Penalty at the ME for checking the nuts on the river in last pos?

[wheels25]

I`ve read something yesterday on bluffmagazine.com, whenever a player has the absolute nuts on the river and checks behind, he ll receive a penalty in sitting out one entire round.

Is that true and if so, why is there such a rule?

[Ontario_Tory]

Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[flavio321]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you just check to see the card when you are certain that your opponent has air. this rule is dumb! what if the nuts is the board and you check? is that a penalty also? gtfo harrahs

[JMX]

Well if there is a sudden increase in penalties at the main event this year, I'll know why.

[po-Jay-to]

It's considered softplaying and it's punishable. The Commerece Casino has a very strict policy against softplaying and I have seen this enforced several times at the L.A. Poker Classic this year.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would a "libertarian" object to this rule, it's their casino they can make whatever dumb rules they want

[RR]

This rule has been pretty common since about 2000 or 2001.

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would a "libertarian" object to this rule, it's their casino they can make whatever dumb rules they want

[/ QUOTE ]

From the players POV, this rule is preventing me from betting as I see fit in a No Limit game... If I want to bet nothing with the nuts, the Libertarian in me feels that I should be allowed to do so.

[greg nice]

bs rule

[KLJ]

what if youre 100% sure he'll fold and you just want to see his cards?

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would a "libertarian" object to this rule, it's their casino they can make whatever dumb rules they want

[/ QUOTE ]

From the players POV, this rule is preventing me from betting as I see fit in a No Limit game... If I want to bet nothing with the nuts, the Libertarian in me feels that I should be allowed to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically if there is anything you want to do, and you can't do it, the liberarian in your feels that you should be allowed to do so?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
bs rule

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[Rekwob]

surely not checking the nuts behind on the river is an unwritten rule in any poker game, its just harrahs have decided to write it down

[greg nice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would a "libertarian" object to this rule, it's their casino they can make whatever dumb rules they want

[/ QUOTE ]

From the players POV, this rule is preventing me from betting as I see fit in a No Limit game... If I want to bet nothing with the nuts, the Libertarian in me feels that I should be allowed to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically if there is anything you want to do, and you can't do it, the liberarian in your feels that you should be allowed to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

as long as it doesnt infringe on anyone else, yes

[TimTimSalabim]

Does Chad Brown know about this?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
surely not checking the nuts behind on the river is an unwritten rule in any poker game, its just harrahs have decided to write it down

[/ QUOTE ]

The prohibition against soft playing is a written rule in most tournaments.

[sirpupnyc]

It's probably poor play not to bet in that spot, since you're rarely 100% certain you're not getting a call for any amount. But in those cases where you are indeed absolutely certain that no bet you can make will get a call, it seems silly to penalize the check.

At the very least it seems like a situation where the rule should say "This is poor form and often indicates collusion, so if you do it we're going to check the situation and issue a penalty if appropriate" rather than "Do this and you'll be penalized." (Look at the f-bomb rule's revision this year.) Although it does sound like the less conscious thought is required of the staff on the floor, the better.

[NickMPK]

Is it a penalty if you check when the nuts are on the board (e.g. broadway w/ no flush possible)?

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would a "libertarian" object to this rule, it's their casino they can make whatever dumb rules they want

[/ QUOTE ]

From the players POV, this rule is preventing me from betting as I see fit in a No Limit game... If I want to bet nothing with the nuts, the Libertarian in me feels that I should be allowed to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically if there is anything you want to do, and you can't do it, the liberarian in your feels that you should be allowed to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

as long as it doesnt infringe on anyone else, yes

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much the definition of libertarian right there - I should be able to do anything I want, provided it doesn't negatively affect anybody else...

So if the reason for the rule is to prevent collusion, I can understand it. I don't buy it though.

But that's all I have to say about the topic - if you want a deeper discussion about what a Libertarian is, please start a thread in the Politics forum...

OT

[The Stranger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other than colluding, is there any other reason to check the absolute nuts on the river?

