Soft play penalized at WSOP

[smallteene]

That is pretty crazy...I guess that is a good rule....but I guess...lol...
What was she penalized??

Plus collusion is huge, we all think it's not happening, but it is. I would hate for that to happen to me....but it wont, I am not nice. haha.

 

[skeetz65]

wow

If she had the nuts and wasn't betting, maybe she was trying to slow play her opponents. I don't know but If I get a hand and flop the nuts I'll slow play it to the river for better action.

 

[LarkMarlow]

is this rule effected in all live poker tournaments or just WSOP

A couple weeks ago I asked the Floor in two of our local riverboats and they both said the rule was pretty much universal. One of them said that tournament poker was about destroying your opponent's stack to the max and doing anything less was against the rules. I thought that remark was interesting.

 

[naruto_miu]

I don't follow...You get penalized if you slow play the nuts, yet it's your money? There-Fore should'nt you be allowed to play anyway you deem fit, "Since the buy-in, Came from your pocket"? I mean, come on, when do they stop, with these outrages Rules.....

 

[Effexor]

I don't follow...You get penalized if you slow play the nuts, yet it's your money?

You can slowplay all day long if you wish, but if you have the absolute best hand possible and you are LAST TO ACT ON THE RIVER, YOU HAVE TO BET.

It's a rule to help stop possible collusion.

 

[LuckyChippy]

The people in this thread anger me. Can the opening poster please edit his post to say this:

That rule only comes up if you are: last to act on the river, holding the nuts, and your check or call would close the action.

I am leaving now.

 

[naruto_miu]

You can slowplay all day long if you wish, but if you have the absolute best hand possible and you are LAST TO ACT ON THE RIVER, YOU HAVE TO BET.

It's a rule to help stop possible collusion.

Ah, That's True...I did'nt really think of it that way....


Sry all once again....

Well then what if the person seriously did'nt know they had the best possible hand???? Or what if they for some reason, just blanked out, and forgot it's there turn to act???

 

[aliengenius]

I checked the nuts on the river last to act in a cash game once:

A♣K♣, flop comes A♥ 7♥ 8♣, check, I bet, call, turn 6♣, check, I bet, call, river 5♣, check, I check [or something to that effect]... not even seeing/remembering the runner runner flush...

 

[Jack Daniels]

I checked the nuts on the river last to act in a cash game once:

A♣K♣, flop comes A♥ 7♥ 8♣, check, I bet, call, turn 6♣, check, I bet, call, river 5♣, check, I check [or something to that effect]... not even seeing/remembering the runner runner flush...

Ah, but if your recollection is correct (which it usually is), then you didn't check the nuts. 9♣7♣ would have been the nuts for a straight flush...A♣K♣ was actually like the third nuts there.

 

[jmnissell]

I get that he made a mistake, but I know what I have when I look at the cards. Everyone is a beginner at some point, and these rich people are easy money to most. Here fishy fishy fishy fishy!

 

[Grossberger]

Really thats crazy...It is kind of like chess in which you have to eat the pond if it's there...is this rule effected in all live poker tournaments or just WSOP because it has to be so official n stuff..I guess she was really trying to trap the opponent but it figues that she should do something if she has the absolute nuts...What episode or what day of WSOP did this happen? I want to check it out

Got it from the wsop site under the main event updates the date and time of the update are below so it was on day 1d and is under page 10 of that days updates. It never says what she was penalized but I'm guessing a period of sit out time. Or having to miss a few blinds.

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:42:23

Lady Penalized, Patronized

An unfortunate lady was taken aside by a floorman who most apologetically explained to her that she was being penalized for checking the nuts. "You see, you had the best hand possible, so if someone bets you have to raise and if someone checks you have to bet, you have to create action. See, if you don't, then it's more like a home game, with everyone just checking and all friendly..." The lady in question looked suitably patronized, and was issued her penalty on top of that.

 

[Divebitch]

Collusion? Ridiculous. The rule, in theory, is meant for an STT or cash game, where you pick your table. Hopefully, this will ring a bell for someone, because I don't remember where I heard/read it. But in MTTs, at least online, I believe 2 people, even from the same household, on 2 different accts are allowed to enter the same MTT - the idea being the likelihood of you being seated at the same table would be too small to render a significant collusion factor.

What are the chances this woman had a friend at the table at all, much less one she felt so bad about taking chips from, she'd risk shortening her own tournament life?

 

[Jack Daniels]

Collusion? Ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all. There are only two explanations for not betting the nuts when you're the last to act on the river; you either didn't realize you had the nuts or you're soft-playing for some reason. The latter, per the TDA rules, can be penalized.

The rule, in theory, is meant for an STT or cash game, where you pick your table.

As far as I know it is actually meant for all (live) tournament play. I don't think you'll ever see this enforced online unless possibly if there is evidence and someone calls a moderator (though I doubt that as well). I don't know if they'd enforce it at a cash game because of several factors.

What are the chances this woman had a friend at the table at all, much less one she felt so bad about taking chips from, she'd risk shortening her own tournament life?

