 

[OzExorcist]

Yes this a very interesting case, There are no FH or Flush possibilites here so Rainbow Broadway on the board is as much the absolute nuts as some of the massive hands that Oz quoted earlier.

If the second player just raises, the first player is now the last to act. They also have the nuts.
Are they both obliged therefore to keep re-raising until one of them is all-in in order to satisfy the ruling?
Perhaps Oz can tell us

Yeah it's an interesting one - I think it depends very much on the specific rules in the room you're playing in.

As we discussed last year, the wsop doesn't seem to have a specific rule about having to bet the nuts in position, instead it falls under the category of "soft playing". I don't think you could define it as soft playing if the action went check-check, bet-call or check-bet-call in this situation, because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's going to be a split pot.

And I'd agree, particularly in a tournament where there's no rake, there's no harm to leading the betting here.

If the room you're playing in has a specific rule on the books that you have to bet/raise the nuts in position though, then yes I can conceivably see it being against the rules for the players to do anything other than keep betting until they're both all in. That would obviously be stupid, and I'd be disappointed in any floor person that enforced the rule that way (especially if it was a cash game where the rake cap for the hand hadn't been reached yet), but stupider things have happened on poker room floors.

What I find particularly funny though is that it'd be hard to ask for clarification on the rule from the dealer during the hand without violating a different rule about not talking about cards during a hand...

 

[teepack]

i you check the nuts when last to act why even play poker, it doesnt make sense unless you dont want your opponet to lose money

Exactly. The ONLY reason you would check the nuts is when you are trying to keep your opponent from losing more chips. That is collusion. That is why there is a penalty.

 

[xEnder]

That first video link is broken ... I didn't know about that rule, but I guess it makes sense from what people are saying. Interesting!

 

[Swickster007]

I have never heard of that rule, sounds a little bit of a sucker rule to me.

 

[OzExorcist]

There wasn't really much to the video - it's Darvin Moon (who was a November Niner the year before) playing on Day 1 of the WSOP Main Event, he had the nuts (and knew it) and checked when he was last to act.

Other players at the table pointed out that you're not allowed to check the nuts in position, he said he didn't know that, and the tournament director pulled him aside and gave him a one-hand penalty.

 

[kissapig]

Not such a big deal, one hand penalty. Nice to see everyone at his table had read the rules.

 

[guutox]

Rarely do I check for nuts, I check if I'm just playing with an aggressive player and I have enough information to try to overthrow him

 

[xEnder]

Saw this happen the other day at MD Live in a MTT. Two guys both had a King with 10 J Q A on the board (no flush possible, obviously). They both already had bunch in and they were like "we're gonna split this anyway so I'll just check" -- penalty!

 

[luchoq10]

i heard the last year, because that this form the organization prevent the collution between players, but is so stupid dont' bet in the river with the nuts :S.
And if i'm playing poker, i don't care who is in front of me, i want the stack of the all people, my brother, my father, mi best friend, i'm playing poker and in poker i don't have friends in the table.

 

[Julia_H]

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.

There's another good reason to check the nuts in a cash game, other than soft-playing - if you know for certain you're splitting the pot (or that no worse hand will ever call) then betting and being called loses you chips by increasing the amount the house rakes off...

 

[OzExorcist]

There's another good reason to check the nuts in a cash game, other than soft-playing - if you know for certain you're splitting the pot (or that no worse hand will ever call) then betting and being called loses you chips by increasing the amount the house rakes off...

...but if you have the nuts and you somehow know no worse hand will ever call then there's no harm in betting - the amount you bet won't make it into the pot and it won't be raked.

 

[wilki88]

Wait, i dont understand. Whats wrong with checking on the river with the nuts? it gives the opposing player an opportunity to bet or bluff, and therefore win you more chips!

wilki88

 

[dmorris68]

Wait, i dont understand. Whats wrong with checking on the river with the nuts? it gives the opposing player an opportunity to bet or bluff, and therefore win you more chips!

wilki88

The penalty applies when you're last to act.

 

[Karozi615]

how lame? what are you even saying

the only thing that's lame is that somebody would even check back the nuts

it should be a penalty - prevents collusion, which could potentially be a problem at the high stakes levels where players take stakes in many other competitors.

Common sense folks, its an excellent tool

 

[2pair]

Raising with the nuts on the river is an automatic reaction for me. I would ask one simple question for anyone who disagrees with this opinion: Do you want to win - or not?

2P

edit - I removed "all-in" at the beginning because although I may or may not go all in per se, I would throw at least half my stack in the pot in this situation.

 

[BenjiHustle]

The rule is in place to keep players from colluding or playing soft against certain opponents. Why are so many people confused about this?

Last to act checks the nuts and everyone at the table goes "Wtf? Do you know poker?" and player says, "Yeah, but that's my friend," (or other statement relating to not wanting take that player's money in particular).

That's the reasoning for the rule.

how lame? what are you even saying

the only thing that's lame is that somebody would even check back the nuts

it should be a penalty - prevents collusion, which could potentially be a problem at the high stakes levels where players take stakes in many other competitors.

Common sense folks, its an excellent tool

Saw this post after I made mine. So, basically, +1 that.

 

[arizoney]

i agree its a rule that should be there for the obvious reasons. and if a person doesnt know this they must be rookie at the game but it only takes once to learn that lesson not only will you be penalized you will be embarrassed when the penalty is implicated if not it was done on purpose lol.

 

[TeUnit]

i like the rule there is enough cheating without allowing more

its not like you have to make this a rule in your homegame

 

[slash407]

stuff like this exist, you dont see it because online it isnt as prevalent and most people play small stakes online

 

[Maiuchi]

I think it is a good rule, but as they say above with a minimum bet you can circumvent this rule and that still leaves a gray

 

[Cinhos_2000]

Yeah I've heard that rule and I have nothing against it. I saw a video where the guy didn't raise and he didn't ge to play the next round.