What is “checking The Nuts” in Poker and Why it is Against The Rules?

Find Threads Started by drumbandit. A very happy bet with deep stacks IP. Send a private message to tommyg8. Should we even bother trying? If you are convinced that the chance of soft play are truly "zero" in a particular situation, you can always choose to give a warning or a nominal one hand penalty if you think that is most appropriate. It's good when you raised pre, becuase opponents tend to float a lot of flop bets from preflop raisers, but far fewer double barrels.

Why is Checking the Nuts Disallowed?

Useful Links

Find Threads Started by JoeDiego. Darvin Moon Check Back The funny thing is that Darvin "checking to see what he had" is pointless because its not as if he's a good enough player to use that information to his advantage.

Send a private message to tommyg8. Find More Posts by tommyg8. Find Threads Started by tommyg8. Originally Posted by Zombie Eater Hardly anyone has heard of that rule becasue any player with a clue would actually bet the nuts on the river Send a private message to don mcg.

Find More Posts by don mcg. Find Threads Started by don mcg. Send a private message to therealpokerbrat. Find More Posts by therealpokerbrat. Find Threads Started by therealpokerbrat.

Send a private message to Natastic. Find More Posts by Natastic. Find Threads Started by Natastic. Originally Posted by therealpokerbrat i cant find the video its on youtube am sure. Send a private message to SuperUberBob.

Originally Posted by macthemost darvin wanted a read from the hand? Find More Posts by drumbandit. Find Threads Started by drumbandit. Darvin Moon Check Back id love to know how you guys think who think darvin moon is better then jerry yang think i am so curious. If any pro did these moves, it would be "OMG, what a donk. Find More Posts by banonlinepoker.

Find Threads Started by banonlinepoker. Darvin Moon Check Back A one hand penalty, whats the point? Send a private message to oldmangrimis.

Find More Posts by oldmangrimis. Find Threads Started by oldmangrimis. Originally Posted by oldmangrimis A one hand penalty, whats the point? Find More Posts by nurabsal. Find Threads Started by nurabsal. Originally Posted by nurabsal It was clearly a token gesture. Send a private message to lawdude.

Find More Posts by lawdude. Find Threads Started by lawdude. Darvin Moon Check Back checking the nuts to balance your range imo. Send a private message to billstraightener. Find More Posts by billstraightener.

Find Threads Started by billstraightener. Send a private message to BoterSmoter. Find More Posts by BoterSmoter. Find Threads Started by BoterSmoter. Send a private message to newapproach. Find More Posts by newapproach. Find Threads Started by newapproach. Originally Posted by cooksumrice So what happens if you decide to take the line of CR on the river, it works out that your opponent bets, you CR, get called there is a showdown.

Send a private message to Blix. Find More Posts by Blix. Find Threads Started by Blix. Send a private message to Matt Williams. Find More Posts by Matt Williams. Find Threads Started by Matt Williams. Darvin Moon Check Back It's already been mentioned, but it seemed pretty clear to me that he didn't realize he made the flush and thought he only had a pair of 8's.

Send a private message to JustASpectator. Send a private message to weirdchess1. The chance that any of these incidents involved soft play are zero.

So Td's are enforcing a rule that is not in the TDA rule book and by doing so we are electing to force players to understand the strength of the hands they are holding. Poker is game where players make and lose money based on the knowledge of their holdings against the holdings of their opponents. So why would we, as industry experts, ever want to influence even remotely the action of players if this so called TDA rule does absolutely nothing to prevent soft play and collusion?

A player holding the Ace of spades with a board of: This player is not in any violation of the TDA rule if he checks with other players still to act. However, if he is last to act; he must bet if the action is checked to him, or he must raise if he is facing a bet.

As Nick states it is the Exclusive Nuts which,when you call or check causing the hand to goto showdown is defined as soft play, there's no real need for it to be in the TDA rules I feel, as softplay is already covered and the occurrence of it is rare and further as you pointed out, primarily in error.

