Dealer contributes to confusion... Floor please!

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the clarification (between third and fourth) depends on whether you consider the nuts the best possible hand considering the board (out of ALL possible hands) or the best possible hand currently involved in the hand (terribly worded, I know, but hopefully understandable).


[/ QUOTE ]

The nuts are defined by the board. That's it. When shown a board, the nuts, 2nd nuts, 3rd nuts, etc. can be determined. There is no issue about "well i had the such and such card, therefore the nuts is this".

Think about it. TV hand. We "see" four different players fold an ace preflop. On the end the board is K Q J T 2 (rainbow). One player is holding a 9 and bets. Should the announcer proclaim "Player X is betting the nuts."? Or better yet, a player with air bets and the player holding the 9 folds. Should the announcer declare "what a donkey, player X just folded the nuts."?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the clarification (between third and fourth) depends on whether you consider the nuts the best possible hand considering the board (out of ALL possible hands) or the best possible hand currently involved in the hand (terribly worded, I know, but hopefully understandable).


[/ QUOTE ]

The nuts are defined by the board. That's it. When shown a board, the nuts, 2nd nuts, 3rd nuts, etc. can be determined. There is no issue about "well i had the such and such card, therefore the nuts is this".

Think about it. TV hand. We "see" four different players fold an ace preflop. On the end the board is K Q J T 2 (rainbow). One player is holding a 9 and bets. Should the announcer proclaim "Player X is betting the nuts."? Or better yet, a player with air bets and the player holding the 9 folds. Should the announcer declare "what a donkey, player X just folded the nuts."?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand if the board reads 99884 and I hold 98 I would say that I had the nuts. Even though until you see my hand you would likely say the nuts was 99.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand if the board reads 99884 and I hold 98 I would say that I had the nuts. Even though until you see my hand you would likely say the nuts was 99.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I have a weird passion for this issue.

NO! (and I rarely use exclaimation points).

"Unbeatable hand" is not synonymous with "nuts".

I know at some level it's simply an issue of semantics, but for some strange reason it bugs me.

The nuts are defined by the board, NOT by hole cards.

In the example of a 9 9 8 8 4 board any player holding a 98 would have an unbeatable hand. To say he has the "nuts" however is just false. The nuts on that hand of poker is 99.

The only argument that I could see where the board shouldn't 100% define the nuts would be where there was an exposed card or (an even stronger case) a boxed card during the deal.

Even then, I think a strong case can be made that nuts are, well, nuts. Look at any complete board, the nuts never change.

(Again, sorry for the rant, but I have some sort of condition that makes me really care about trivial things).

[pfapfap]

I'm curious how others feel about that. You say you don't count cards in your hand when determining the nuts. So if you have a hand that, by existing, makes another bigger hand impossible, do you think to yourself, "well, I have third nuts, but second best hand that's possible here..." etc etc? What's the shorthand for this, if not "second nuts"?

[Lee_C]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious how others feel about that. You say you don't count cards in your hand when determining the nuts. So if you have a hand that, by existing, makes another bigger hand impossible, do you think to yourself, "well, I have third nuts, but second best hand that's possible here..." etc etc? What's the shorthand for this, if not "second nuts"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The cards in your hand help deterine the NUTS. You use all available information to determine the NUTS (Best possible hand). If you hold the 98 in the earlier example you have the NUTS because no one could hold a better hand.
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
In the example of a 9 9 8 8 4 board any player holding a 98 would have an unbeatable hand. To say he has the "nuts" however is just false. The nuts on that hand of poker is 99.
... The nuts are defined by the board, NOT by hole cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. While I agree that it may be overly liberal for someone to use unknown (to others) cards to define the nuts, your example is NOT acceptable.

If there is a 99883 board (to remove the SF) and you have in your hand 98, you have the nuts in any game without wild cards or multiple decks.

To argue the semantics in that scenario is stupid. By common acceptance, "the nuts" means a hand that can't be beaten, given the circumstances of that hand... it does not mean "possible hand combinations that can't occur."




And I'm someone who has argued that my using "I have the nut flush" holding 32s when there was NOT a SF or FH possible is legitimate, when I knew 100% that I wasn't going to be beaten by my opponents.

Not common, but acceptable enough under the circumstances at the time.

So, you won't want to talk to me :P

[psandman]

yesterday playing playing Omaha I had a player announce he had second nuts when the board had three diamonds on it (no pairs and no Straight Flush possibility, highest diamond on the board was a king.

So I assumed he had the King High Flush. My mistake, you see he had a straight. In his mind a flush was the nuts and a straight was the second nuts. I guess my set was the third nuts, damn bad beat.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a player announce he had second nuts when the board had three diamonds on it (no pairs and no Straight Flush possibility, highest diamond on the board was a king.

So I assumed he had the King High Flush. My mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

4th nuts- you forgot about the Ad nut flush?


How did you get sucked into paying off with 4th nuts, btw? I'm losing respect for you.... :P

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a player announce he had second nuts when the board had three diamonds on it (no pairs and no Straight Flush possibility, highest diamond on the board was a king.

So I assumed he had the King High Flush. My mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

4th nuts- you forgot about the Ad nut flush?


How did you get sucked into paying off with 4th nuts, btw? I'm losing respect for you.... :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Typo... the board had the Qd not K diamonds.

I didn't get sucked into paying off, I made a big bet which put him all-in, and he was talking out loud while trying to decide what to do. He was very close to folding. I still like my bet, and can't believe that he called, this was on the turn so even if I was beat i still had the chance to fill up.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I have a weird passion for this issue.

NO! (and I rarely use exclaimation points).

"Unbeatable hand" is not synonymous with "nuts".

[/ QUOTE ]

A web search will show mostly evidence contrary to that. Regardless of where you got your information, common usage dictates it has no single precise meaning. And common usage does define words (see how a dictionary changes over the years for proof of this.)