hand gets to the river and it is checked between 2 players. One or both turn up their hands and one of them has the nuts or 2nd nuts. Someoen says "Why didn't you bet that hand on the river?" And the winner replies, "He/she wasn't going to call so why bet?"

Am I the only one that finds that almost tilt inducing?

Anyone understand the logic behind that kind of thinking?

I usually say, "Nice slowplay," "He didn't fall for your trap," or some other semi-sarcastic quip.

There have even been times where the person with the nut hand is the last to act, this just blows my mind and i end up just staring at them dumb-founded.

I did this this past weekend - I had the second nut straight on the river, in position, and dint' bet. the other player I was heads up with turned over the same hand, he was intending a check raise had I bet. I said I ddin't bet because I ddin't think he could call. In reality, I didn't bet because I misread my hand. I didn't realize how strong I was in that position - oops.

Depends on the game and the hand. If it's holdem, I will bet second nuts every time.

If it's Omaha, it depends on the player I'm up against, and the specific hand. Nut fullhouse I will bet every time. If the guy has quads, so be it. But bet the second nut flush? I'm more likely to call.

Why do you find that (almost) tilt inducing?

Yeah... kind of.
If you check the 2nd nuts in position because you know your opponent that well: villain will not call with anything less than the 2nd nuts, never fold the 2nd nuts to a bet, but check-raise with the nuts 100% of the time in that spot, then you're right.

If you check the nuts in position though, I don't understand it. You got nothing to lose if you bet, but if you don't, you're giving away information on your pre-flop range, flop-betting pattern, turn and river play, for free. Just stupid, IMO.

Avoid the rake obv.

I've skipped betting on the end with good-but-not-nuts hands for all sorts of reasons. [If my opponent was chasing, he can only raise me or fold, for a simplified example.]

I've occasionally checked the nuts (or near the nuts) because I felt my opponent couldn't call me and I valued the information on his hand more than the slight chance he'd call a bet.

Heard it many times. It's dumb.

I don't open my mouth because i don't want to put the fish in a uncomfortable situation.

If that's true, you're awful. Period.

i do this sometimes when playing in a friendly home game especially if i'm tired. Normally just do it cos i'm too lazy or too impatient to raise knowing my opponent wont call or donk raise. On the otherhand he will spend a few minutes acting as if its the biggest laydown in the world. This tilts the bolox out of me big time. When only playing for sihts and giggles i aint worried about the small bit of value i will lose in the long run by making the standard re-raise.

I've played poker for over 20 years now. I've played for matchsticks. I've played for clothing. I've played for paychecks. If you can't accept that somewhere in the vast poker spectrum that sometimes just checking on the end could accomplish more than betting then you might be missing some subtle nuances of the game.

....Oh, that Palimax, he's a nice guy for checking that one hand against me, I'll make a light calldown against him later...

The world of poker isn't reset after every hand finishes. There's bigger considerations - especially in the world of home poker - than how to extract the most money in one particular hand.
I guess I'm awful.

fyp

While I might not agree with what you said, I'll defend with my life your right to post with that avatar.

...but, I do agree with what you said.

quick check first...

Yep, I was right.

You wandered over here for THAT? Shaddup, you moran.

Spoken like a true online player. Online it's all about winning the most $$$, because really there isn't much else. But like others have said, when playing home games and depending on the stakes and the players there are other considerations.

Well, assuming the player is correct (opponent would never call) why should they bet?

I think they're missapplying "he won't call with a worse hand (and won't fold a better one) so betting only causes you to lose money"

As a straight single-hand proposition, not betting the nuts is clearly -EV. Even if he only calls one in a million, there's no downside. If this is the world's last hand of poker, then I see no reason not to ever bet with the nuts. If it's not the world's last game of poker, then there's metagame decisions to be made -- and they're generally amplified in home game situations where the player pool is smaller.

I do see reasons to sometimes cautiously check behind with a fairly good hand against a player whom you suspect to be on a draw. [Although we all know that sometimes the draw player will hit some other piece of the pot and call anyway...]

For what it's worth, I have trouble value betting hands like aces-up in stud games. I know that any two pair will stubbornly call me down and that it's probably a good bet, but you sure do find a lot of straights and flushes that way too

I think on the other side of Palimax's "If I check the nuts on the river he might give me a handjob later" argument, there is a huge spectrum of not going to showdown. If the other player folds, you get to muck and you dont give free information. I never give free information in a cash game especially. If they want to see my hand on the river (Esp the nuts), they are going to have to call a reasonable sized bet for information.

I guess I'm not as nice at Palimax at the table.

[Side Note: The only time I'll check the nuts, in position on the river is against another Prop or a Dealer out of professional courtesy]

eff the rake. so y bet? lol

I think we agree.

I think there's a very narrow spectrum of situations where you check the nuts.

Handjobs are certainly part of that narrow spectrum though.

Must... refrain from... making obvious joke...

I preferred giving my post a happy ending rather than point out the obvious irony to Oaks Prop that he commented on how he wasn't nice like me, because he didn't check the nuts on the river --- except those times where he checked the nuts on the river for meta-game reasons...

I can't imagine that the value gained from the meta-game information gleaned by checking outweighs the value lost from missing pot sized bets. What am I overlooking?