Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic

08-18-2010 , 03:21 PM
oh mann... please tell you know what i mean...

and yes you can..
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 03:26 PM
There should not be a penalty that "assumes" softplay for an action that can be taken for lots of other reasons. The Chad Brown example was excellent, many nut hands can be tied. To keep in the shortest stack when down to 3 or 4 players is another good reason, because it's in your best interest, not his.

The penalty is in effect, accusing someone of cheating when usually they aren't. There's already a rule for softplaying, and it's sufficient by itself.

Last edited by spadebidder; 08-18-2010 at 03:33 PM.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotshot_23
oh mann... please tell you know what i mean...

and yes you can..
How can you check in the dark oop?
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 03:35 PM
wasnt my question... but you chekc dark behind if opponent checks dark in front of you which is redic obv but possible
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeDiego
How can you check in the dark oop?
I think you mean in position, because it isn't your turn yet. If you are UTG (oop) then you can check in the dark before the next board card is dealt. That isn't who the penalty applies to. And as already pointed out, if the UTG checks dark, the next player (or all players) can also check dark before the card is dealt, as long as they do it in order. Then the card comes and gives the final checker the nuts. I'm pretty sure that isn't a situation where the penalty would apply if he checked before having the nuts.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 04:37 PM
I don't think this rule is enforced with blindness. I accidentally did this once in a tournament because I am a huge idiot and pussy and thought my opponent had a straight flush, failing to realize that my nut flush held a card that made that impossible. (I didn't actually check, but I did just call a river checkraise.)

A bunch of people started screaming for a penalty, which is incredibly stupid since it was an obvious mistake. I guess I'm okay with them trying to get me penalized, but as a blanket reaction to the error, I would much rather let a guy who checked the nuts on the river continue to do so. When this is softplaying by friends, it's generally incredibly obvious, and any actual solid colluders would not be using this play, they would be betting and folding the river more often than normal players.

So, yes, it's a pretty stupid rule, but thankfully I don't think it is universally enforced.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Davis
I don't think this rule is enforced with blindness. I accidentally did this once in a tournament because I am a huge idiot and pussy and thought my opponent had a straight flush, failing to realize that my nut flush held a card that made that impossible. (I didn't actually check, but I did just call a river checkraise.)

A bunch of people started screaming for a penalty, which is incredibly stupid since it was an obvious mistake. I guess I'm okay with them trying to get me penalized, but as a blanket reaction to the error, I would much rather let a guy who checked the nuts on the river continue to do so. When this is softplaying by friends, it's generally incredibly obvious, and any actual solid colluders would not be using this play, they would be betting and folding the river more often than normal players.

So, yes, it's a pretty stupid rule, but thankfully I don't think it is universally enforced.
I don't think the rule applies to 'calling with the nuts', though.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by costanza_g
What if the board is AKQJT rainbow...you hold K6s, you have the nuts, should you bet?
obv tank for 5 minutes and than bet 150% of the pot
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsjefe
I don't think the rule applies to 'calling with the nuts', though.
Apart from anti-collusion reasoning, I think if the basis of the rule is that you have to attempt to extract value with apparently no risk, then you must. So I think if someone bets into you when you hold the immortal nuts, given that the rule is how it is now, at least min-raise in this situation?
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 05:15 PM
I didn't read through more than the OP but I'm assuming this thread is a result of the Darvin Moon hand. Didn't you hear what he said ? He said "oh I knew you weren't going to call and I wanted to see what you had" So not only did he cbeh river but he did so in order to angle shoot and use the ruling of either (to left of button or last agressor from street) to see the other guys hand. Which is pretty scummy and definetly deserved a penalty IMO.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 05:17 PM
How is that angle shooting?
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 05:19 PM
Because your making the guy turn up his hand when your holding the absolute nuts and know it.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 05:24 PM
... exactly? That is not shooting an angle. For an angle to be shot, you have to use "various underhanded, unfair methods to take advantage of inexperienced opponents." - Pokernews. Doesn't matter how much experience your opponent has, if you want to see his cards, just request to see his cards. If you are trying to argue that by checking the nuts you are using an unfair method, then that is moot point with the whole idea of this thread.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushmore
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 was just going to pretty much say this before i seen this post. it seems a lot of people just bandwagon jump in this forum and decide "yeah this guy is an idiot because a couple of people said he was, so i'm going to agree with them so i don't look like an idiot"

seriously its not ridiculous at all, and this is a very gray area in my opinion.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeDiego
You can't check dark out of position.
you mean you can't check dark out of TURN (which in this case is actually IN position)

Last edited by Carden72; 08-18-2010 at 06:31 PM. Reason: already addressed earlier in thread
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 06:36 PM
Sometimes you have to give them candy
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by costanza_g
What if the board is AKQJT rainbow...you hold K6s, you have the nuts, should you bet?
so if this doesnt get it allin then the last person to act is penalized right?
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 06:40 PM
Don't want to get too deep, I think some good points have been raised on both sides. I just want to add a few supplementary thoughts:

In tournaments, the generally agreed upon purpose of play is to outlast and eliminate players since finishing 2nd with 1 chip is the same as finishing 2nd with 49.9% of the chips. So logically by having the nuts, you are in literally the best possible position to eliminate a player, so to not bet goes against the entire purpose of a tournament. I say this so I can mention another form of collusion, but almost just as rare:

Blinds are 10k/20k. UTG shoves for 22k, folds to BB, who folds.

Even though there are no rules that ever require and force a player to commit chips to any pot, almost all TDs will issue a penalty here, as it is utterly unconscionable to not call, and this grossly goes against the tournament purpose of always trying to eliminate players, in this case being whenever given a significantly inexpensive chance at elimination.

