i think checking the nuts on the river is kind of strange and also should be a warning its harsh to banned some one beacuse how can u , i mean yeah sure colluding playing soft what ever but if its only once how could any one prove u didn't miss read yr hand or the board ??????
i personaaly think 99% of colluision online or live that i see is on the bubble some crazy stuff , u know what i mean guy on the button goes all in for 4,000 chips huge stack on bb has to call what ever like getting 10-1 on his call and he folds , and does this same crap like every time it comes up yet any one moving in where by calling hes only getting 2-1 on his money and hes got to call like 25,000 chips plus hes not even on a blind i.e has not invested any chips into the pot , well he calls all day long with any 2 cards these guys should be banned and its even more obv. in a casino when u can tell 2 guys are freinds.

For those of you who say the WSOP has a rule about checking the nuts on the river, please provide the reference.

I already did.

The rule invoked was collusion. That's analogous to two guys raising a third one of the pot and then claiming raising is against the rules.

Ok? So how about this, there's no rule titled "checking behind the nuts" but checking behind the nuts is collusion.

In the case cited there was almost certainly no collusion. However, he was given a warning anyway. So for all practical purposes there is a rule against checking behind with the nuts, it's just covered by rules against softplaying and collusion.

Also happened here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/61...n-event-526953

There's no specific law against crushing people under a 16 ton weight but it's still homicide.

You are not quoting a rule you are relying on some TD's subjective interpretations.

And frankly, the collusion argument is weak. Colluders would certainly bet/fold these types of hand so they don't have to show anything (similar to circumventing the IWTSTH rule). Softplaying might be a possibility for example where a husband saves his wife some chips since she might not be experienced enough to fold a medium hand.

However, if it's a rule that every instance of checking the nuts needs to be penalized, then why isn't their a clear separate rule stating that?

Check Robert's Rules?

"The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:
Deliberately acting out of turn.
Deliberately splashing chips into the pot.
Agreeing to check a hand out when a third player is all-in.
Softplaying by refusing to bet against a certain opponent whenever heads-up."


I just looked at the first part I was gonna look a bit more if you think it's relevant.

Have you ever not noticed you had the nuts? Have you ever figured that checking and seeing your opponents hand might be more +EV (in the metagame) than possibly betting and getting a fold? Have you ever considered that showing the checked nuts might tag you as a stupid player and you can take advantage of that (again the metagame)?

Obviously, the vast majority of the time you should bet/raise the nuts. But if there are any times where checking it might be your own best play, then making a specific rule against it would restrict your poker tool set.

As a side question to the general population, do you consider it softplaying if a player intentionally keeps a player in the game to extend the bubble? Firing into a dry side pot with nothing is one way to do this. Checking the nuts is another. A case can be made that it is +EV to do this and that he is only thinking of his own tournament well being.

No.

That's a good pickup. However, this may apply to players who raise a third player out of a pot and then proceed to check down the rest of the hand. And further, when ruling on collusion and/or softplay, you usually need to build a pattern over several hands. And the key words in that statement are "certain opponent". It's pretty hard to determine that in one single hand.

I'm surprised nobody has pulled out rule #1, which is the floor/TD can rule against any play if he feels it affects the integrity of the game.

But let's get back to the issue. And I'll speak to everyone here. Do you feel checking the nuts is against the rules and should thus always be penalized (i.e. is this written down specifically somewhere)? Do you feel checking the nuts clearly falls under unfair play and should always be penalized (i.e. within subjective considerations for fair play is should never be allowed)? Do you feel it should be taken under consideration for the circumstances (leave it up to the TD/floor)?

Should we penalize all players who misread their hand and check the nuts?

Do you agree or disagree that checking the nuts can sometimes (even if rarely) be the best strategic play? If you answered yes to that, do you feel a rule taking away a best strategic play is a good idea?

Is it softplay if the board is the nuts and you check behind?

And speaking of softplay, what about two large stacks in a pot who check down full house vs. full house so they don't hurt each other while they wait for a short stack to exit? ETC.......