The Libertarian in me doesn't like the lack of freedom with the rule. But I do understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would a "libertarian" object to this rule, it's their casino they can make whatever dumb rules they want

[/ QUOTE ]

From the players POV, this rule is preventing me from betting as I see fit in a No Limit game... If I want to bet nothing with the nuts, the Libertarian in me feels that I should be allowed to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically if there is anything you want to do, and you can't do it, the liberarian in your feels that you should be allowed to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

as long as it doesnt infringe on anyone else, yes

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much the definition of libertarian right there - I should be able to do anything I want, provided it doesn't negatively affect anybody else...

So if the reason for the rule is to prevent collusion, I can understand it. I don't buy it though.

But that's all I have to say about the topic - if you want a deeper discussion about what a Libertarian is, please start a thread in the Politics forum...

OT

[/ QUOTE ]

don't these ideologies only apply to laws and not the rules of poker, baseball, chess, etc.

How would a libertarian interpret this (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp) ?

get over yourself

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
what if youre 100% sure he'll fold and you just want to see his cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the reason this rule seems kinda silly. i want information, if I'm not getting it by betting, then I'm not going to bet.

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]

get over yourself

[/ QUOTE ]


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w158/ontario_tory/wtf.jpg

I offend you in some way?

[TomHimself]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what if youre 100% sure he'll fold and you just want to see his cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the reason this rule seems kinda silly. i want information, if I'm not getting it by betting, then I'm not going to bet.

[/ QUOTE ]this is stupid because you are just going to show the nuts right away and hes going to muck. you're not gonna just sit there demanding to see what he has and then flip over the stone cold nuts.

[nuclear500]

if i have position on him, he HAS to show, thats what I'm getting at

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as long as it doesnt infringe on anyone else, yes

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much the definition of libertarian right there - I should be able to do anything I want, provided it doesn't negatively affect anybody else...

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And the tournament directors making this rule doesn't negatively affect you, since you have no entitlement to play in their tournament under the rules YOU personally want.

My neighbor goes out of town. Should I be able to sneak into his house and watch his bigscreen TV, assuming I clean up after myself and leave him a couple of bucks for the electricity I've used? It's not "negatively affecting" him. In fact, I'm probably using less than $1 worth of electricity, so he comes out ahead.

[Bobbo539]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as long as it doesnt infringe on anyone else, yes

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much the definition of libertarian right there - I should be able to do anything I want, provided it doesn't negatively affect anybody else...

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And the tournament directors making this rule doesn't negatively affect you, since you have no entitlement to play in their tournament under the rules YOU personally want.

My neighbor goes out of town. Should I be able to sneak into his house and watch his bigscreen TV, assuming I clean up after myself and leave him a couple of bucks for the electricity I've used? It's not "negatively affecting" him. In fact, I'm probably using less than $1 worth of electricity, so he comes out ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get what you are saying, and you are right, political theories apply to government, not private entities. However, I think when he said "the libertarian inside of me" he was referring to a mindset (or set of beliefs) that tends to prefer no rule over one when in doubt. The libertarian in me agrees with him.

[NuklearWinter]

Just to play devil's advocate...

what if the board is a royal flush?

this seems totally logical 2 players might be laughing about it and go check/check. instead of shoving chips in the middle for no reason.

[GuyIncognito]

Why not just minbet?

[Borys313]

And if some dumb guy will not recognize he has the nuts and checks behind? Would be awfull to penalize him.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to play devil's advocate...

what if the board is a royal flush?

this seems totally logical 2 players might be laughing about it and go check/check. instead of shoving chips in the middle for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm presuming in cases like this the Tournament Directors are intelligent enough to handle this situation appropriately.

[Poseidon65]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just minbet?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly. A check behind is softplaying, but a minibet isn't. This is the kind of stupidity you get when trying to regulate how the game is played.

[Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
And if some dumb guy will not recognize he has the nuts and checks behind? Would be awfull to penalize him.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. The ME is HUGE, what are the odds that 2 people stupid enough to attempt to collude like this are on the same table? Very small. What are the odds that plenty of ME uberdonks do this by accident? Pretty big. Let them stay and continue donating.

(Hmmm, although actually I remember this happening in a side event at Deauville last year. Dumb collusion between two French donks. Whole table caused a big fuss, TD didnt know what to do... eventually they just broke the table to put the two 'friends' on seperate tables. So I guess I see it...)

