New Rule

[Scanner313 0]

Just reading some of these responses illustrates the amount of players that don't have much common sense, general comprehension skills and even worse, not understanding what the nuts is.The only thing that could be affected is if a person in early position checks with a non-nut hand and the player last to act bets.

I think you know what you're trying to say here, but I don't understand either.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

It's obviously a stupid rule. If someone checks the nuts on the river, then they're either a total idiot or obviously colluding or soft playing in some way. There are rules against collusion, so why can't people just see this as evidence of collusion rather than a rule in and of itself. There's no other reason to check other than collusion (aside from the player being clinically brain dead). Why make a rule that simply overlaps with another much more important rule.It would be like having a law against murder and then making a law against shooting someone in the face over and over again with a shotgun. Yeah, we're pretty sure the murder law covers that.It sounds like a tournament director was too scared to call collusion on someone and so enacted this rule to save him the trouble of actually having to make a decision. That's just my guess, though.

[FourFlusher 0]

"It sounds like a tournament director was too scared to call collusion on someone and so enacted this rule to save him the trouble of actually having to make a decision. That's just my guess, though."QFMFT

[Jordan 1]

such a dumb rule.lol.so if i have 99 on a 9 2 8 5 2and check last to act, I dont get a ban..but if I have 22, I do..lolllllthis is hilarious.ive been in situations on the river where I "know" I have the nuts (and he wont call a bet), but I want to see the guys hand (to verify I had him on a draw, and/or certain weak hand) (yes, there have been times when I've asked to see a guys hand, cause you are allowed to; it's a poker game and I'm not there to make friends -- well not usually) and now you get in trouble for that?that's kinda funny.but obviously would be a rariety for me regardless (checking on the river). It still seems pointless, as it wont really stop collusion or soft playing. At all.- Jordan

[BeaverStyle 1]

I thought this thread had something to do w/ the banning of online poker, but when I opened it, I realized it was much, much worse.(sw)I doubt that executing the punishment will never happen... because the rule in itself is a blocker against soft-playing/collusion. Now that it's known that soft-playing and collusion will not be tolerated and come with an enforceable penalty, I doubt this penalty will ever occur.

[DCJ001 0]

this is such an awful rule, it should be critiqued by all. there are situations in hands where you hold the nut flush and you're quite sure the other guy has second nut flush. if you lead he's only going to call, but you may be able to get a check raise in. it takes away a very important aspect of the game.

Sounds like some questionable play was witnessed at Tunica:Mon Jan 22 10:46:00 PST 2007New RuleTournament officials just made an announcement about a new rule that is in place at the World Poker Open. It was announced that after the river is out and you are the last to act, if you hold the nuts and check, you will receive a 10-minute penalty.Needless to say, this has spurred many interesting conversations at almost every table.

[DCJ001 0]

I must be the dumbest person here but I have to ask: how would you know? Sometimes you might know - but .....My daughter was playing an online mtt and had pocket Ks. She flopped the third and made the fourth K on the river. One other player was calling al her raises and she managed to get all the money in. He had a straight flush. So, in this situation under the new rule, if she sees the possibility and checks and he doesn't have it and she wins, does she get a penalty? Do you always know when you have the nuts on the river? I think this is a stupid and invasive rule. And it's just more catering to the mediocre. But some of you think it's a good rule, so, why, exactly? Obviously I am missing something.

If you've got quads, and there's the possibility for a straight flush, your hand is not the nuts.

[DCJ001 0]

there is one problem to this rule..... say on the river you are last to act and you have the nuts and you have been betting and getting called the whole time by your opponent. you are sure that he will not call a river bet but you want to know what he was calling you with. in this situation i would like a check because you know you wont make anymore money and you get info.

The one problem is that you're putting more value on the other player's hand than extracting more chips from him.

[DCJ001 0]

I never read that it says you have to RAISE - It just says you cannot check. I think a call is fine.I think this rule is great and will be presenting it to the tourney director at Hustler. Its an excellent rule and should be used across the board, including cash games where soft play is constant (I HATE TWO PEOPLE WHO CHECK IT DOWN AFTER RAISING ME OUT OF THE POT).

If someone at my table just calls on the river with the nuts, I'll call for the TD and call "collusion" too.

[13CARDS 0]

if you are too stupid to realize you have the nuts, you should also receive a penalty

For sure, I only want to play against smart people. Smart people don't suck out ever, only stupid people do that. It will be much better when they are standing at the rail.

