H|Q
Flush
What if you don't want to risk everyone folding to a raise? There are reasons to want to table your hand as well.
Tourney Can't check the nuts rule clarification? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter upNdown
- Start date
What if you don't want to risk everyone folding to a raise? There are reasons to want to table your hand as well.
For the 2015 summit there was a discussion to add it, I dont think it was on the agenda for the one last month.
2015 discussion: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1160.msg10196#msg10196
2015 discussion: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1160.msg10196#msg10196
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
That was Gavin Moon's claim in the WSOP. It did not hold up, and he found the rail for an orbit.
I just watched the video and I have no doubt that he was being honest. Darvin Moon certainly wasn't soft-playing anybody or colluding with anybody. Still, he got a one hand penalty.
I agree, I think they could have given him a warning.
I think it's a rule that's not known to the majority of poker players as it's so rarely invoked. It probably happens once in a while and nobody bats an eye about it since they don't know the rule. I never knew about it until I saw Moon do it at the WSOP. But a rule is a rule.
Having soft players isn't really a great excuse.. If I'm a soft player can I not follow the rules I don't know?
I agree though that there should not be a rule that says you must raise if you have the nuts, but I fully understand the rule that says you cannot check with the nuts when last to act. Calling with the nuts should be allowed, or at most be mandatory to make at least 1 raise, but not unlimited raises until you're all in.
Having soft players isn't really a great excuse.. If I'm a soft player can I not follow the rules I don't know?
I agree though that there should not be a rule that says you must raise if you have the nuts, but I fully understand the rule that says you cannot check with the nuts when last to act. Calling with the nuts should be allowed, or at most be mandatory to make at least 1 raise, but not unlimited raises until you're all in.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
This makes much more sense than the rule stated in the OP.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
But if the rule is to prevent intentional soft play, how is a single min-raise, or calling a single min-raise with the nuts not soft play?
Good point. The only reason I could think of is what Mr. Moon also stated, to get to see the other player's hand. Whether that's a good enough reason or not to deter soft play is another question that I'm not smart enough to answer.
AWenger
Full House
You guys are correct. I follow Matt Savage on Twitter, he is WPT tournament director and is heavily involved with the Tournament Directors Association (TDA). Someone asked him during this WSOP series, about this rule, and he confirmed it is not a TDA rule.
I've thought of this situation too, I think it's a valid reason to not have such a rule that a player 'needs to raise' with the nuts on the river.
Mental Nomad
Full House
There's no risk there.
If you call, you get no additional money.
If you raise and they fold, you get no additional money.
In neither circumstance do you lose any of the money currently on the table.
Risk: zero. Reward: maybe. That's a bet any honest poker player should make.
You can always do that voluntarily, even if the opposition folds.
I think the only (marginal) argument is this:
But, as noted above,
So he missed eight or ten hands because of the rule.
If you really, really, really want to see what they had, and an additional raise wouldn't have made much, then you can argue there's some advantage to seeing their cards... especially if they have a great deal behind for you to play for on later hands, and you don't have much behind, anyway (i.e., not much to gain even if they call the raise.)
But if your opponent could have been knocked out had you raised, or if the amount you could have gained would have been significant, it's hard to argue that the knowledge is worth anywhere near enough to warrant the play... unless you intent was to protect the player and keep them in the game, which implies collusion. Wait, scratch that... that is collusion.
And the most likely collusion among high-stakes tournament players is not direct cheating, but simply holding shares in each other's outcome... in which case a player can improve their odds of making money on a tourney by making sure the people in whom they have a stake stay in the game.
I played in a tournament in an Oklahoma casino in which the board was Broadway with no flush. EVERYONE in the hand to the river had the nuts. The three players checked, knowing it was a split pot and the last player was penalized for checking the nuts. I'm generally ok with this rule, for the reasons outlined above, but this was stupid, IMO.
L
L
bergs
Royal Flush
Why would you want to flat with the stone cold nuts when you're last to act?
I don't believe it's either a TDA rule or a WSOP rule! Moon said he was unaware of the rule. It wasn't written, and it wasn't in the Dealer's Guide. While the concept is great, I have never found the exact wording of the "rule." What was explained to Moon was he couldn't check the nuts on the river if he was the last to act. Presumably that meant by position, but if it's last to act when there is someone behind you who raised, it's very unclear you are obligated to raise. A call isn't what was prohibited -- only a check. And again, no written rule.
