Does anybody actually like this rule?

The rule I am talking about is the rule in some big tournaments such as wsop of NLHE where you must bet if you have the nuts and are the last to act. Of course me and most of you guys not being total fish, we are never going to check the nuts anyways when we are the act last. The rule is to prevent collusion, but is this really going to help? In any other situation if you are caught colluding you are going to be kicked out immediately, and probably not allowed back into that casino. A few weeks ago I was in a situation in a home game where I had a full house and my opponent had the nuts. I checked, and he checked back. Was I mad about him cheating? No, I was happy that I didn't run into a cooler! This rule is so dumb in my and everybody else's opinion that I have talked to. If you have anything to say for this rule, please make your case I would love to hear from the other side of this!
:albertein

IMO it's stupid to check the nuts when your last to act, not necessarily collusion but certainly would be soft play against someone which I guess is a form of collusion.

Obviously only reason to check back with the nuts in that spot is because you don't want to take any more of their chips, which obv is stupid because whole point of the game is to accumulate as many chips as you can and in a regular tournament to get them all eventually.

I am one who only checks with the nuts if I have a majority of their chips already. My reason for doing this is stupid I know , but I always like to give the player a second chance. I only do this in club play. In any other game I am ruthless. Also, I only give them one extra chance, after that their out.

it's not really a stupid rule, what reason other than misreading your cards would warrant checking back the nuts?

cat24550 said:

I am one who only checks with the nuts if I have a majority of their chips already. My reason for doing this is stupid I know , but I always like to give the player a second chance. I only do this in club play. In any other game I am ruthless. Also, I only give them one extra chance, after that their out.

Click to expand...

Aka: soft play which is against the rules.

I am neutral how I "feel" about the rule, but I do think it needs to be there. I was in a ladies tourney where a mother checked the nuts on the river to her daughter's 2nd nuts. When the floor was called she actually said "I didn't want to take all her chips, she's my daughter. I wanted to leave her a chance to build her stack back up"

I understand the purpose of the rule. But I wonder if they could implement a rule where somebody calls knowing they are pretty much beat. I was in a live tourney in Cedar Rapids and a guy called a big bet on the river, and all he had was a queen high. He intentionally dumped chips to his friend.

I also get the purpose of the rule. But for me it causes no problems whatsoever. Because i would never check the nuts on the river if i was last to act. I just wouldn't do that. I very aware what the nuts is on every street, flop turn and river, i was programmed to do that early in my poker career.

I get the frustration. but in a all likelyhood your friend at home probably didn't even realize he had the nuts. some people don't think like that. i have been trained to.
-A

Exactly it is softplay, which is not allowed.

BluffMeAllIn said:

Obviously only reason to check back with the nuts in that spot is because you don't want to take any more of their chips ...

Click to expand...

Or maybe you know the other guy will fold to any bet and you want to see his cards!
There's a Youtube clip of this happening. The winner states openly that he had the nut flush (I think), but he was checking so he could see what the other guy had. True enough, he got penalized for it; sitout one hand or something. But I agree with his line of thinking. Your purpose is to advance in the tournament. If you are sure the others will fold, why not get that little extra info by making them show their cards. May be of value later!

i didnt know that rule but i think very few times this affect the hand playing.
i mean you have to bet your nuts,to get paid.very few times your opponent will have air on flop and a good hand will appears on turn or river to pay you.also they maybe think you are bluffing with position to steal the pot there

Soft play is unethical. It violates the spirit of the game. So I have NP with such rules. At the same time, if people choose to allow it in their home games, that's their prerogative.

Honestly, even if a player calls with queen high knowing he will lose, does it really matter? He paid for the chips, his money is in the prize pool... Would you be offended if somebody came to your table and had ₮2000 chips and you only had ₮1000? Maybe you would be, I know this is easier to talk about than it is to deal with the situation

I must admit, the rule is a bit strange to me. In a situation where you have the nuts I'd call it a bluff to check it, leaving your opponent with a choice whether to try to steal the pot or not. If s/he try to steal, then you can move, knowing you have the stronger hand, or if s/he check, you can try to make it look like you're trying to bluff by making the exact right sized bet to leave your opponent thinking you're bluffing.