Good discussions.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hetero_flush
Don't want to get too deep, I think some good points have been raised on both sides. I just want to add a few supplementary thoughts:

In tournaments, the generally agreed upon purpose of play is to outlast and eliminate players since finishing 2nd with 1 chip is the same as finishing 2nd with 49.9% of the chips. So logically by having the nuts, you are in literally the best possible position to eliminate a player, so to not bet goes against the entire purpose of a tournament. I say this so I can mention another form of collusion, but almost just as rare:

Blinds are 10k/20k. UTG shoves for 22k, folds to BB, who folds.

Even though there are no rules that ever require and force a player to commit chips to any pot, almost all TDs will issue a penalty here, as it is utterly unconscionable to not call, and this grossly goes against the tournament purpose of always trying to eliminate players, in this case being whenever given a significantly inexpensive chance at elimination.

Good discussions.
I think I disagree with the situation you brought up even more than the original situation. So there is a penalty for not calling 2k. What if it was 3k? 5k? 10k? What if BB only has 11k left, and calling and losing here means he would be all-in next hand regardless? This gray area is the size of Texas.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 07:08 PM
I didn't read the thread but if someone is dumb enough to check down the nuts on the river they deserved to be penalized imo.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 07:10 PM
yeah but my high card beats your 2 pair
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by timfbmx
I didn't read the thread but if someone is dumb enough to check down the nuts on the river they deserved to be penalized imo.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geniius
I think I disagree with the situation you brought up even more than the original situation. So there is a penalty for not calling 2k. What if it was 3k? 5k? 10k? What if BB only has 11k left, and calling and losing here means he would be all-in next hand regardless? This gray area is the size of Texas.
Sigh, I was hoping I wouldn't have to clarify any further than I did. This should be pretty obvious dude. My example should obviously assume that the BB has a lot of chips left, and that not spending 2k to eliminate a short stack 1 BB player is outrageous. Even if you yourself are somewhat short stacked, are you seriously going to fold a 50,000 chip pot to a 2,000 chip bet when you are guaranteed to see all 5 cards? If BB only has 11k left, then he is an idiot and should have got his money in earlier when it still mattered. But even so, with the purpose of tournaments to out last and eliminate other players, are you saying short stacks wouldn't take the inexpensive chance to eliminate other short stacks just because they themselves are a short stack? All of the eliminating needs to be done by the big stacks? Get real. Choosing not to call and potentially eliminate while getting an unconscionable price is absolutely outrageous REGARDLESS of how many chips you have. 25:1 on your money is beyond ATC, I would take that with just 1 card.

Obviously TDs won't be dishing out penalties all the time for this, and it is usually saved for the super small raise all in's (The 2k-5k into 50k). Hence why I said it was a "rare" scenario. As for your questions, would you fold a 50k chip pot to a 3k chip bet? Would you fold a 50k chip pot to a 5k bet? Even a 50k chip pot to a 10k chip bet is still getting 5:1 on your money with the added shot of moving up in pay outs, which should be ATC call against the shoving range. If you fold here I guess you are just an idiot then. But if you fold the 50k to a 2k, not only are you an idiot, but you are probably a colluding idiot, and this smallish rare example is where TDs will (and should) bring the hammer every time.

Surely you understand now.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 07:27 PM
To above poster:
I'm not an expert but there are certainly situations in satellites where it is obviously correct to fold and totally disregard pot odds. Also in a normal tournament given two extremely short stacks on a normal table, I think it might be correct for one short stack to fold in the above situation given like 72o or something.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote
08-18-2010 , 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hetero_flush
Sigh, I was hoping I wouldn't have to clarify any further than I did. This should be pretty obvious dude. My example should obviously assume that the BB has a lot of chips left, and that not spending 2k to eliminate a short stack 1 BB player is outrageous. Even if you yourself are somewhat short stacked, are you seriously going to fold a 50,000 chip pot to a 2,000 chip bet when you are guaranteed to see all 5 cards? If BB only has 11k left, then he is an idiot and should have got his money in earlier when it still mattered. But even so, with the purpose of tournaments to out last and eliminate other players, are you saying short stacks wouldn't take the inexpensive chance to eliminate other short stacks just because they themselves are a short stack? All of the eliminating needs to be done by the big stacks? Get real. Choosing not to call and potentially eliminate while getting an unconscionable price is absolutely outrageous REGARDLESS of how many chips you have. 25:1 on your money is beyond ATC, I would take that with just 1 card.

Obviously TDs won't be dishing out penalties all the time for this, and it is usually saved for the super small raise all in's (The 2k-5k into 50k). Hence why I said it was a "rare" scenario. As for your questions, would you fold a 50k chip pot to a 3k chip bet? Would you fold a 50k chip pot to a 5k bet? Even a 50k chip pot to a 10k chip bet is still getting 5:1 on your money with the added shot of moving up in pay outs, which should be ATC call against the shoving range. If you fold here I guess you are just an idiot then. But if you fold the 50k to a 2k, not only are you an idiot, but you are probably a colluding idiot, and this smallish rare example is where TDs will (and should) bring the hammer every time.

Surely you understand now.
Half of posts in this thread disagree with your argument. You are on Level 1. I understand what you are saying, and I am disagreeing with it. If you have a shortstack at the table, and there is a pay increase after the next few people get knocked out; by keeping the short stack at the table instead of knocked out can be used to your benefit to steal more chips from people who are playing tight. It is called "abusing the bubble" and it is strategy that breaks the boundaries of just this one hand.
Penalizing someone who checks the nuts in position on the river is idiotic Quote

      
m