Phil Ivey, sometime after that, had the same situation come up, but he didn't realize he had the nuts. If Phil Ivey can miss it, most of the rest of us can too. It's such a broad rule, there would really need to be some evidence of collusion. It would be hard to collude with someone you don't know. Making a play to gain info is done all the time.
Phil Ivey, sometime after that, had the same situation come up, but he didn't realize he had the nuts. If Phil Ivey can miss it, most of the rest of us can too. It's such a broad rule, there would really need to be some evidence of collusion. It would be hard to collude with someone you don't know. Making a play to gain info is done all the time.
There is no TDA or RROP rule that specifically addresses or requires 'betting/raising with the nuts when last to act in the hand.'
But it's pretty commonly enforced in most venues, in both cash and tournament formats.
And the rule that applies is present in almost every rulebook... generally found near the beginning, under a heading of poker or player etiquette, or worded something similar.
It is the rule(s) that addresses cheating, and more specifically, collusion.
Below are the pertinent excerpts from an older WSOP rulebook. The position taken by management is that not betting/raising with the nuts when last to act in the hand constitutes soft play, which is (or can be) considered collusion, which is considered cheating.
That's the basis for their position and subsequent actions when it occurs and is discovered. So long as it is consistently applied, with appropriate warnings/penalties that are applicable to the given circumstances (as understood by director/floor/management), a specific rule is not needed -- it's already covered.
As a tournament director, my ruling on such an infraction is very dependent upon the circumstances. If it was obviously not collusion, then a simple verbal warning suffices. But it's part of the rules arsenal that is there to protect the other players from the effects of deliberately soft-playing against an opponent, which does occur...... and can occur....... by not betting/raising with the nuts when last to act in a hand.
But it's pretty commonly enforced in most venues, in both cash and tournament formats.
And the rule that applies is present in almost every rulebook... generally found near the beginning, under a heading of poker or player etiquette, or worded something similar.
It is the rule(s) that addresses cheating, and more specifically, collusion.
Below are the pertinent excerpts from an older WSOP rulebook. The position taken by management is that not betting/raising with the nuts when last to act in the hand constitutes soft play, which is (or can be) considered collusion, which is considered cheating.
That's the basis for their position and subsequent actions when it occurs and is discovered. So long as it is consistently applied, with appropriate warnings/penalties that are applicable to the given circumstances (as understood by director/floor/management), a specific rule is not needed -- it's already covered.
As a tournament director, my ruling on such an infraction is very dependent upon the circumstances. If it was obviously not collusion, then a simple verbal warning suffices. But it's part of the rules arsenal that is there to protect the other players from the effects of deliberately soft-playing against an opponent, which does occur...... and can occur....... by not betting/raising with the nuts when last to act in a hand.
Quicksilver-75
4 of a Kind
Just so I know....because I'm lazy..
What is the current wsop ruling in this matter? I was under the assumption that the nuts had to be raised only if you were second to act in heads up play. Whereas it was still legal to induce a value bet / Bluff by checking and thus extract info from the other player with a call when the hands had to be opened up.
What is the current wsop ruling in this matter? I was under the assumption that the nuts had to be raised only if you were second to act in heads up play. Whereas it was still legal to induce a value bet / Bluff by checking and thus extract info from the other player with a call when the hands had to be opened up.
Below are the 2015 WSOP rules. I supplied the bold and underline below.
***
39. A. The competitive integrity of all Tournament play at the WSOP is paramount. All participants must adhere to the spirit and letter of the Official Rules of the WSOP that forbid play or any action that is illegal, unethical or constitutes cheating or collusion in any form.
i. Cheating is defined as any act a person engages in to break the established rules of play to gain an advantage.
ii. Cheating includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: collusion; chip stealing; transferring non-value Tournament chips from one event to another; introducing chips not intended for an event, into an event, card marking; card substitution; or the use of any kind of cheating device.
iii. Collusion is defined as any agreement between or among two (2) or more participants to engage in illegal or unethical acts against other participants.
iv. Chip dumping is defined as any agreement between or among two (2) or more participants for one or more of the participants to bet chips with the intent of increasing another participant's stack.
v. Soft play is defined as any agreement between or among two (2) or more participants to not bet or raise each other in order to minimize the number of chips lost by those participants participating in the agreement.
vi. Collusion includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: chip dumping; soft play; sharing card information with another participant; sending or receiving signals from or to another participant; the use of electronic communication with the intent to facilitate collusion; and any other act that Rio deems inappropriate.
