Checking it down?

[TheKid84]

CHECK WITH YOUR GAMBLING HOUSE
Many tournaments stipulate you must bet the absolute nuts on the river (even up to re-raising any action) - you cannot check it down. You will be penalized. Just saw a guy last week get an orbit penalty for it. They even made him leave the poker room. The thing is the dealer didn't catch it - it was another player and they had to call the floor over to invoke the penalty.
Two years ago Darvin Moon got penalized in the ME for checking it down (so he could see the other guy's hand).
Checking the nuts on the river is not only UNacceptable - it is against the rules in many tournaments worldwide. It comes under the heading of soft play.
I do not think this rule exists in Roberts Rules of Poker.

Is this for realz??

Not that I'm saying "you're a moron and making stuff up" and I'm almost certain you and a majority of this community knows a lot more about poker than I, but that's a bit nuts if you ask me.

The fact they have rules that dictate your actions depending on your quality of hand is just silly in my opinion. I'd be pissed if I got a penalty for me playing my two cards the way I want to play them...

 

[IntenseHeat]

I didnt't have time to read all the responses, so somebody may have already said what I'm going to say.

It's called tournament strategy. It's not just a bubble tactic. The thinking is that we all want to advance deeper in the tourney (closer to the money, final table, victory). With each player that gets eliminated, every player left gets closer to victory, including you. Therefore, it is generally understood between more experienced players, that when a player is all in, and there is more than one caller with chips behind, that you do not bluff at a dry side pot. When you do, you risk running the best hand out of the pot and thus saving the all in player from elimination, and keeping every player, including yourself, from being that much closer to victory. Not to mention having one more player with the potential to take your chips left in the tourney. As long as there is no side pot, I usually continue to check the pot down even if I hit, but stay on stand by to shove all-in if the other player bets at it. Most experienced players will continue to check as well, the unspoken agreement being that the immediate priority is knocking the all-in player out. For instance, my Ace high might be ahead on the flop, but you hit a pair of 10s on the turn. An Ace hits on the river. The all-in player might be holding Js. So by betting the 10s on the turn, you would have pushed me out of a pot that you wouldn't have won anyway, allowing the all-in player to double up, instead of being knocked out.

I actually saw a perfect example of this the other night. With about twenty or so players left in an MTT that played 12 places, a player limped into the pot from early position. The short stack shoved all-in for about 8x (just under 5k). I called with A-Q suited. Another player called behind me. The early limper folded. The flop ccomes something like 2-7-10 rainbow. I checked pretty much automatically. The player behind me bets halft the pot. My thought is that everybody knows you don't bluff at a dry side pot with a player at risk, you check it down. So he must have a worthwile hand. So I fold. It turned out that he was holding K-J and fired out with air. The short stack was holding A-10 and made a pair of 10s. The turn is a blank. The river is a Q. So by bluffing at a dry side pot, that he wouldn't have won anyway, he allowed the short stack to survive and triple up. The funniest part (not at the time) is that about 10 minutes later I ended up all-in in a 3-way pot with the same two players. This time the player that had previously been at risk had us both outchipped, having won a couple of pots in the interim. He ended up flopping a set and knocking us both out. So this guy ended up getting knocked out by the person who's tournament life he saved by bluffing at that dry side pot.

 

[IntenseHeat]

CHECK WITH YOUR GAMBLING HOUSE
Many tournaments stipulate you must bet the absolute nuts on the river (even up to re-raising any action) - you cannot check it down. You will be penalized. Just saw a guy last week get an orbit penalty for it. They even made him leave the poker room. The thing is the dealer didn't catch it - it was another player and they had to call the floor over to invoke the penalty.
Two years ago Darvin Moon got penalized in the ME for checking it down (so he could see the other guy's hand).
Checking the nuts on the river is not only UNacceptable - it is against the rules in many tournaments worldwide. It comes under the heading of soft play.
I do not think this rule exists in Roberts Rules of Poker.

