To penalize someone in this situation is very level 1 thinking. Supposedly the reason they enforce this rule is to prevent collusion. Let's examine this claim.

Situation 1: Penalty is enforced, thus nuts are always bet -

OOP player checks, guy with the nuts bets, OOP folds, guy with the nuts mucks his hand, no one ever knows what either player had... they might have been colluding. We will never know.

Situation 2: Penalty does not exist, nuts are checked -

OOP player checks, guy with the nuts checks and flips over his hand. Players at the table can request to see the OOP hand, and thus can analyze the cards with the board along with the action to judge if collusion is occurring.

In addition to this logical deduction of why the collusion theory doesn't hold water, there are other reasons to check the nuts. Heck, even mucking the nuts could make sense in order to keep a short stack in the game longer, thus nut-mucker can abuse the bubble more. The biggest argument for abolishing this rule is simply so that the person with the nuts, who knows he will not get paid, can request to see his opponents mucked hand, rendering the information from his opponent more valuable that the % of the time that he is called down with an inferior hand.

I assume your username is ironic

grrrrrrr Darvin Moon got a one hand penalty.

+1 that was the dumbest OP I have ever read in my life

What if the board is AKQJT rainbow...you hold K6s, you have the nuts, should you bet?

Am I missing the reason that this is a penalty?

overthinking the game, ITT

this reminds me of a tournament I was in... we got to the final table and I left to take a break. I return to see the whole table (except me) discussing something... they've decided to chop it ten ways and not even finish it out. When I ask them WHY? they tell me "so we can go play cash".

Instead of one of us taking down $9000+, we each take like $2500 and go on our merry way.

Does that strike you as weird? It sure did to me. Here they all have a chance at 9K, and they take 2.5K instead so they can "play some cash"?

I know I could have said no to the deal, but I didn't want to be the bad guy. Live and learn.

Using your scenario of folding the nuts to "keep a donk in the game" is similarly weird to me.

yes

What exactly could the players do? You didn't violate any rules, considering the penalty doesn't exist in this scenario. It would be no more of collusion than 2 guys checking it down when a short stack is all in in a tourny. 2 good players will do that quite often to knock the guy out, but people don't call them out because it's not against the rules.

Also, mucking the nuts likely never makes sense, ever.

Yes. And your OP is silly.

It wouldn't make sense, but you can muck the nuts without being penalized. DUCY?

I'm not saying it has to make sense generally, but if there is ever a situation where this is preferred by a player that is not colluding, and the player has XYZ reason for doing it, the rules shouldn't infringe on his liberty to play the game however he wants to.

I know it's legal, it was to enhance the point that it could be collusion with no penalization.

You would think someone who would muck the nuts in this situation would be more capable of colluding than someone dumb enough to check the nuts knowing it was illegal.

lol, then what exactly are the rules there for?

"Sorry boys, this hand I think i'm gonna play 2 pair beats a flush."

If you think about it, by enforcing this rule, you are really only punishing the people who never had the intent to collude.

You can play the hand that way if you want. Doesn't mean you're gonna win, but if that's your thought process, it's up to you.

This thread is about poker right?

I have actually succeeded in getting an opponent to fold online in 2max cash,
doing just this [one other opponent called, medium-size pot for 2max].
Especially in a live game, late @ night, when given the opportunity in this situation, OPEN, AND OPEN HUGE, esp. w/ multiple opponents, when one of em might be drunk, half asleep, or just plain not paying attention.

if u check behind with the nuts on the river you are either ******ed or colluding

Not against the rules to be ******ed.

[ ] logical deduction

[ ] logical deduction

Hey Einstein, It is clear you have never played live with Men the Master with 3 of his buddies at the same table..

OP - You actually do have a point...but I think the player who does this can present the argument that he didn't think he was going to get called and wanted to force the opponent to show if that was really his intent (or for shortstack/bubble purposes somehow too).

I have to think the reason they have the rule is because most of the time such situations happen is because there was some weird attempt to soft-play involved. But it certainly isn't a case where the rule itself means that collusion is never taking place in such situations and I think that is a weird assertion to make.