***
The problem is all of them require an agreement among players. While it can be difficult to prove an agreement between players, the WSOP made an agreement part of the rules. Even if they didn't require a high standard of evidence, players who don't know each other could not have colluded. Certain types of plays would obviously not fit collusion even when the last to act on the river doesn't bet the nuts.
It would be very easy for the WSOP, the TDA, or anyone else to have an explicitly written rule that covers this, but they don't. A house rule might specifically state it.
***
39. A. The competitive integrity of all Tournament play at the WSOP is paramount. All participants must adhere to the spirit and letter of the Official Rules of the WSOP that forbid play or any action that is illegal, unethical or constitutes cheating or collusion in any form.
i. Cheating is defined as any act a person engages in to break the established rules of play to gain an advantage.
ii. Cheating includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: collusion; chip stealing; transferring non-value Tournament chips from one event to another; introducing chips not intended for an event, into an event, card marking; card substitution; or the use of any kind of cheating device.
iii. Collusion is defined as any agreement between or among two (2) or more participants to engage in illegal or unethical acts against other participants.
iv. Chip dumping is defined as any agreement between or among two (2) or more participants for one or more of the participants to bet chips with the intent of increasing another participant's stack.
v. Soft play is defined as any agreement between or among two (2) or more participants to not bet or raise each other in order to minimize the number of chips lost by those participants participating in the agreement.
vi. Collusion includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: chip dumping; soft play; sharing card information with another participant; sending or receiving signals from or to another participant; the use of electronic communication with the intent to facilitate collusion; and any other act that Rio deems inappropriate.
***
The problem is all of them require an agreement among players. While it can be difficult to prove an agreement between players, the WSOP made an agreement part of the rules. Even if they didn't require a high standard of evidence, players who don't know each other could not have colluded. Certain types of plays would obviously not fit collusion even when the last to act on the river doesn't bet the nuts.
It would be very easy for the WSOP, the TDA, or anyone else to have an explicitly written rule that covers this, but they don't. A house rule might specifically state it.
Quicksilver-75
4 of a Kind
And often times poker rooms will opt to not enforce their own rules in order to protect known players.
I only ask in that question because I will check, not necessarily with the nuts always, but when I'm fairly certain I'm holding the winning hand to put it back to an unfamiliar player in an attempt to establish range and ability. I'd hate to be penalized because it was deemed as soft play. Early on and when it is cost effective an education is worth more than an induced fold which generates no real hand info.
I only ask in that question because I will check, not necessarily with the nuts always, but when I'm fairly certain I'm holding the winning hand to put it back to an unfamiliar player in an attempt to establish range and ability. I'd hate to be penalized because it was deemed as soft play. Early on and when it is cost effective an education is worth more than an induced fold which generates no real hand info.
This is the main reason for the rule. With staking becoming more prevalent and staking websites popping up, there is more opportunity to "soft" play. Now don't get me wrong, collusion will always be present but the rule is to protect players, not put restrictions on them.
^This.
At the WSOP I hit quads during a deepstack tourney. The dealer tried to call me out for a penalty, as I was first to act and checked to induce. The floor ruled that I was allowed to attempt to induce and only had to raise if last to act with nuts.
The place you were at may have different rules however...
Going back to the Moon situation, what would have happened if a bet had been placed in front of him and he only called? A call is not a check unless there is no bet out there.
I think Mental Nomad and Phaze12 have touched on the problem and it may be the reason the WSOP has never clarified the rule in writing. Staking creates an odd situation where it isn't in your best financial interest to KO another player, but let him stay in the game, though normally it's ALWAYS in your best interest to KO another player since it moves you one place closer to the money.
There are problems with this "alleged" rule. I say alleged because without an agreement between players, it's completely subjective. Whether a player is penalized or not is going to be all over the board. It depends on who the floor is, who brings the complaint, who the person is who checked, and no doubt many other things. Moon was unaware of the rule. One cannot deliberately break a rule of which he is unaware. Therefore, it can't be collusion, which is the stated reason for the rules that lead to the conclusion checking the nuts on the river when you are the last to act is wrong.