I was actually thinking of that Darving Moon hand, but couldn't remember who it was. Darvin Moon played a suited Ace, flopped middle pair and bet it. The turn gave him the nut flush draw, but was another overcard, so he checked behind his man. He hit the nut flush on the river and it was checked to him. He wanted to see the other guys hand, so he checked behind, knowing his man would fold if he bet. He even said so when he turned his hand over. Norman Chad was pointing out that it was against the rules to check the nuts on the river if you're last to act when another player at the table commented on it. A tourney official happened to be standing right there as the players discussed it. I think they made him sit out for one hand for it. Darvin said he had never heard of that. To be honest, that was the first time I had heard of it. But I remember the most surprising thing to me was that Norman Chad spotted it and pointed it out before anyone else did. The point of it is to keep players that could potentialy be buddies from taking it easy one each other in a spot where they might value bet against another player.

 

[IntenseHeat]

I seen it happen last night on BOVADA .The BB was all in with a low chip stack. Mid position called.I was in the cut off position with big chip stack & called.The flop came low cards Mid checked,I checked.The turn flopped an Ace.Mid position pushed another 1,500 chips to put him/her all in with A/6 unsuited.I called with A/Q suited and had taken the pot down.I was willing to check it down but mid position pushed on me.After he had checked the flop & pushed on the turn ,no doubt I thought he had an Ace.It cost him his tourney life.I think its best to check it down unless you have the absolute nuts.For all mid position knew, BB could of had A/K,QQ any hand that could of stood a chance to beat us both before the flop.

You should do what's in your own best interest. Many time at the bubble or pay jumps, that is checking down. However, not always. It may not happen often, but there can be situations where it's to your advantage to bet into a dry side pot. One possible example is if you have a massive stack and your table is letting you steal the blinds with impunity. You basically gain nothing when the bubble breaks because your chances of not cashing are effectively 0 even if you double up a small stack. And if that does happens, you simply replace them by stealing a few more blinds. Depending on the blinds and stacks, it's possible that betting into the dry side pot can be more in your interest than checking down, which doesn't guarantee the small stack will lose anyway.

It's not just about taking an unnecessary risk to your stack. It's about advancing the tournament, yourself included, closer to the money. The point being that what's in your own best self interest is to have one less player standing between you and victory, whether or not you're already assured to make the money. You don't have to be anywhere near the bubble. Say for instance you're in 3-way pot with an all-in player. You're holding 4-4, the all-in player is holding Q-Q and third guy is holding K-K. An Ace hits on the flop and you try to represent that you have an Ace by shoving the rest of your stack in. The Ks fold and the Qs take down the pot. What you've effectively done is act against your own self interest. By allowing a player to triple up and remain in the tournament. That's one more player standing between you and victory.

Again, I saw a perfect example of this during the 2011 wsop, but can't remember the players involved. It was day 2 or 3. They weren't anywhere near the money bubble. There were several pros seated at one of the outer tables. One of the pros went all-in after some preliminary raising and reraising. Two players ended up calling the all-in, one of them being one of the other pros at the table and an amateur. The amateur player fires out a bet on the flop. The pro folds. The cards get turned over. The amateur has nothing. We see that the pro who folded would have made the best hand on the turn and knocked the other pro out. He's a more than a little pissed, along with the rest of the table, not because he would have won the pot. The other players didn't care who won the pot. It wouldn't have made a difference to their stack size. They were pissed because this guy's all-in bluff allowed a dangerous player to remain in the game. We're talking about one of those multiple bracelet winners that nobody wants to have sitting at there table. It would have been in the best interest of everyone to have this guy out of the tourney. They would all be one step closer to the money with one less dangerous player standing in their way. After a while the cameras return to same outer table to see the amateur player being knocked out by the professional who's tournament had been saved by his bluff. I don't think anybody even said anything to him. They just all looked at him like "I bet you won't ever make that mistake again".

