Not betting the nuts on the river

While playing at the Harrah's in New Orleans over the weekend, I saw a player not bet the nuts on the river after it was checked to him. All the guys at the table appear to have been regulars who knew each other (save for me, of course, the out of town fish), but I just thought that was not right. I mentioned it to the guy next to me and he agreed with me that the guy should have bet it. I was not in the hand and so didn't really care, but it just struck me as wrong. Should the dealer have said something?

Was this a tournament or cash game?
Was he last to act?
Was it the absolute nuts? Or, could someone have the same "nuts"?

Whether or not the dealer should have said something would depend on the house rules I suspect, but it's typically viewed as soft play at the very least. There is no logical reason not to bet the nuts on the river, even if you are 100% your opponent will not call any bet.

For sure collusion/soft playing unless there is something you are leaving out.

He had a flush with the ace and no pair on the board and no straight flush possibility. He had the nuts and didn't bet it. It was a cash game. And yes, he was last to act. Only 2 players alive on the river.

He knew he wouldnt get called, and can use it as a tool later on, though its doubtful thats what he was doing. if theres no rule against it, and they are friends it doesnt matter...or he spaced out lol

bluejay2220 said:

He knew he wouldnt get called, and can use it as a tool later on, though its doubtful thats what he was doing. if theres no rule against it, and they are friends it doesnt matter...or he spaced out lol

Click to expand...

as a tool to do what? he has to show it down, and let the whole table know he is either stupid and missed a bet, or he is crooked and soft played a friend.

Yep, absolutely should have bet it.

Here's a semi-recent discussion on the same topic: https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/check-nuts-penalty-190583/

bluejay2220 said:

He knew he wouldnt get called, and can use it as a tool later on, though its doubtful thats what he was doing. if theres no rule against it, and they are friends it doesnt matter...or he spaced out lol

Click to expand...

Thing is though, it is a rule in pretty much every reputable card room everywhere, and for good reason. If you're playing in a card room or game that doesn't have this rule, you need to ask some serious questions about why...

your missing the point entirely most human beings operate to a kind of social Darwinist Neitzchen like hierarchy. Similar to the misconception of what nazism is supposed to be. (note I do not approve of Nazism if you read Mein Kampf he identifies anti socials for extermination on closer examination this appears to be autism he is desrcibing and I am on that spectrum i do not support an ideology that would put me in a pizza oven I am just aware the main stream conception of it is not fully accurate.)

The fact been right and wrong and moralality/ ethics etc, is not a concrete objective subject. rather it is a socially political tool to identify relative ideologies so suit the motivations of those to favor some over others and condemn others.

The BBC's idea of supporting in the extreme pedophilia and defending known pedophiles yet falsey publicly accusing political opponents of these discretion's only furthers my point.

the morality is adjusted to allow them to do this and you will be condemned for arguing it is there clan there is a reason i stick to online poker. and clearly since you do not have the social positioning or strength to be able to speak out for what should be fair, it appears you would be better of sticking to the more bureaucratic, faceless and fair system of online poker as well.

Just remember we are not all equal and we are not all treated equally, and to believe otherwise is pure delusion in the extreme. to say otherwise is just been political.

curtinsea said:

Whether or not the dealer should have said something would depend on the house rules I suspect, but it's typically viewed as soft play at the very least. There is no logical reason not to bet the nuts on the river, even if you are 100% your opponent will not call any bet.

Click to expand...

There is actually one "logical reason", that is if you do not want your opponent to be able to muck their cards in order to see what they were holding.

This is one of the reasons there should be an asterisk nest to this rule. Basically if you bet because you have to, you should have the option to see your opponents folded cards.

teepack said:

He had a flush with the ace and no pair on the board and no straight flush possibility. He had the nuts and didn't bet it. It was a cash game. And yes, he was last to act. Only 2 players alive on the river.

Click to expand...

There are many differences between tournament rules (IF the card room follows the TDA rules) and cash games. I'm going to pose this question somewhere else and see if I can find the opinions of some other card room floors.

tbdbitl said:

There is actually one "logical reason", that is if you do not want your opponent to be able to muck their cards in order to see what they were holding.