However, that being said it is a valid case that it should be penalised, even when in error, as it is not play which is compatible with the best interests of a poker tournament. There is more value in extracting more chips from a player than calling or checking to see their opponents hand etc.

In contrast to a cash game, we have to protect everyone else in the tournament as well -- and they have an interest in seeing people eliminated. Suppose that you are called to the table, and one player has made a large bet with the second nut straight, and another player with the nut straight which cannot be beat on the board and who has the first player covered merely called.

To an objective observer, this would certainly appear to be soft play on its face. Also, had the player with the nuts raised, there is a good chance that he may even had eliminated the first player, which puts each and every other remaining player in the tournament closer to the money. Now the player holding the nuts could always argue "oh I didn't intend to just call, I didn't know I had a straight" or "why would i intend to play softly against this opponent, I don't know him" But once we start delving into intent, and we attempt to determine whether the person is feigning ignorance or truly did not understand what he was holding, the situation becomes very tricky.

Practically, it is easier to focus on the objective evidence, as we rarely have enough information at our disposal to know for a fact that there was no soft play going on. Do we really ever know that there is a zero chance of soft play?

Furthermore, the people who are set to lose money by this action are not limited to the players in the hand as it would be in a cash game but they include everyone else who would have been one step closer to or higher in the money and they deserve protection.

In any case, while I believe it is important to penalize what appears to be incidents of soft play it really is not that much different from "best efforts" provisions in the rule sets governing tournament play of many sports , as a TD you can certainly use your discretion in determining the appropriate penalty. If you are convinced that the chance of soft play are truly "zero" in a particular situation, you can always choose to give a warning or a nominal one hand penalty if you think that is most appropriate.

I agree as well. I compare it to players pocketing chips. Most of the time it is innocent, but you have to enforce it across the board or else you open it up for people to abuse it. I don't penalize situations where it is clear that more than one player could have the nuts, such as a nut straight showing on board, or where it is possible to be quartered or worse as in a split pot game.

September 09, , Interesting, don't you think? Perhaps there should be mention of exceptions for high-low games. I also know that it is a tough call to make when you know a player truly misread his own hand. OK, lets go over this again because you guys are missing the point. I understand what you mean by exclusive nuts. All the rule states is "soft play is not allowed".

If the rule stated "You may not check the exclusive nuts in position or else you may be penalized" then fine, I would understand the implementation of the rule, but it is not written that way.

He may just be unaware of the strength of his holding, which is perfectly fine. In essence we are saying: If you are going to play a tournament you have to know what the best possible hand is or else you may get penalized if you don't bet it. Why in earth would we ever want to enforce a rule that requires players to know what they are holding. I want anybody and everybody to play as long as they abide by the basic rules of playing in turn, not exposing a hand prematurely, etc.

Like I stated earlier I've never seen this be collusion in my opinion, only a mistake by elderly players that have no clue about the strength of their hand or even what the nuts actually are. As far as poker goes that is, in my opinion, idiotic.

If you really think about it nearly violates the one player per hand rule. The only thing I am going to add to this discussion is that it is impractical for the TDA rules to include specifics for each and every situation covered by a rule. The TDA rule covers "soft play". If you want to include each and every specific situation that could be covered by each and every Poker Rule, TDA or otherwise, you can best do that by a very long, laborious process to develop a set of House Rules.

I think you will soon realize the impracticality of that endeavor. I stated on my last post that I thought TDA 61 needed more. As far as Defining exactly what we are referring to when we speak of "soft play" I really don't think it would be too difficult.

I will assume that you are much younger than I, and never misread your hand. Just wondering how you feel about the time that Phil Ivey tossed in his winning flush, not even realizing that he had the best hand. I also don't quite understand how this breaks the one player per hand rule.

September 10, , The rules specifically indicate that soft play is not allowed.

What Does Checking the Nuts Mean?