 

[vinylspiros]

The only time ever that something like this would be ok would be if it was on the bubble or close to the bubble but if either of the two players has anything more than a pair then it definitely is ok to bet. since odds are your probably going to win the hand. bluffing with air in a 3 way pot with one guy all in is totally but totally ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever. usually in situations like this, i find it that players are extremely honest so usually the remaining two players will make a min bet saying i have alittle piece of it so ill take him out. if the other guy calls its like him saying:"so do i" so the turn and river will most likely go check check unless one of the 2 has amonster where then the other can safely fold and decide to let him do the dirty work.(eliminate the all-inner)

 

[SicKBeATz]

Well I think it's situational as well, if you have a vulnerable hand like TT and the flop is pretty safe I think it's a good strategy to bet sometimes, not only to get more value from two overcards possibly but also to not let a hand like A5 or K10 make top pair on the river b/c you checked it down.
But never bluff a dry side pot, I believe that's bad etiquette but it's also bad poker b/c the person that does this usually can't even beat the all in player therefore winning only the amount he bluffed back and doubling up the all in player. I've had ppl bet me out of a dry side pot many times where my bottom/mid pair could've knocked the other player out and they gained nothing by betting.

 

[ssbn743]

CHECK WITH YOUR GAMBLING HOUSE

Many tournaments stipulate you must bet the absolute nuts on the river (even up to re-raising any action) - you cannot check it down. You will be penalized. Just saw a guy last week get an orbit penalty for it. They even made him leave the poker room. The thing is the dealer didn't catch it - it was another player and they had to call the floor over to invoke the penalty.

Two years ago Darvin Moon got penalized in the ME for checking it down (so he could see the other guy's hand).

Checking the nuts on the river is not only UNacceptable - it is against the rules in many tournaments worldwide. It comes under the heading of soft play.

I do not think this rule exists in Roberts Rules of Poker.

46: Conditional Statements

Conditional statements regarding future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged; they may be binding and/or subject to penalty at TD’s discretion. Example: “if – then” statements such as "If you bet, then I will raise”.

53: Ethical Play

Poker is an individual game. Soft play will result in penalties, which may include forfeiture of chips and/or disqualification. Chip dumping and/or all other forms of collusion will result in disqualification.

So if you want to go so far as calling a “soft play” on me for checking the nuts, go ahead, be my guest – and I will fight it until my last breath. Checking the river is not a “soft play” and is not conducive with the spirit or intent of this rule – any decent floor would never call a soft play there.

Unless of course it is an actual “soft play” – but you can’t just arbitrarily claim “soft play” because someone checked the nuts – it doesn’t work like that!

 

[ssbn743]

He is not a Nit, if he's limping with every hand.
If he had still been in the hand, you would of been 1 more spot closer to cashing, but now you've got someone with the same size stack who can take you out.
Unless you landed the flop and landed it hard, it's best to check it down.

If I check it down I lose 1/3 of my stack!

That shit ain’t happening! That doesn’t leave a great deal more options does it?

 

[SicKBeATz]

If I check it down I lose 1/3 of my stack!

That shit ain’t happening! That doesn’t leave a great deal more options does it?

If your intention was to isolate the all in player, why not shove preflop? It really doesn't make sense to call and bluff the flop with Ahi. The turn shove is understandable I guess b/c you already committed your stack, but the flop bet is a little weird if your intention was to isolate the allin player.

 

[ssbn743]

If your intention was to isolate the all in player, why not shove preflop? It really doesn't make sense to call and bluff the flop with Ahi. The turn shove is understandable I guess b/c you already committed your stack, but the flop bet is a little weird if your intention was to isolate the allin player.

This hand is not the intention of this thread so I didn’t want to go into great detail. However, in short, I verbalized my call and I misjudged the size of my opponents stack. I knew I was calling his all-in, but if I had realized it was 1/3 of stack I would have shoved. Additionally, I thought I could get the UTG limper to fold. It wasn't the first time he had limped in and folded and I’m convinced that the only reason he called is because I did (we have some history). Anyway, a bad hand all the way around, I screwed up and got myself into a position where a bluff was my only option – fortunately he was nitty enough to fold.

