Must reraise the nuts???

[mxylpic]

Ran into something new at my usual card room.
Player to my right bet on the river
I raised, he called and showed the nuts. (higher straight then mine if it matters).
Dealer said he was required to re-raise me???
I'm familiar with the "last to act must bet rule" but he wasn't last to act, I was
1. Has anyone ever heard of this "Must reraise rule"
2. Was he even required to bet since I was last to act? Or reraise for that matter.
TIA,
Ed

 

[fundiver199]

He was last to act, because he was closing action. If he just called, there were no more players, which he could "trap" to call behind or put in a raise. Its obvious, that is this situation a reraise is always going to be more profitable for him than just calling, since the worst, that can happen, is that he split the pot, or you fold.

So just calling is potentially collussion, because the only real purpose is to not want to take all your money. And this is why, the rule exist. It is especially important in tournaments, where other players would benefit from you busting. In cash games its more questionable, if there even need to be such a rule.

Online it does not exist, and I dont think, anyone is missing it. I will sometimes not put in a 3-bet on the river with the nuts, if I am very sure, we are chopping the pot like 99% of the time, if I get action. Like on KQJT2 rainbow, I bet with AX, Villain raise his AX, and I just call to chop a smaller pot and pay less rake.

 

[KUN_AGUERO_KROOS]

So just calling is potentially collussion, because the only real purpose is to not want to take all your money.

Sometimes you have the nuts and it's very unlikely that your opponent calls your raise so you call to see his cards.

 

[NCDaddy]

Yes, have heard of it. I hate the rule for a few reasons:

1) It potentially increases the rake
2) It gives opponent the opportunity to fold when I may want to see what he had. By calling I can do that. If I'm required to re-raise I could lose that information.

However, that all being said, it really is in place to avoid collusion at the table. For that, I can understand.

 

[mxylpic]

Yes, have heard of it. I hate the rule for a few reasons:

1) It potentially increases the rake
2) It gives opponent the opportunity to fold when I may want to see what he had. By calling I can do that. If I'm required to re-raise I could lose that information.

However, that all being said, it really is in place to avoid collusion at the table. For that, I can understand.

Thanks
It was in a tourney
From my point of view it could cause me to get all my chips in when I wouldn't necessarily, which sucks. But thanks for the reply

 

[theskillzdatklls]

Generally speaking, you want to do this anyway. But as a rule, it's there to prevent collusion, theoretically speaking. There's obscure reasons where you might want to do this strategically, such as not killing action in multiway pots.

 

[ekgbeat]

Yeah, this is pretty common in live poker. I have never seen it enforced in online poker though. It is supposed to prevent soft play or collusion. Below is an instant where it happened. If you want to see more examples you can YouTube Darvin Moon Check Nuts.

 

[megiverz1]

Probably not a must. If your table is agressive it might lead you in a re-raise All in. If you have the absolute nut you might want that.

 

[ekgbeat]

Probably not a must. If your table is agressive it might lead you in a re-raise All in. If you have the absolute nut you might want that.

For most live poker, the rules are pretty clear that it is a must raise the nuts.