This is one of the reasons there should be an asterisk nest to this rule. Basically if you bet because you have to, you should have the option to see your opponents folded cards.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but IMO this isn't even close to a good enough reason to suspend or change the rules about betting the nuts or mucking.

If someone chooses to fold to your river bet, then they should have the right to muck their cards unseen regardless of what you're holding. You bet, they folded. You haven't paid to see their cards, so you don't get to see their cards.

Suggesting that you should be entitled to the benefit of extra information in addition to the benefit of having an unbeatable hand is... well... greedy is probably the most charitable way I could describe that. It's having your cake and eating it too.

Changing the rules to allow you to check so that you can see their cards would be even more problematic, because then every softplayer and angle shooter in the world would just say they were checking "to see what the other player had".

The idea that you'd even want to do that is a bit wonky to me too. I mean the only time you'd even want to consider doing it is because you know your opponent has a hand so bad that there's exactly zero chance that they'll call. First of all, it's not possible to know that with 100% certainty. Second, if you did somehow know that, then how much do you really gain by knowing exactly what garbage they had? And third, since you can't know that with 100% certainty, surely you're better off putting a bet out there for the times when you're wrong and they do have a hand that can call. Even if it's only 1% of the time it's still +EV.

And while it's true that some card rooms might enforce this rule differently between cash games and tournaments, I can't think of any good reasons why they should. Again, if your card room doesn't enforce this rule, whatever format you're playing, it's a good idea to ask why. And consider playing somewhere else, because they're basically endorsing collusion and softplaying.

The only time I can think they should even make an exception to the rule is when the nuts is the five cards on the board (so it's obvious to everyone that it's going to be a split pot) and the rake cap hasn't been reached yet (so players would effectively be losing money by betting / raising)

tbdbitl said:

There is actually one "logical reason", that is if you do not want your opponent to be able to muck their cards in order to see what they were holding.

This is one of the reasons there should be an asterisk nest to this rule. Basically if you bet because you have to, you should have the option to see your opponents folded cards.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is hogwash. Acting like you need the intelligence is ridiculous. Seriously, it's one hand. Bet the minimum $2, and if the player folds, you should be able to figure out what he/she was chasing a straight or a flush without needing to know what the cards were. If they call, then you've just picked a tip to give the dealer. Not betting is against the rules in tournaments and should, at the very least, earn a mild rebuke from the dealer if he notices it in a cash game.

bluejay2220 said:

He knew he wouldnt get called, and can use it as a tool later on, though its doubtful thats what he was doing. if theres no rule against it, and they are friends it doesnt matter...or he spaced out lol

Click to expand...

He refuse to take money from his oppenements and check on the river so it's cheating, dealer must suspend the player momentally ...

c mon man why to suspend the player.. I think playin loose is a great thing for those who can..and you don t have to judge his decision..there are a lot of bad beaters..and how do you know if he was nuts? did you saw his cards?

Has no one thought of the possibility that the player misread his hand? Even Phil Ivey mucked his flush during the wsop without knowing it..

The check the nuts on the river rule is stupid IMO how is it collusion? If he bets his friend he would be colluding with would know to just fold... No one colludes by checking the nuts on the river..

He probably misread his hand.. Darvin Moon did the same thing and tried acting like "Oh I wasn't going to get called anyway and I wanted to see what you had" ummm no you misread your hand lol

In fact earlier today I checked the nut straight on the river last to act I was multi tabling and missed it.

At 4 minutes in Daniel says it perfectly

tbdbitl said:

There is actually one "logical reason", that is if you do not want your opponent to be able to muck their cards in order to see what they were holding.

Click to expand...

^Agreed. Knowing what your opponent is holding after *any* hand is always wonderful information to have. But if they were all regulars, then they should already know how each-other plays anyway.. seems like a soft-play.

Was it a tournament or a cash game?

ive actually done it before deliberately checked the nuts on the river and it wasn't collusion or cheating. the situation was i had been playing the same regulars in and out for some time. one or two of them were annoying me getting under my skin i wasn't sure if they were making moves or getting lucky, it was a don and i was already almost certain to be in the money. I needed to know if they had something or if they were making a move. I didn't think theyd call a river bet even if they had something given the situation. since i was near 100% certain through anyway it was info i didnt want to lose. that been said the short stack on the bubble went ballistic i actually think if it was at a brick and mortar casino he would have ordered a drink smashed the glass and tried to slit my throat.