 

[MediaBLITZ]

Is this for realz??

Not that I'm saying "you're a moron and making stuff up" and I'm almost certain you and a majority of this community knows a lot more about poker than I, but that's a bit nuts if you ask me.

The fact they have rules that dictate your actions depending on your quality of hand is just silly in my opinion. I'd be pissed if I got a penalty for me playing my two cards the way I want to play them...

Pick it up at about 1:10 in the video

And let's say in this case George decides to bluff the river instead of checking vs Darvin - Moon is then obligated to come over the top because he has the absolute nuts. He cannot smooth call with the nuts either. He must continue to "create action" with that hand.

This is not isolated case it has happened (with penalty) a few times in the WSOP. It happened to some lady in the same tourney (2009) it happened to Moon. In fact someone (Jerry Monroe) did it to Moon last year in a WSOP Circuit Event (Biloxi). Monroe went on to win it!?!

And let's be clear - you CAN check the nuts on the flop and on the turn - that is strategic play. But when last to act on the last street there is a balance TD's must strike between what is a strategic move and what could be construed as soft playing an opponent.

 

[MediaBLITZ]

Unless of course it is an actual “soft play” – but you can’t just arbitrarily claim “soft play” because someone checked the nuts – it doesn’t work like that!

Actually you can and it will probably be enforced. Now that doesn't prove intentional cheating or collusion, but it will be viewed as crossing the line (intentional or not).
Matt Savage says he takes a few things into consideration before penalizing - such as if the two players involved know each other and if they are even aware of the rule. In Moon's case he came off as such a rube he only got a one hand penalty (very light) - others get an orbit or specified amount of time like 10 minutes out of the action.

BUT AGAIN - you CAN check the nuts on the flop and on the turn. It is the last action on the river you cannot. Which I guess means if you are first to act on the river you could also check?

 

[kidkvno1]

If I check it down I lose 1/3 of my stack!

That shit ain’t happening! That doesn’t leave a great deal more options does it?

And yet he sounds like someone who would slow play a monster. Think about it you bluff the pot, he see's that you bluffed at it with Ace Hi.
You just gave him info that you will shove with Ace hi on the flop even if you miss, don't you think he will use that info to knock you out of the game.
In my view calling with AT from the BB or SB is a bad move, a move that would of kept you from losing any of your stack, well all but the BB.
Did you even happen to cash in this game?

And yet you keep calling him a nit, if he had AK AQ AJ AA KK QQ JJ, he would of made the call.

 

[SicKBeATz]

Actually you can and it will probably be enforced. Now that doesn't prove intentional cheating or collusion, but it will be viewed as crossing the line (intentional or not).
Matt Savage says he takes a few things into consideration before penalizing - such as if the two players involved know each other and if they are even aware of the rule. In Moon's case he came off as such a rube he only got a one hand penalty (very light) - others get an orbit or specified amount of time like 10 minutes out of the action.

BUT AGAIN - you CAN check the nuts on the flop and on the turn. It is the last action on the river you cannot. Which I guess means if you are first to act on the river you could also check?

Does it have to be the absolute nuts? I mean if the flop is A24 of hearts and you have KQ of hearts or mid set and making a fullhouse but it's possible that someone has a bigger fullhouse but is extremely unlikely do you still have to bet it? I think you should have to but that rule seems like it's only if you have the stone cold nuts.

 

[ssbn743]

And yet he sounds like someone who would slow play a monster. Think about it you bluff the pot, he see's that you bluffed at it with Ace Hi.

You just gave him info that you will shove with Ace hi on the flop even if you miss, don't you think he will use that info to knock you out of the game.

In my view calling with AT from the BB or SB is a bad move, a move that would of kept you from losing any of your stack, well all but the BB.

Did you even happen to cash in this game?

And yet you keep calling him a nit, if he had AK AQ AJ AA KK QQ JJ, he would of made the call.

I really don’t want to talk about this anymore – it has no bearing on this thread. For the record I did not cash in this tournament; I finished well out of the money.

