The floor came over, the situation was discussed, and there was no question I was in violation of the rule.

Right. OK try this:
For a limited time only! You can win 52,000 chips, be guaranteed to see all 5 cards, AND eliminate someone and move up a FULL spot in the pay scale! All for the super low price of...........

..........drum roll.........

a measly 2,000 chips!


If you still think folding here is totally OK but mathematically and ethically, then I (and probably others) don't know how I can make this any more clearer. Good luck folks.

Lol. No I'm not level 1. All I have contributed is: If you have a mountain of chips, and you can eliminate someone at 25:1 on your money, and you are last to act, and you don't call, TDs will see this as colluding and they will penalize.

All I have done is argue on behalf of the TDs reasoning for penalizing, I haven't said a thing yet about how I feel about all of this.

I'm level 1. haha. I'm gonna say that at my next final table.

I don't think you understand tournaments very well. There are many situations where folding to a seemingly small amount to keep a shortstack alive is going to be the correct play. If you are the big stack against two medium stacks and a small stack, your $EV for every hand the small stack stays alive probably goes up.

In some situations, the cEV in calling is going to be so great that it is correct to call (for $EV too), but there are many situations where it is not. This is not debatable, and you simply do not understand the bubble or tournament theory if you don't understand this. It is not debatable. You are wrong, and the more you continue to respond the worse you look.

Take an ego check and do some googling or something instead.

STTs don't count.

U can be at level 1 and make a final table. Just sayin. Happens ALL the time.

Wouldn't there be cases where the info you get from seeing your opponent's cards is more valuable than the 0.000001% chance they call your raise? This is why Moon said he did it, for instance.

In any case, it's impossible to penalize folding the nuts, because if you do so, nobody would know what you had (assuming no hole cam). So, in an actual collusion circumstance, when you and your girlfriend (whatever) are both trying to not be the next one out so you want to not cripple her, so you let her win by just folding the nuts. So it's a silly rule, IMHO, since it doesn't stop what it's supposed to stop.

Is any of my logic bad here?

I guess this is theoretically true, but are there any actual situations where it is actually correct to do this? This is a genuine question, since I always auto raise with the nuts without even considering checking or flatting for info.

It should be your right to check on the river with any hand you want, if your aim is to see the opponent's hand. Who is the tournament director to decide the value of chips compared to the value of a read? I check huge hands on the river all the time because I know once I see my enemy's cards I will have a stone cold read on him and outplay him every hand thereafter

If you don't know what to do with the information once you get it, there is no point in checking here. It's just data until you can interpret it.

ouch. guess i thought wrong.

Umm yes, but assume I am capable of interpreting the information. To give an example of what I mean I thought Darvin Moon's check was pretty ludicrous. But maybe I am wrong?

This scenario seems unlikely. For you to be that certain he won't call means you would already have had to narrow down his range to a very small range of hands. Knowing his exact hand is not going to change much.

Remember, when you do this you are also giving out information to the other 8 players at the table by having to show your hand. In this scenario it would seem to me that the value in keeping your hand hidden is greater than the value in knowing your opponent's exact hand.

BTW, I don't think it should be a penalty simply because I believe bad players should be allowed to make bad plays.

This.

It goes against the entire spirit of the game. I wouldn't have even believed it existed until I heard about this being real. Nobody should ever be able to tell me how I must bet my hand.

Penalizing for softplaying *must* be situational and based on evidence and not just applied to something like this as a rule without a lot of discretion. If there were other reasonable explanations for the play (including dumbassness), it should be allowed in the absence of other evidence of intent.

At worst, in the case of dumbassness or just not paying attention, it could be a warning telling the player he shouldn't do that and why. If the player had a strategic reason, it should totally be allowed.

OP's logic is fine. The logic of many people in this thread is something like "Checking the nuts in position on the river is dumb - OP wrote a post about checking the nuts in position on the river - therefore, OP is dumb."

Checkin back the nuts ITT


Poker Stars $1/$2 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

MP: $234.75
CO: $308.40
BTN: $485.05
SB: $296.55
BB: $707.60
Hero (UTG): $200.00

Pre Flop: ($3.00) Hero is UTG with 5 Q
1 fold, MP raises to $6, 1 fold, BTN raises to $10, 2 folds, MP calls $4

Flop: ($23.00) A K Q (2 players)
MP checks, BTN checks

Turn: ($23.00) 3 (2 players)
MP bets $16, BTN raises to $32, MP calls $16

River: ($87.00) J (2 players)
MP checks, BTN checks

Final Pot: $87.00
MP shows 4 5 (a flush, King high)
BTN shows T A (a Royal Flush)
BTN wins $84.00
(Rake: $3.00)

What if it's PLO and you are dealt 2222??

And what about the situations where it is like a HIGH hand jackpot or Bad beat jackpot. Situations arise in that where checking the riv with the nuts (or just calling and not raising) is the best play.

Pretty sure the context just applies to tournament nl holdem

Or more likely, the player that folded might a newbie/fish. This thread is making my head hurt, but my biggest issues with this rule are:

1) It does little to address the actual problem of collusion. The number of times the scenario comes up in a tournament where player A is colluding with player B and player A has the nuts in position vs player B is so rare that it surely dwarfs the number of times someone checks the nuts in position accidentally, or with a non-collusive reason to do so.

2) It could potentially embarrass the fish. Games are getting progressively tough enough as it is these days that we don't need more rules that needlessly embarrass the fish. I rarely watch TV poker but the first hand that came to mind when I read this thread was that hand that was posted later in the thread where the one "pro" says we both have quads and the other player checked in position, presumably because he thought they had the same hand or he wanted to see what she had. If "pros" do this kind of stuff, imagine how often fish do it.

120 posts and not one logical reason to NOT have this rule.

I guess you didn't read the thread then.
I'll repeat the logical reason I gave:

It's a rule that for a colluder/softplayer is easy to bypass (min betting the river instead of checking) while it only punishes donks and ******s.

That good enough for you?

No.

English Only – Does not stop ALL colluding and does punish innocent players that do not speak English. Should we do away with it?

It's not meant to be a rule that catches all softplay and collusion, it's a good rule that sends out a clear message:

You are playing to try and win the most chips, you are not playing because you like/feel sorry/want to help anyone else. If you have the best possible hand and you are the last player to act then you need to bet it.

The rule protects the players at the table that might not be favoured by the softplayer/colluder, and when they're the opponent the softplayer bets the nuts, whereas other players save chips because the nuts get checked.

Ok for the last time:

If this is a clear cut rule it doesn't do it's job, checking the nuts OR min betting the river accomplishes the same thing for a softplayer.
At the same time it teaches the donks to always bet the nuts, which might cost a good player money.
Lets say you have AK oop in a HU pot on a AK2TJ rainbow board and you decide to check call the river, and the calling station passive donk that called down to the river with Q2 might misread his hand or for whatever reason checks the river.
Good for you, you saved some chips because of opponent's mistake but if he knows that there is a rule against checking the nuts he will pay more attention and WILL bet, costing you chips in the process.

Just one example of how this rule is not in the spirit of the game, it teaches fish to play correctly etc.

I don't buy the OPs "abusing the bubble" reason or checking behind for a showdown info because we can achieve that with min betting the river too but there are clearly other reasons why this rule is a silly one and is not working as intended.

Now, if this isn't a clear cut rule and gets evaluated by TDs on a case to case base in order to establish an intent before a penalty is given then I'm fine with it.
Otherwise it's a dumb rule.