S3mper said:

The check the nuts on the river rule is stupid IMO how is it collusion? If he bets his friend he would be colluding with would know to just fold... No one colludes by checking the nuts on the river..

He probably misread his hand.. Darvin Moon did the same thing and tried acting like "Oh I wasn't going to get called anyway and I wanted to see what you had" ummm no you misread your hand lol

In fact earlier today I checked the nut straight on the river last to act I was multi tabling and missed it.

At 4 minutes in Daniel says it perfectly.

Click to expand...

It's not always collusion, as it doesn't necessarily require two players to be working together to break the rule. It just requires the player checking the nuts to not want to take chips off their opponent, and their opponent doesn't necessarily have to be complicit in that. But it is always soft play, and that's against the rules for good reason.

I agree with pretty much everything Negreanu says in the video FWIW - tournament directors and floor people absolutely should have some discretion in whether they apply penalties or just give warnings or whatever depending on the situation. In fact pretty much the very first thing Robert's Rules of Poker says is that TDs/floors should always use their best judgement depending on the situation, even if that judgement goes slightly against the technical rules.

I disagree absolutely with him on the checking the nuts rule though - and LukeSilver has given us a great example of why in the post right above. He did it for other reasons (which, as discussed above, I think are silly), but without the betting the nuts rule people could soft play or collude on certain tournament bubble (and other) situations with impunity. Again, there are no good reasons to check the nuts on the river in position.

Long story short: I don't think anybody has supplied any good reasons for actually getting rid of the rule. What they have done is supplied good reasons (casuals, genuine mistakes, etc) why tournament directors and floor people should be given discretion in whether they need to impose a penalty or not.

i dont think its silly exorcist what caused me to move away from the ipoker network wasnt losing i did very well there it was simply that there was only so far you can go there once you go beyond low stakes the games dont run often and even when they do no one is getting a worthwhile roi. although worthwhile is relative.

in the case in question i hit the nut flush on the river with an unpaired board. despite beating the games there was one player who was causing me significant problems him and him alone. it got to be enough of an issue that i know his exact player name despite been months on. I dont believe in giving player names way but he is on several sharkscope leaderboards, for low stakes so theres a good chance you get guess who im talking about.

I do question why this guy hasn't move to higher stakes but thats not my business. In a don once your beyond a certain stack size your almost certain to make money as im sure you know.

. i think he picked my range and played the board well, though i wasn't sure flopping two overs and the nut flush on a flop that i have usually missed was bound to get action. in that single game in isolation it is of course a mistake to check the nuts.

note though by the river enough chips had gone into the pot to make it an almost certainty i was cashing.

considering i may have played more then several thousand games against this individual had i continued maybe knowing for sure what was actually going on rather then guessing was worth, not taking extra chips i didnt really need.

if it is cash game, then it wouldnt make a difference if it was for friendly play, because they could just get the money back to his friend if they got broke.

After watching daniel's video i kinda don't see it as a problem too, it doesnt affect you anyways.

Tournament is different because everyone gets affected if you don't try to bust your friend

teepack said:

While playing at the Harrah's in New Orleans over the weekend, I saw a player not bet the nuts on the river after it was checked to him. All the guys at the table appear to have been regulars who knew each other (save for me, of course, the out of town fish), but I just thought that was not right. I mentioned it to the guy next to me and he agreed with me that the guy should have bet it. I was not in the hand and so didn't really care, but it just struck me as wrong. Should the dealer have said something?

Click to expand...

It would be a tricky spot for the dealer to give advice, given in this situation that they are supposed to facilitate an impartial role in the game. For example in the world series of poker, I think on the final betting round, if you have the nuts then you must bet or be penalized. I personally would have said something to the player, probably along the lines of "what were you thinking?" as politely as possible. Did you want to say something? and if so, what did you want to say?

Either he accidentally misread it or its his friend.

There was a guy in EPT 2012 I think, not sure, who checked the nut flush after he was checked on. There was Ilari Sahamies, another Finnish Guy, and the hero. He got a two orbit penalty (two rounds of full table rotation) for this mistake. As it was only 3 people left, it got away quickly, but.. yeah.