He is a borderline NIT, as I said in my first post – I know him well; he can’t raise and if he does – guess what he has? Yet he will continually limp and fold – I watched him do it all day long just like I do every weekend. (Well maybe not every weekend – but close); he is nitty and he didn’t have anywhere near AK AQ AJ AA KK QQ JJ.

As for the SB, he was tilted and is another regular player that I know well – it may seem like a stretch of a call here – but trust me, it was not – I normally would have been reserved about calling with A 10 too. As for the Ace high bluff – that will probably work in my favor against a NIT that borders on not being a NIT: - don’t you think? 

 

[ssbn743]

Actually you can and it will probably be enforced. Now that doesn't prove intentional cheating or collusion, but it will be viewed as crossing the line (intentional or not).

Matt Savage says he takes a few things into consideration before penalizing - such as if the two players involved know each other and if they are even aware of the rule. In Moon's case he came off as such a rube he only got a one hand penalty (very light) - others get an orbit or specified amount of time like 10 minutes out of the action.

BUT AGAIN - you CAN check the nuts on the flop and on the turn. It is the last action on the river you cannot. Which I guess means if you are first to act on the river you could also check?

Man I gotta tell you that if I checked the nuts, for whatever reason, and then got a penalty (which is pretty much akin to not only accusing, but convicting me of cheating) someone would die!

That’s total BS –and really pisses me off! The rule is in place to prevent collusion yet does nothing of the sort and just jumps straight to the head of line accusing a player of cheating.

There are scores of additional examples in poker that should have the same rules if this is case.

Imagine two players at showdown and one player mucks his hand face down. Anyone at the table can ask to see his hand – yet if you do it is essentially accusing him of cheating and therefore usually countered with house rules that say only the TD can force him to show – because you can’t just call someone a cheater because you want to see his hand. The rule is in place to prevent collusion, just like the above, but does not forgo a penalty of any sort! That is until it is proven to be actual collusion!

This says nothing for the fact that you don’t have to know what you’re doing to play poker – there is no prerequisite other than your buy-in. I’ve seen people do all kinds of ridiculously stupid stuff in low buy-in events; they get a penalty for not knowing that they’re supposed to bet?

Collusion is not arbitrary and is always up to the TD’s discretion! This is BS plain and simple!

 

[MediaBLITZ]

Does it have to be the absolute nuts? I mean if the flop is A24 of hearts and you have KQ of hearts or mid set and making a fullhouse but it's possible that someone has a bigger fullhouse but is extremely unlikely do you still have to bet it? I think you should have to but that rule seems like it's only if you have the stone cold nuts.

Plain and simple - if the board shows that there can be a hand that can beat you - bigger full house is a great example (see below) - then you DO NOT HAVE THE NUTS.

You hold AA and the flop is AK373 - you do not have the nuts. If anyone is holding 33 - they have the nuts. But no one has to be holding it, it does not change the fact that quad threes would be the UNBEATABLE holding for that hand.

Never played Find the Nuts? Great exercise in board reading.

 

[MediaBLITZ]

Collusion is not arbitrary and is always up to the TD’s discretion! This is BS plain and simple!

Well I am okay with this rule - there's just no good reason to not bet the nuts on the final action of a hand, BUT

totally with you - there is just way too damn much left to the TD's discretion. It's like there are secret rules with undetermined penalties you won't find out about until it's too late.

 

[ssbn743]

Well I am okay with this rule - there's just no good reason to not bet the nuts on the final action of a hand, BUT

totally with you - there is just way too damn much left to the TD's discretion. It's like there are secret rules with undetermined penalties you won't find out about until it's too late.

Absolutely, from a +EV standpoint you have to bet the nuts; right? You might only get called 1 time in 100, but that’s better than 0 times in 100, nonetheless…

I was not aware of this Darwin Moon hand and it really ticks me off that that actually happened – and like it did. Obviously he was not colluding and had his reasons for checking the nuts – some discretion was given since he only received a one hand penalty vice something more standard or severe.