Players use an endless variety of strategies, and obtaining info about how someone else played a hand is always valuable. A raise that causes a fold deprives one of info about the opponent play. If one always went all-in with the nuts, that gives valuable info
Some have alluded to the potential problem interpreting it. It goes from can't check the nuts on the river if you are the last to act to you must raise if you are the last to act in a particular situation. There's a huge difference in the two scenarios. Here's an example.
A, B, C, and D in the hand, and playing in that order. All four have a K X. The board comes Qd Jh Ts 9c Ac. On the turn, only one min bets, but all call. All would fear the AK, knowing that though they have a straight, they could lose to an AK. The A on the river assures all have the nut hand. A, B, and C all check, hoping for a raise. D raises. Apparently A, B, and C are all OK with a check since they are not the last to act, but D is not.
Now what happens? Is A obligated to raise since he has the nuts? He's not the last to act. Presumably A and B could call but would that require C to raise, since he's the last to act, or could C just call? Now suppose C raises, fearing he would run afoul of the rule even though he is calling not checking. See, already we have uncertainty about the exact nature of the rule. So D and A call. Is B now obligated to raise since he is the last to act? If he does, and C and D call, is A now obligated to raise?
Do not all players have info to gain by seeing everyone else's hand? What the "X" is for every other player is valuable info to the all the others. While it would be crazy for any to fold, could they be penalized for folding? Folding the nut hand in that situation sure sounds like soft play. Now, players might want to just call hoping at least one guy has an 8 and they will split up his bets, but raises might drive him out, thus depriving everyone of knowing how he played.
Moon's play was on Day 1D. At that point, info might be valuable to him. The one-hand penalty at that point amounts to so little as to not be worth the effort of fighting about it, even if you felt that you wanted to clear your name. If it took 5-10 minutes to clear that up, you've lost 2-5 hands -- more than the penalty. I'm not sure the floor made the right decision.
If Moon had thought about it, here's an argument that could have been made. It's Rule 66 from the 2011 WSOP rules.
66. At the end of the last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive betting action in that betting round must show first. If there was no bet during the final round, the player to the left of the button shows first, and so on in a clockwise direction. In stud games, the player with the high board must show first. In razz, the lowest board shows first. At showdown, any player at the table may request to see a folded hand from any player who has called all bets on the last round of betting. If a player with the last aggressive action on the last round of betting refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the player in violation will receive a penalty, according to Rule No. 96.
The bold and underlined part (from me) give each player a specific right to see any live hand since every live hand has called all bets on the last round of betting. If it's all checks on the river, any player can see any other hand. That should be superior to the less specific Rule 39A where there is no agreement that can be proved. It's been while since I saw the tape, but I'm sure Moon didn't raise that argument. If he had, and the result had been different, the floor's decision was clearly wrong. I'm not sure the floor was doing more than responding to other players claiming that was against the rule, but what Moon did was not a violation of a clearly written rule. I would never assume a decision in a case like that is the right decision. It wasn't appealed, so the floor decided what the facts were without any protest from Moon about rules that might have favored him. Thus the floor was never called on to clarify what the rules were.
The Moon case is a bad case to cite as a good interpretation of the rules because it wasn't an interpretation of the rules. No one can cite that as a clearly written rule; it's an interpretation but it's based on the flawed assumption that it's soft play without any proof of collusion. So far as I know, and I've not seen the 2017 rules, the WSOP has never clarified this, and it would be easy to do.
Obviously any particular house could write a clarifying rule, but one danger of that is making it clear whether it applies only to checks or whether it obligates players to raise when they have the nuts, it's the river, and there is no one behind them who would be forced to act.
The Moon situation has fascinated me since it happened. I still think the decision was incorrect, but lacked any appeal by Moon to clarify what the rule actually is. Because the penalty was so light, even if Moon later thought of it, or knew it at the time, a one hand penalty so early in the tournament, especially if he wouldn't have any money in that penalty hand, would not have been worth the effort to appeal anyway.
I think Mental Nomad and Phaze12 have touched on the problem and it may be the reason the WSOP has never clarified the rule in writing. Staking creates an odd situation where it isn't in your best financial interest to KO another player, but let him stay in the game, though normally it's ALWAYS in your best interest to KO another player since it moves you one place closer to the money.
