Tourney Can't check the nuts rule clarification? (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

This came up at another table in my tournament yesterday, and I feel like the floor got it wrong.
It was that unique situation where two players had the nuts, (I think they both had a K to make a 10-A straight) - are they obligated to be all in? My thinking would be no - you can't check with the nuts, but once somebody bets into you, you CAN call them.
But afterward, floor said no, you can't call the nuts either, you have to bet the nuts, meaning if two players have the nuts, they both have to bet and raise until it's all in.
That can't be right, can it?

 

[btbmason]

If that is their rule as it is posted/explained, then it is correct that they can't just call there.

I've heard of this before as well, the reasoning being to prevent collusion or soft play with another player.

If you can't possibly lose any part of the pot to any other hand combination, there's no reason anyone should ever be flatting the nuts to close the action on a hand.

 

[bentax1978]

I don't know the actual wording of the rule where you were playing, but if the rule is you can't check with the nuts (to close the action), I would also expect that you can't call with the nuts either. So yes, it would make sense (to me) that you are obligated to raise (and eventually be all-in).

 

[T_Chan]

My understanding of the rule is that "if you're last to act, you cannot check the nuts". So the first player can check all they want as long as there is at least one player behind, but the last player to act cannot check. I haven't heard of the rule where you cannot call with the nuts before, but it makes sense based on the intention of the rule which is to prevent soft play.

To me it makes no sense though why both players would not be all in anyways.

 

[WedgeRock]

If its the written rule, you can't argue it. But its a stupid rule.

I'd prefer to call the nuts and take a penalty.

I can see requiring the nuts to bet, but not to bet, raise, re-raise and re-raise until both sides are all in.

 

[bsdunbar1]

My understanding of the rule is that "if you're last to act, you cannot check the nuts". So the first player can check all they want as long as there is at least one player behind, but the last player to act cannot check. .

^That is what i interpret the rule to be^

if no one with the nuts can just "call" to close the action that would mean the first hand of a 10k tournament, where 2 players made the nuts on the river, after maybe even checking it to the river, would have to both end up all-in when the pot had possibly $500 in it at that point? I agree why wouldn't you want to be all-in but it doesn't make sense to me that you would be forced to do that.

 

[bentax1978]

If its the written rule, you can't argue it. But its a stupid rule.

I'd prefer to call the nuts and take a penalty.

I can see requiring the nuts to bet, but not to bet, raise, re-raise and re-raise until both sides are all in.

It's not a stupid rule, nor does it make sense to require you to bet the nuts (if last to act) but not raise with them (heads-up). The entire idea is that there is never a legitimate reason not to bet the nuts (in position) or raise with them (heads-up). Doing otherwise could easily be interrupted as soft play.

 

[WedgeRock]

Why not make the rule, "if you have the nuts, you must go all in" then?

The OP rule is not pragmatic. I understand the need to discourage softplay, but this goes behind that end, IMO.

 

[H|Q]

There is a tactical reason to call with the nuts in a multiway pot.

 

[bentax1978]

Why not make the rule, "if you have the nuts, you must go all in" then?

Because that rule would make no sense. Unless you know the other person has the nuts, you're looking for a call and might not want to go all-in.

 

[bentax1978]

There is a tactical reason to call with the nuts in a multiway pot.

Absolutely. This obviously only applies to a heads-up situation in terms of the requirement to raise, unless you're closing the action.

 

[T_Chan]

If its the written rule, you can't argue it. But its a stupid rule.

I'd prefer to call the nuts and take a penalty.

I can see requiring the nuts to bet, but not to bet, raise, re-raise and re-raise until both sides are all in.

But you have the nuts... 0% chance to lose so why would you take a penalty over being forced all in when you cannot lose? Yeah it's not great to be forced all in but if you can't lose then why not? Sure it's a crappy rule if the room has it, that you not only can't check the nuts, but must bet it but the only time that would ever happen, you would at worst chop the pot.

 

[BGinGA]

There is a tactical reason to call with the nuts in a multiway pot.

Not if you are closing the action...... which is the only time the rule applies.

 

[BGinGA]

And one is not forced to go all-in with the nuts when closing the action..... one is merely required to bet or raise (no calling, no checking).

It is only when TWO players both have the nuts that it ends up with both all-in..... and that's a pretty rare situation.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I see nothing in the TDA 2015 rules (2017 has not been published yet), though the "cannot check the nuts" rule has been floated about ever since the Gavin Moon incident (and perhaps before). The spirit of the rule would suggest a must raise if you are the last to act with the nuts, which would also suggest an all-in by the lower of the 2 stacks if both of them had the nuts.

That said, I agree with T_Chan that if you have the nuts and there is a raise to you, why not re-raise? OK, bad play... I get that, especially when the "nuts" is just a straight (as is the case in the OP). It's not the kind of hand that is assured of a win so frequently, so a tired / drunk / recreational-casual player might never notice they have the nuts.