It's all a matter of view, really. The purpose of the rule is clear enough, but I think it takes the "bluff" aspect out of the game.

Exactly it is softplay, which is not allowed

IMO that rule is a must in tournament play...

I used to play some live australian poker League games way back in 2007-08
This rule was not in force and I personally took advantage of this with my friend as my opponent....
He raised with QQ from MP and everyone folded to me, I was Big blind. I called with 78o and I was low on chips and he was chip leader

He hits full house on flop and bets, I go all-in and because we had a mutual understanding he folds his game and gives me the chips.

I end up finishing 3rd in the tournament with a cash prize, my friend goes out on the bubble

But ofc I shared the money with him

chory1414 said:

Exactly it is softplay, which is not allowed

Click to expand...

See, this illustrates the flaw in rule – it is not necessarily a soft play to check the nuts when last to act!

Rather, this is a thumb rule, because one would assume that there is no credible reason to check the nuts when last to act. However, I think we have all had times where checking the nuts is acceptable; case in point, the Darwin Moon hand. Even if it is not credible, there is no cause for any player or any tournament official to instruct a player on how to play his or her hand.

Additionally a “soft play” is a form of collusion, plain and simple. Why is it, that if you check the nuts on the river you get a penalty, but if you commit any other form of collusion (including a soft play in a different context) you are ejected immediately and without question.

That’s why it is a stupid rule. Without question it’s ridiculous. Additionally, you won’t find it in the rule book; go ahead, look. You will find a “soft play” in the rulebook and also what the penalty for a "soft play" is; I’ll give you a hint, it’s not a one round penalty.

Bottom line, it’s a stupid thumb rule, it’s not even a real rule, and is only in place so that floor men don’t actually have to sniff out collision but, instead, can simply assume that it must be present and then not administer the correct punishment anyway.

I know this thread is kind of old but I am seeing it for the first time sooo yeahh..

It is the dumbest rule ever IMO, no one checks the nuts on the end to collude.. People just don't cheat like that.. If we were colluding I would just bet and the player I'm colluding with will just fold..

The only people this rule punishes are amateur players who misread their hands and these are the players poker needs to stay alive... Why make a weaker player not want to come back by penalizing them for mis reading their hands??

This rule does not protect any one and it only hurts amateurs which in return hurts poker

Niantic said:

I must admit, the rule is a bit strange to me. In a situation where you have the nuts I'd call it a bluff to check it, leaving your opponent with a choice whether to try to steal the pot or not. If s/he try to steal, then you can move, knowing you have the stronger hand, or if s/he check, you can try to make it look like you're trying to bluff by making the exact right sized bet to leave your opponent thinking you're bluffing.

It's all a matter of view, really. The purpose of the rule is clear enough, but I think it takes the "bluff" aspect out of the game.

Click to expand...

i believe that the rule only applies if you are the last to act therefore if your opponent is still to act behind then checking to induce a bet from your opponent is not against the rules..

It should just be the person's choice anyways... I don't even care about soft play I would never do it because I would much rather work alone but it doesn't bother me if other people do it if they are not good enough that they need to soft play then who cares? The only thing that would bother me is if the players literally showed each other their hands to decide who is going to call or raise or whatever

Wow -- I didn't even know that was a rule! How strange!

So how would the rule apply in this situation.
Me 77
Villian KK
Flop 77K turn A River K
Villian checks to me on the river, I have to assume my quad 7s are now good and bet or else get a penalty even though they are not the nuts?

No if you have the absolute nuts on the river you can't check if you are last to act

2nd nuts can check

So the assumption that the villian might have the kings irregardless if he has them or not is all that matters then?

computerdude said:

So the assumption that the villian might have the kings irregardless if he has them or not is all that matters then?

Click to expand...

Correct you are only not allowed to check the absolute nuts when last to act on the river. If your hand can not be beaten by any other hand you must bet when last to act on the river, if your hand can be beaten even if only a 000.1% chance villain has the hand that can beat you, you are allowed to check

If you know 100% that you will get the pot, and you are last to act , you have to bet, if you don t bet that means that you refuse to get chips from your oppenements : that means cheating; this rules have to be extended to any other hand when you are last to act with the best possible hand