And that was the point being made that if she was truely clueless about having the nuts and they believed her, then the TD is not required to give her a penalty. The penalty is for softplay and if he didn't think she was doing that then she'd not likely have gotten the penalty.


Let's reread the snippet. Notice the phrasing at the very end. Assuming it's accurate, then the penalty was valid.

An unfortunate lady was taken aside by a floorman who most apologetically explained to her that she was being penalized for checking the nuts. "You see, you had the best hand possible, so if someone bets you have to raise and if someone checks you have to bet, you have to create action. See, if you don't, then it's more like a home game, with everyone just checking and all friendly..."

So first he pulls her aside and explains the rules.

The lady in question looked suitably patronized, and was issued her penalty on top of that.

If she actually knew the rule and "looked suitably patronized" for having it explained to her, then she's guilty and deserves the penalty. Had she honestly looked like a deer in the headlights as he explained what was wrong and why, then she'd probably have gotten off with a warning.

 

[Kasanova King]

I checked the nuts on the river last to act in a cash game once:

A♣K♣, flop comes A♥ 7♥ 8♣, check, I bet, call, turn 6♣, check, I bet, call, river 5♣, check, I check [or something to that effect]... not even seeing/remembering the runner runner flush...

You actually did not have the nuts in that hand. 9C 7C would have been the nuts.

 

[Divebitch]

As far as I know it is actually meant for all (live) tournament play. I don't think you'll ever see this enforced online unless possibly if there is evidence and someone calls a moderator (though I doubt that as well). I don't know if they'd enforce it at a cash game because of several factors.

And that was the point being made that if she was truely clueless about having the nuts and they believed her, then the TD is not required to give her a penalty. The penalty is for softplay and if he didn't think she was doing that then she'd not likely have gotten the penalty.

If she actually knew the rule and "looked suitably patronized" for having it explained to her, then she's guilty and deserves the penalty. Had she honestly looked like a deer in the headlights as he explained what was wrong and why, then she'd probably have gotten off with a warning.

While the rule may be meant for all play, online makes the distinction, and for the reasons the rule was probably meant to enforce in the first place - collusion. Just because the rule was extended to MTTs doesn't mean it wasn't created w/cash tables and STTs in mind.

I cannot buy hook ladder and sinker some reporter's assessment that the woman looked 'suitably patronized'. She could have been confused, trying not to look stupid or like a noob, or simply to embarassed for her own bad play or not realizing she had the nuts. Maybe even just a super-tight player, satisfied to get the pot as is. Who knows. A couple months ago, I had AA and flopped an A88, nut boat, only to get beat by quads, and I was gone.

Also, we really don't know what the TD would have done. It's probably not written in stone exactly what 'look' or 'response' averts a penalty.

Bottom line, this is the WSOP, you pay 10k to get in. How likely was there collusion? I'd be surprised if there ever was any in a tourney of this size and magnitude. Even checking strategies for saving a short-stack in unusual situations - it is still not collusion. Maybe rules are made for a reason, but if you can avoid consequences with a 'deer in the headlights' response, what is the rule worth? The rule should be suspended for a tournament like this, IMHO, the reason: common sense.

 

[Effexor]

.

Bottom line, this is the WSOP, you pay 10k to get in. How likely was there collusion? I'd be surprised if there ever was any in a tourney of this size and magnitude.

Not the same size obv. but this was a $10,000 buyin event.

http://www.bestpokertournament.com/mcclelland-festa-al-lago.html

 

[Jack Daniels]

I agree that we can't sufficiently debate feels, looks, and such since we weren't there, so I'm going to stop discussing them.

A couple months ago, I had AA and flopped an A88, nut boat, only to get beat by quads, and I was gone.

I don't see the relevance here. If you had said you got to the river, checked your boat, and your opponent checked behind you with the absolute nuts, then I'd say your opponent was absolutely wrong and if the rule was in force then should have been penalized in most cases.

Also, we really don't know what the TD would have done. It's probably not written in stone exactly what 'look' or 'response' averts a penalty.

It's definitely not written in stone exactly what "look" or "response" averts a penalty. That's why they have TDs. And it is up to the TD to enforce the rules in the fairest way possible for the entire game. But unless a particular tournament rule specifically prescribes an absolute condition/response, the TD does in fact have discretion. So while a TD can't make a Q higher than a K, they can decide based on circumstance if someone saying **** at the table gets a penalty or not. In this case, if he's afforded discretionary enforcement, then he it was his decision to apply the penalty based on his interaction with her.

Bottom line, this is the WSOP, you pay 10k to get in. How likely was there collusion? I'd be surprised if there ever was any in a tourney of this size and magnitude. Even checking strategies for saving a short-stack in unusual situations - it is still not collusion. Maybe rules are made for a reason, but if you can avoid consequences with a 'deer in the headlights' response, what is the rule worth? The rule should be suspended for a tournament like this, IMHO, the reason: common sense.

Wouldn't the bottom line also include that if you enter a tournament of any size or cost then you should also know the rules that are in play and abide by them?

 

[Velutha]

What was the penalty?

Death. The WSOP doesn't mess around.

By beheading still right?

Beheading by Ferguson.....He throws a card through your neck!