Where is the common sense? If you’re going to give the TD the discretion to determine penalty length; why not the discretion to determine collusion? Hell, if I was Darwin I would have accused the TD of colluding with everyone else at the table – why not – it obviously worked for them and there’s no evidence to support either one! Just a one-sided situation specific line buried deep in the rulebook that says you’re cheating if you check the nuts.

It’s a damn good thing that’s never happened to me in a big tourney (not that it ever would – I think I would bet the best hand – but that doesn’t absolve the principle of the matter) - I might be in prison right now!

 

[ssbn743]

Well I am okay with this rule - there's just no good reason to not bet the nuts on the final action of a hand, BUT

totally with you - there is just way too damn much left to the TD's discretion. It's like there are secret rules with undetermined penalties you won't find out about until it's too late.

You don’t agree with the TD’s having discretion?

I can see it both ways. But I think discretion is a good thing – even if, in the rare case, it turns out to be wrong.

Consider the main event of the WSOP with 7500+ players. How many TD’s are there? And how many of them have secret buddies or acquaintances in the field? In such a case discretion would be negative, however, a player always has the right to a second opinion – and what are the odds that two TD’s are abusing their discretion privileges?

You just can’t put every situation on paper, so quite simply, it comes down to grey. I can get a monkey to read the rule book and apply the black and white. It’s specifically their ability to reason that makes them the TD. It’s specifically their ability to read the black and white and apply the grey – otherwise, why are they there?

 

[SicKBeATz]

Plain and simple - if the board shows that there can be a hand that can beat you - bigger full house is a great example (see below) - then you DO NOT HAVE THE NUTS.

You hold AA and the flop is AK373 - you do not have the nuts. If anyone is holding 33 - they have the nuts. But no one has to be holding it, it does not change the fact that quad threes would be the UNBEATABLE holding for that hand.

Never played Find the Nuts? Great exercise in board reading.

I understand what the nuts are blitz, but to me the rule doesn't make much sense. If you are checking the 2nd nuts on the river if it's checked to you it looks just as much like soft play or collusion as if you are checking the nuts. I understand that they wouldn't be able to enforce it since it's not an unbeatable hand but it's still just seems like a silly rule. If it's bet to you I'd imagine you'd have to raise as well correct?

Had no idea that ppl check the nuts that often that they had to make a ruling.

 

[MediaBLITZ]

You don’t agree with the TD’s having discretion?

I can see it both ways. But I think discretion is a good thing – even if, in the rare case, it turns out to be wrong.

Consider the main event of the WSOP with 7500+ players. How many TD’s are there? And how many of them have secret buddies or acquaintances in the field? In such a case discretion would be negative, however, a player always has the right to a second opinion – and what are the odds that two TD’s are abusing their discretion privileges?

You just can’t put every situation on paper, so quite simply, it comes down to grey. I can get a monkey to read the rule book and apply the black and white. It’s specifically their ability to reason that makes them the TD. It’s specifically their ability to read the black and white and apply the grey – otherwise, why are they there?

I guess my point is there is WAY too much grey for TD's to deal with. This for example - nowhere in the rules does it say you must bet the nuts if last to act on the river - nothing remotely close to that. Just the TD's discretion that it is soft playing, which is equal to collusion. I don't understand why, what with the universal acceptance of this from TD's across continents - why the hell not make it black and white and this thread probably wouldn't even exist. It's no wonder there are so many people unfamiliar with this hidden, TD's discretion, rule.

It's not really fair to players like Darvin Moon, that lady early in the same tournament, and others who probably read through the rules and there was no reference to something that seems so obvious to others. Now you have ME worked up about it - LOL.

Now you have me thinking in Darvin's shoes I'm asking to see the rule (which I have read) then push the TD into, "So you are saying I'm cheating - right? Well I must be or you wouldn't be penalizing me right now since this is not really a black and white rule."