[no not baxter 0]

such a dumb rule.lol.so if i have 99 on a 9 2 8 5 2and check last to act, I dont get a ban..but if I have 22, I do..lolllllthis is hilarious.ive been in situations on the river where I "know" I have the nuts (and he wont call a bet), but I want to see the guys hand (to verify I had him on a draw, and/or certain weak hand) (yes, there have been times when I've asked to see a guys hand, cause you are allowed to; it's a poker game and I'm not there to make friends -- well not usually) and now you get in trouble for that?that's kinda funny.but obviously would be a rariety for me regardless (checking on the river). It still seems pointless, as it wont really stop collusion or soft playing. At all.- Jordan

yep yep

[FourFlusher 0]

"I doubt that executing the punishment will never happen... because the rule in itself is a blocker against soft-playing/collusion. Now that it's known that soft-playing and collusion will not be tolerated and come with an enforceable penalty, I doubt this penalty will ever occur."Yup. Just look at the declining murder rate and the lack of crack sales since we made them illegal.

[X's 0]

Do you guys remember in the NBC Heads up championship when Mike Caro checked the stone cold nuts?From Bluff Magazine:"Halfway through the match-up, Mike Caro, last to act, makes a straight flush on the river. After Tony G checks, Mike checks behind him, while holding the stone cold nuts.The moment the hands are shown, Tony G explodes. “That is the worst play I have ever seen in poker!” he shrieks. We can only imagine that Mike is setting up an elaborate psychological play. Tony can’t seem to get over it and continues to rant.“I’ve never put anyone on tilt by showing him the best hand before,” Mike remarks wryly. This may be the first documented “value-check” move. It seems to pay off for the Mad Genius, as he increases his chip lead and eventually defeats the excitable Australian."

[doox 15]

I thought Caro was nuts for doing that at first, but hey - it seemed to have worked.I doubt this rule would cover heads-up play, though, since you can't collude when it's 1 on 1.

[11 to 1 0]

Did she have the nuts???NoThe rule states you may not check if you are last to act with the NUTS!!!!she didnt have the nuts, why would she get a penalty?Donk.This is only a bad rule to stupid people who dont think...*hint hint*

It's certainly a comfort to know someone here has never made a mistake in poker, has always seen every possibility, would not ever break such an INCREDIBLY STUPID rule inadvertantly and suffer the penalty. Listen, I know you've read every poker book ever written, you might want to refresh yourself and read Super System 2 on Limit Holdem. Re: betting the river. But then, you are so much smarter than Harmon is - I guess you don't need to. Poor me, I won't be able to avail myself of your ineluctable rightness on all things poker as I won't be seeing you again.sigh

[chgocubs99 0]

The worst part of this new format is that when you reply to a few posts, it comes up as 4 replies instead of just moving the text in to your last reply. Pretty gay.

[finztotheleft 0]

I think there should be a 10 minute penalty for not reading the whole thread through before replying.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

this is such an awful rule, it should be critiqued by all. there are situations in hands where you hold the nut flush and you're quite sure the other guy has second nut flush. if you lead he's only going to call, but you may be able to get a check raise in. it takes away a very important aspect of the game.

Last to act, pal.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

The last post might be my funniest, ever..on this forum.

[qyayqi 11]

I doubt this rule would cover heads-up play, though, since you can't collude when it's 1 on 1.

back in october two guys who made it to heads up in a tournament were colluding. the tournament is still going.i can envision a tourney rule where the final two players in each hand have to show their cards before they hit the muck.

[AcesUp46 0]

They should have a rule about players and games where everyone simply bets or raises the minimum amount at every street. It makes it cheap for donkeys to draw out and it becomes a card catching contest.

[no not baxter 0]

They should have a rule about players and games where everyone simply bets or raises the minimum amount at every street. It makes it cheap for donkeys to draw out and it becomes a card catching contest.

DPOTY

[SpiderGuard 0]

They should have a rule about players and games where everyone simply bets or raises the minimum amount at every street. It makes it cheap for donkeys to draw out and it becomes a card catching contest.

Would you believe that there's a game where that's all you can do? No one good plays it though because good players have their premium hands cracked all the time.

[Room812 0]

"I doubt that executing the punishment will never happen... because the rule in itself is a blocker against soft-playing/collusion. Now that it's known that soft-playing and collusion will not be tolerated and come with an enforceable penalty, I doubt this penalty will ever occur."Yup. Just look at the declining murder rate and the lack of crack sales since we made them illegal.

Yep, back in the good ol' days when murder was legal, boy i'll tell ya, those were the days....Seriously, what LongLiveYorke said.

[AcesUp46 0]

Would you believe that there's a game where that's all you can do? No one good plays it though because good players have their premium hands cracked all the time.

I've heard rumors about this game. Can't see the point of it.