LOL debatewithyourselfaments /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The Stranger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

get over yourself

[/ QUOTE ]


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w158/ontario_tory/wtf.jpg

I offend you in some way?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not offended. Just pointing out that I think using a political/philosophical ideology in response to this rule is a non-sequitur, and a vain one at that.

So did you read the pitching rule I linked? What did you think about all those 'musts,' 'shalls,' and 'may nots?'

[Jetto]

I personally think its absurd..you have the best hand possibility and you check it..lol OK by me

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as long as it doesnt infringe on anyone else, yes

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much the definition of libertarian right there - I should be able to do anything I want, provided it doesn't negatively affect anybody else...

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And the tournament directors making this rule doesn't negatively affect you, since you have no entitlement to play in their tournament under the rules YOU personally want.

My neighbor goes out of town. Should I be able to sneak into his house and watch his bigscreen TV, assuming I clean up after myself and leave him a couple of bucks for the electricity I've used? It's not "negatively affecting" him. In fact, I'm probably using less than $1 worth of electricity, so he comes out ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the cornerstone of the Libertarian platform - "smoke weed while you're there".

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not offended. Just pointing out that I think using a political/philosophical ideology in response to this rule is a non-sequitur, and a vain one at that.

So did you read the pitching rule I linked? What did you think about all those 'musts,' 'shalls,' and 'may nots?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta disagree with you here. Look at the tournament as a State, and the rules surrounding that tournament as the laws.

Political Philosophy fits in well here. My view - nicely summed up by Bobbo - is that I prefer no rule over one when in doubt.

Excessive (unecessary) rules cause more damage than good. They cost people because they cause confusion (therefore people break them unintentionally), inconsistent punishment (because if a rule is controversial, some 'police' will inforce in a stricter manner than others) and enforcement - by its nature - is expensive.

So in this scenario, this rule - which I consider excessive and unecessary - will cause players harm because of the confusion it may create, people breaking it accidentally (Royal on the board - can I check?) and the cost of the enforcement required (the floor staff / higher rake).

Please don't respond by saying "then let's do away with all rules". That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that rules should be clearly required and necessary. This one, in my opinion, is not. There are already rules against collusion, and I don't see this one helping.

As for the baseball rules - I do not have the knowledge of baseball that I do of Poker. It is quite possible that there are some rules of Baseball that I consider contradictory / excessive / redundant. I am not opposed to rules - they are required. But each and every rule should be clear, and clearly needed.

My point is that the rule in question is not.

How making this argument is vain, however, I don't get. (speaking of non-sequiturs...)

OT

[FireStorm]

Idiotic edict. This is an event where you allow anyone in, an open field. there are plenty of donks or inexperienced celebs etc who will misread their hands or not even be familiar with simple betting concepts, or what the nuts even is. These people will do plenty of bizarre things such as calling with air or not valuing the goods. You cannot have an open tournament to include bad players and then attempt to penalize them for playing badly. Once again, I doubt more than a handful of instances of this action would contain any illegal or malicious intent.

[southgapoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what if youre 100% sure he'll fold and you just want to see his cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the reason this rule seems kinda silly. i want information, if I'm not getting it by betting, then I'm not going to bet.

[/ QUOTE ]this is stupid because you are just going to show the nuts right away and hes going to muck. you're not gonna just sit there demanding to see what he has and then flip over the stone cold nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the hand goes to showdown then he has to show me his cards if I ask.

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to play devil's advocate...

what if the board is a royal flush?

this seems totally logical 2 players might be laughing about it and go check/check. instead of shoving chips in the middle for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm presuming in cases like this the Tournament Directors are intelligent enough to handle this situation appropriately.

[/ QUOTE ]I wouldn't presume that. People in authority can be awfully stupid.

[Moose]

The problem is, there is a very legitimate reason. Early in the tournament, with a small pot and I am about 100% sure my opponent will not call, where is the shame in checking for the sole purpose of seeing my opponent's cards?

[chaucerchick]

[ QUOTE ]

How would a libertarian interpret this (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp) ?

get over yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

lol i actually tried to read this.