hmmm thread changing post. i like it n hadnt thought of this, good post. i dont think u can possibly penalize this fairly? u are benefitting by creating a future situation that is more +EV for u. therefore u are basically making a good poker strategy decision. i dont see how this is any different than trying to not play a big pot against a single other big stack at the table in a satelite for instance. obviously this is a very specific situation, but i would be super pissed if i got penalized for checkin back the nuts in this spot with the villain on 4bb and two other players on 15bb. its just solid thinking play.

bluff call itt

The thread was started shortly after ESPN's coverage of the Main Event showed Darvin Moon getting a one-hand penalty for checking the nuts.

I find it ironic how so many people called OP being stupid while failing to recognize the advantage of abusing the pay bubble. If I'm up against a cripple, and the other chip stack sizes are favorable for continued abuse, it can definitely be very profitable to just muck your nuts and keep him in the game for a little more.

I can't really see that the rule will do much good, since if you really wanted to collude then you'd just bet the minimum on the river rather than check it back. If you just check then everyone sees you are colluding.

I've checked the nuts before, but it was due to not paying attention / thinking I had something else / general stupidity, and I don't see why I should be penalised for that.

"We both have quads." Wow, and to think that she's a 'pro' and gets money to peddle FTP logos. I'm getting tired of the word pro being thrown around. And look at Chad Brown rocking the FTP before his PS signing.

Back to the thread... this is just stupid and if a TD came up and penalized Chad for this play, it would be ridiculous, especially after he said (right away) that he thought she had an Ace and felt no need to bet a chopped pot. It makes sense, given her betting actions. Just like many other poker rules, there is a large volume of gray area and each situation should be evaluated individually.

I was on a final table live once, and a player and his girlfriend got involved in a pot together, there was a £100 pay jump after the next player gets eliminated.

On the river he checked behind the nuts (flush) and she showed top set. I asked him why he didn't bet and he said "she would be angry at me."

The rule is there to discourage exactly this behaviour.

As to the 'bubble strategy' defence, you have multiple opportunities throughout the hand to avoid having to check the nuts on the river. You could also bet the absolute minimum of 1 big blind.

The positives of this rule far outweigh the negatives. For anyone that plays a lot of live tournaments you often see softplay between friends so just having this rule makes it clear that poker isn't about helping out other players.

WP

I find it ironic that you think mucking the nuts has anything to do with this either way. Regardless of what the rule is on checking or betting the nuts on the river, you can always muck the nuts. Mucking the nuts has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Mucking the nuts was a more extreme example of why sometimes it makes rational sense to not bet your nuts. Please keep up with the logic of the argument.

How about betting 1 big blind?

If you want the site to take more rake.......yes

My point is this doesn't have anything to do with the argument. It's completely irrelevant to the argument. Saying that the rule should be reversed so that you can muck the nuts is illogical, because you can muck your nuts regardless of the rule. Please start using logic in your argument.

If he's a cripple, 1 big blind is a lot.

please tell me this is a joke

The argument is that sometimes it makes rational sense to not bet the nuts in position. Saying it makes rational sense to muck the nuts in position is a subset of that, since mucking is inside the range of actions that don't include betting.

Softplaying, just as well as keeping a shortstack alive if it's in your interest can be achieved in other ways other then checking the nuts, like.. min betting the river, which accomplishes the same thing but circumvents this rule.

So it does look a bit like a ******ed rule.
Either change the rule to "Mandatory 1/2 pot river bet with the nuts" or somesuch... or scrap it.

..

Money for places 2-10 obv.

Everyone slagging the OP just gets off on mocking people. While it is open to interpretation how valid his position is, it is certainly not laughably wrong, or even close to "ridiculous" or "stupid."

I know this has been debated before, and originally I had the opposite position that I originally posted. Level 1 thinking is "I have the best hand, by betting 0, I always win 0. By betting X, even with a .000001% chance of getting called on a minbet, I'm adding value." Level 2 thinking allows you to think of the value of either information or having a crippled stack at the table for future hands. If you are on Level 1, and you see someone do this, you automatically think it's colluding/ soft play/ playing nice because you, and probably the tournament directors unfortunately, aren't in the scope of the tournament being a tournament. Cash games, I can see where this might be an issue. But tournament play, this rule is just inexperienced thinking.

sometimes in tournaments, they pay more than one place

If we are playing PLO I bet pot on the river and get check raised pot and just call the nuts would I get a penalty? I've seen a bunch of spots where I thought this could be the best play.

I think OP has some good points.

what if you check dark and make the nuts?

You can't check dark out of position.