 

[bsdunbar1]

so a tired / drunk / recreational-casual player might never notice they have the nuts.

Fact

 

[Mental Nomad]

There is a tactical reason to call with the nuts in a multiway pot.

If you have the nuts, and it's a multi-way pot, and you're last the last caller and would be closing the action, what is the tactical reason to call instead of raising?

 

[Kain8]

If you have the nuts, and it's a multi-way pot, and you're last the last caller and would be closing the action, what is the tactical reason to call instead of raising?

Not to close the action, but especially in a limit game, calling with the nuts with players left to act means getting one or two overcalls of the big bet can be better than raising. There's absolutely no merit if you're last to act with the nuts to not raise, hence the rule in question which prevents softplay.

 

[upNdown]

To me it makes no sense though why both players would not be all in anyways.

Soft crowd. There's a real percentage of them that don't know when they have the nuts.

 

[bentax1978]

Soft crowd. There's a real percentage of them that don't know when they have the nuts.

So where is this tournament exactly...

 

[detroitdad]

So where is this tournament exactly...

Barrington, IL

 

[bentax1978]

Barrington, IL

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the majority of those tournament players know when they have the nuts... at least in hold'em

 

[detroitdad]

I'm going to go out on a limp and say the majority of those tournament players know when they have the nuts... at least in hold'em

You've played with me before lol. I think I was third out last year @Jeff 's.

sorry about the limp problem btw.

 

[bentax1978]

sorry about the limp problem btw.

It's alright, I hear they make a pill for that now.

 

[thorwilliam]

Not to close the action, but especially in a limit game, calling with the nuts with players left to act means getting one or two overcalls of the big bet can be better than raising. There's absolutely no merit if you're last to act with the nuts to not raise, hence the rule in question which prevents softplay.

Calling with the nuts can sometimes have more merit than raising if there is four to a straight on the board, because you will be able to see the opponent's hand instead of raising and making him fold.

 

[WedgeRock]

I used a ridiculous example to illustrate my point...

Requiring re-raises with the nuts until you are allin puts form over substance and goes too far in terms of accomplishing the goal of discouraging softplay.

Especially in a tournament, it ignores the ICM, for one.

That said, I agree with T_Chan that if you have the nuts and there is a raise to you, why not re-raise? OK, bad play... I get that, especially when the "nuts" is just a straight (as is the case in the OP). It's not the kind of hand that is assured of a win so frequently, so a tired / drunk / recreational-casual player might never notice they have the nuts.

People mis-read their hands all the time. You think your straight is the nuts so you continually raise and re-raise until you are all in, then learn that his 7-high flush beats your broadway.

I once had a guy in a casino call my action heads up. I had a boat... He had a straight flush, but thought he lost with a flush. He was about to throw his hand into the muck when I pointed it out. And it wasn't just a SF, it was the jackpot suit (meaning he took home the $3,000 progressive jackpot too).

 

[WedgeRock]

sorry about the limp problem btw.

Try this:

Spoiler

 

[upNdown]

Barrington, IL

Some of the older local regulars at the New Hampshire card rooms are really bad at poker.
Quick example, yesterday, right after the bubble, when the blinds doubled to 20k/40k and I was sitting on 55k, I put in my 40k big blind, it folds to the old Italian guy who shoves his 150k. It folds to me and I'm looking at 10-5 off. But I have less than a small blind behind, so of course I'm shoving.
He had poket fours, I caught a 10, and he was really pissed at me for calling with 10-5. Like, what on earth else would I have done in that situation?

 

[Poker Zombie]

People mis-read their hands all the time. You think your straight is the nuts so you continually raise and re-raise until you are all in, then learn that his 7-high flush beats your broadway.

I once had a guy in a casino call my action heads up. I had a boat... He had a straight flush, but thought he lost with a flush. He was about to throw his hand into the muck when I pointed it out. And it wasn't just a SF, it was the jackpot suit (meaning he took home the $3,000 progressive jackpot too).

This is why the "can't check with the nuts in last position" is only marginally enforced in our games. We already have a system in place to identify/eliminate soft players, so we do look for soft-play in other ways. But most of our players have never sat in a card room, and many have only played in my $20 tournaments. I get that they would misread a hand or not notice the nuts, especially a "weak nut" hand like a straight. If it is noticed, we will bring it up and give them a warning though, and if they are checking with something like quad aces, the penalty could be more severe, but I really don't anticipate anything like that ever being an issue.

 

[Max D]

I see nothing in the TDA 2015 rules (2017 has not been published yet), though the "cannot check the nuts" rule has been floated about ever since the Gavin Moon incident (and perhaps before). The spirit of the rule would suggest a must raise if you are the last to act with the nuts, which would also suggest an all-in by the lower of the 2 stacks if both of them had the nuts.

You are right this is not a TDA rule, it is a "house rule" in the case of the WSOP, not sure if WPT has it as well.