There are problems with this "alleged" rule. I say alleged because without an agreement between players, it's completely subjective. Whether a player is penalized or not is going to be all over the board. It depends on who the floor is, who brings the complaint, who the person is who checked, and no doubt many other things. Moon was unaware of the rule. One cannot deliberately break a rule of which he is unaware. Therefore, it can't be collusion, which is the stated reason for the rules that lead to the conclusion checking the nuts on the river when you are the last to act is wrong.
Players use an endless variety of strategies, and obtaining info about how someone else played a hand is always valuable. A raise that causes a fold deprives one of info about the opponent play. If one always went all-in with the nuts, that gives valuable info
Some have alluded to the potential problem interpreting it. It goes from can't check the nuts on the river if you are the last to act to you must raise if you are the last to act in a particular situation. There's a huge difference in the two scenarios. Here's an example.
A, B, C, and D in the hand, and playing in that order. All four have a K X. The board comes Qd Jh Ts 9c Ac. On the turn, only one min bets, but all call. All would fear the AK, knowing that though they have a straight, they could lose to an AK. The A on the river assures all have the nut hand. A, B, and C all check, hoping for a raise. D raises. Apparently A, B, and C are all OK with a check since they are not the last to act, but D is not.
Now what happens? Is A obligated to raise since he has the nuts? He's not the last to act. Presumably A and B could call but would that require C to raise, since he's the last to act, or could C just call? Now suppose C raises, fearing he would run afoul of the rule even though he is calling not checking. See, already we have uncertainty about the exact nature of the rule. So D and A call. Is B now obligated to raise since he is the last to act? If he does, and C and D call, is A now obligated to raise?
Do not all players have info to gain by seeing everyone else's hand? What the "X" is for every other player is valuable info to the all the others. While it would be crazy for any to fold, could they be penalized for folding? Folding the nut hand in that situation sure sounds like soft play. Now, players might want to just call hoping at least one guy has an 8 and they will split up his bets, but raises might drive him out, thus depriving everyone of knowing how he played.
Moon's play was on Day 1D. At that point, info might be valuable to him. The one-hand penalty at that point amounts to so little as to not be worth the effort of fighting about it, even if you felt that you wanted to clear your name. If it took 5-10 minutes to clear that up, you've lost 2-5 hands -- more than the penalty. I'm not sure the floor made the right decision.
If Moon had thought about it, here's an argument that could have been made. It's Rule 66 from the 2011 WSOP rules.
66. At the end of the last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive betting action in that betting round must show first. If there was no bet during the final round, the player to the left of the button shows first, and so on in a clockwise direction. In stud games, the player with the high board must show first. In razz, the lowest board shows first. At showdown, any player at the table may request to see a folded hand from any player who has called all bets on the last round of betting. If a player with the last aggressive action on the last round of betting refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the player in violation will receive a penalty, according to Rule No. 96.
The bold and underlined part (from me) give each player a specific right to see any live hand since every live hand has called all bets on the last round of betting. If it's all checks on the river, any player can see any other hand. That should be superior to the less specific Rule 39A where there is no agreement that can be proved. It's been while since I saw the tape, but I'm sure Moon didn't raise that argument. If he had, and the result had been different, the floor's decision was clearly wrong. I'm not sure the floor was doing more than responding to other players claiming that was against the rule, but what Moon did was not a violation of a clearly written rule. I would never assume a decision in a case like that is the right decision. It wasn't appealed, so the floor decided what the facts were without any protest from Moon about rules that might have favored him. Thus the floor was never called on to clarify what the rules were.
The Moon case is a bad case to cite as a good interpretation of the rules because it wasn't an interpretation of the rules. No one can cite that as a clearly written rule; it's an interpretation but it's based on the flawed assumption that it's soft play without any proof of collusion. So far as I know, and I've not seen the 2017 rules, the WSOP has never clarified this, and it would be easy to do.
Obviously any particular house could write a clarifying rule, but one danger of that is making it clear whether it applies only to checks or whether it obligates players to raise when they have the nuts, it's the river, and there is no one behind them who would be forced to act.
The Moon situation has fascinated me since it happened. I still think the decision was incorrect, but lacked any appeal by Moon to clarify what the rule actually is. Because the penalty was so light, even if Moon later thought of it, or knew it at the time, a one hand penalty so early in the tournament, especially if he wouldn't have any money in that penalty hand, would not have been worth the effort to appeal anyway.
This only applies if your check would close the action. Checking and hoping to induce a bet from another player is not any sort of violations.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