 

[MediaBLITZ]

I understand what the nuts are blitz, but to me the rule doesn't make much sense. If you are checking the 2nd nuts on the river if it's checked to you it looks just as much like soft play or collusion as if you are checking the nuts. I understand that they wouldn't be able to enforce it since it's not an unbeatable hand but it's still just seems like a silly rule. If it's bet to you I'd imagine you'd have to raise as well correct?

Had no idea that ppl check the nuts that often that they had to make a ruling.

Well it is very vague in the rules, but via TD's interpretation and transcripts via Google, the player with the nuts must create action - which means no checking down and no flat calling.

Anyone who has seen The Cincinnati Kid will understand "He's got the jack".
And if you have played long enough you have had your ass handed to you holding the 2nd nuts enough to leave a lasting impression - so no, I do not agree that it looks just as much like a soft play as the absolute nuts.

Hell, I know I wasn't soft playing when the board was 9TJQ all hearts and I had the 8 of hearts. Just smelled the other guy had the K. He checked and so did I. Boom - he had the K. Another guy had the A and he didn't want to play either.

Any board reading at all should start with the nuts and work its way down to your own hand and then connect that to the range you have your opponent on.
If the nuts is reasonably in his range then you need to proceed with some sort of caution, up to a final check.

 

[ssbn743]

I guess my point is there is WAY too much grey for TD's to deal with. This for example - nowhere in the rules does it say you must bet the nuts if last to act on the river - nothing remotely close to that. Just the TD's discretion that it is soft playing, which is equal to collusion. I don't understand why, what with the universal acceptance of this from TD's across continents - why the hell not make it black and white and this thread probably wouldn't even exist. It's no wonder there are so many people unfamiliar with this hidden, TD's discretion, rule.

It's not really fair to players like Darvin Moon, that lady early in the same tournament, and others who probably read through the rules and there was no reference to something that seems so obvious to others. Now you have ME worked up about it - LOL.

Now you have me thinking in Darvin's shoes I'm asking to see the rule (which I have read) then push the TD into, "So you are saying I'm cheating - right? Well I must be or you wouldn't be penalizing me right now since this is not really a black and white rule."

Sorry I got you worked up – this got me worked up too! It’s just gets under my skin when someone is accused of cheating when they are obviously not cheating!

And you’re right – it is the discretion that makes this a penalty isn’t it? A soft play is entirely discretion and just means “you played your hand differently than you would have normally”. Does anyone else see a problem with that? How many examples of so-called “soft plays” can you think of right now off the top of your head? I can think if a lot!

This is just one of those things I guess – but just like in that Darwin Moon video with the guy to his right says “you have to bet the nuts on the river – it’s been a rule for a long time.” No it hasn’t – SHOW ME! And it’s all going to come down to discretion – apparently Darwin's play was a “soft play” and he was cheating – but because we like him, he only gets a one hand penalty - which doesn’t even make sense!

This is a major problem – it’s almost like the TDA is run by and populated with liberals

 

[MediaBLITZ]

Sorry I got you worked up – this got me worked up too! It’s just gets under my skin when someone is accused of cheating when they are obviously not cheating!

And you’re right – it is the discretion that makes this a penalty isn’t it? A soft play is entirely discretion and just means “you played your hand differently than you would have normally”. Does anyone else see a problem with that? How many examples of so-called “soft plays” can you think of right now off the top of your head? I can think if a lot!

This is just one of those things I guess – but just like in that Darwin Moon video with the guy to his right says “you have to bet the nuts on the river – it’s been a rule for a long time.” No it hasn’t – SHOW ME! And it’s all going to come down to discretion – apparently Darwin's play was a “soft play” and he was cheating – but because we like him, he only gets a one hand penalty - which doesn’t even make sense!

This is a major problem – it’s almost like the TDA is run by and populated with liberals

Well that's what I'm saying - "It's been a rule for a long time" and yet it is not written in the rules - it is a rule based on historical TD discretion passed down via word of mouth - either make it a real rule or not.

Liberals?!?! LOL that really did make me laugh out loud