"Heck, even mucking the nuts could make sense in order to keep a short stack in the game longer"

oh my

If it is a cash game, there should be a mandatory shove rule so that as much money as possible gets raked or else you get fined 100bbs.

WSOP Rule 37.

The competitive integrity of all Tournament play at the World Series of Poker is paramount. All participants must adhere to the spirit and letter of the Official Rules of the WSOP which forbid play or any action that is illegal, unethical or constitutes cheating or collusion in any form.

i. Cheating is defined as any act a person engages in to break the established rules of play to gain an advantage.

ii. Cheating includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: collusion; chip stealing; transferring non-value Tournament chips from one event to another; card marking; card substitution; or the use of any kind of cheating device.

iii. Collusion is defined as any agreement amongst two (2) or more players to engage in illegal or unethical acts against other players.

iv. Collusion includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: chip dumping; soft play; sharing card information with another player; sending or receiving signals from or to another player; the use of electronic communication with the intent to facilitate collusion; and any other act that Rio and WSOP deem inappropriate.

Players who have never abused the bubble ITT

People that cheat get a penalty

Not betting the nuts = Softplaying

Softplaying = cheating

Therefore not betting the nuts is cheating and cheaters get a penalty
.... basic logic...

That's your explanation.
any genius should understand that

Or even a Geniius.

That depends. Could he put a big check-raise on the river? Does he intimidate you enough that you could lay down your monster? What do you put your opponent on? Is it possible that he has the 8-9 for the 7-card straight.

For those who missed the hands in question, multiple players at the 2010 WSOP checked the nuts when last to act on the river. And they were penalized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaPYiPEh_tA

contrary to everyone elses opinion in this thread I would say OP's comments are reasonable to some degree. They're the same opinions that always come up on this topic but they have a degree of validity imo.

If for no other reason than metagame or for wanting a hand to be revealed at showdown then checking the nuts should be allowed imo. There are plenty of ways to collude. This hardly prevents soft playing imo.

But what if Jamie Gold tells you to "CHECK CHECK. It's ENOUGH already!" prior to the river being flipped over. Do you still get a penalty for checking the nuts?

I remember a tournament in which the board was AKQJ10 (with all four suits) on the river. Multiple players went all in, and a couple of players, including Beth Shak, folded.

But, if you're last to act in this situation, and it's checked to you, you had better bet.

obviously the issue isn't whether softplaying is or should be allowed, it's whether checking back the nuts in position should necessarily be considered softplaying since it tends to have inconsequential strategic value to the people involved.

it probably does fit most definitions of softplaying which is why it's enforced, but I'd say that just demonstrates that the rule should be written more precisely.


anyone able to collude effectively in a spot like this will automatically know how to circumvent the rule.

by enforcing the rule you do punish some people who are trying (unsuccessfully) to behave unethically, but more often than not it just ends up penalizing friendly recreational players who are trying to be nice.

Remove "Penalizing" from thread title and it makes alot more sense.

"Playing nice" is "soft play," which is stated as being against the rules. The goal in a poker tournament is to win all of the chips. If players who soft play are penalized, they should learn not to do it in the future.

No, you're not holding the nuts. The board plays, board doesn't bet.

(Rainbow: I see AhKdQcJsTs)

I just thought of something else. If you're suggesting there are 3 spades on the board, in order to have the nuts, the Ace has to be a spade, otherwise your K is not the nuts, because someone else could have the As3s for the nuts.

He is talking about a bubble situation that is severly to your advantage. HOH pointed this out, but if you are the big stack short handed late with a couple of smaller stacks and someone who is crippled, you can punish the smaller stacks until the cripple is gone. They know he is dead and don't want to miss a pay bump when they can fold and wait. In that exact situation, you are better off with the cripple sticking around an extra orbit so you can inflict damage on the othe short stacks. In this exact situation, its really difficult to get into a hand with him where you have the ability to check/fold the river, but if you do, thats the only time I can imagine soft playing an opponent is the best decision.


Even still, I'd rather kill the cripple-its relaxes your opponents and, although you don't mind them playing scared, they are more likely to make a mistake when they know they will get something for their efforts.

this is actually enforced? and not some ******ed theoretical rule proposition?

Stupid rule imo. Being forced to sit out is hardly a penalty.

[ ] penalty

Does OOP always really fold here, is part of the rule that one must declare " nuts, swear it" before betting?

Or if you are insinuating that they are indeed a sophisticated team with signals and all, they would obv bet to hide their mischievous ways even without the rule.

I think I've been had.

this is a thread about whether the rule is worth having, not whether checking back the river with the nuts should be penalized.

the purpose for restricting "soft play" is to eliminate collusive behavior... not to create an incentive for everyone to try their hardest.

penalization for checking back the nuts closing action on the river punishes the latter, and has no impact on the former.

In position, doing anything other than betting or calling would be irrational.

You do have a point (if you are trying to make it by asking a question) that the rule should punish only when you fail to bet the nuts in position when checked to if the nuts is not on the board.

So the rule would still apply 95% of the time.

+1

In the dumb and dumber department, meet Kristy Gazes and Chad Brown, respectively:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRIRembBbE0

There is actually a situation where checking the river with the nuts makes sense. It happens when you are the big stack and you can keep a small stack alive at the table. This gives you an advantage because it puts other people into defensive mode because they don't want to bust out before the small stack.

That's actually the best rationale I've ever heard for having the rule against it.