Last to Act with the Nutts

Clareman

I thought it was interesting in the WSOP that if you are the last to act and you have the clear cut nutts that you must bet, if you don't it is seen as collusion and you will be banned for 1 orbit.

I have never come across this before, but I think it's an excellent rule, there is no reason why you wouldn't bet, just wondering if anyone has come across this before?

jimmii

I seen that rule alright its a good idea although your going to feel stupid enough if you check behind with the nuts as it is!

Clareman

jimmii wrote:

I seen that rule alright its a good idea although your going to feel stupid enough if you check behind with the nuts as it is!

Imagine how stupid you'd feel if you thought you had the nutts only to be beaten :eek:

jimmii

That would also be bad especially if it was an all in on the bubble!

Chucky the tree

Green Joke Poker Fujioka 0.10/0.20, hand converted by the iPoker Converter at Talking-Poker

saw flop | saw showdown

Button Hero ($15.97)
SB SB ($5.05)
BB BB ($5.73)

Preflop: Hero is on the Button with 6 7 2 3
Hero calls 0.20, SB calls 0.10, BB checks.

Flop (0.60) 2 T 2
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets 0.40, 1 fold, BB calls 0.40.

Turn (1.40) A
BB checks, Hero bets 1.20, BB calls 1.20.

River (3.80) 2
BB checks, Hero checks

BB shows
Qspade
Aspade.
9 Q
Hero shows 6 7 2 3

Hero wins 3.80 with Four of a kind, Two's

jimmii

Yeh thats a bad one! Although I called last to act with the nuts in Omaha before but it wasn't as obvious as that!

CaptainNemo

It's easy to check the nuts on the river if you're paying attention to something else. People often misread their hands.

There are also other admittedly extreme circumstances where you might check the nuts, for example if there are 11 players left in a tournament paying the top 10, and you have the big stack and have been having a great time stealing blinds on your table. In that case if you could put someone all-in on the river it might be to your disadvantage and you might choose not to so you can go on blind-stealing. I know it's like nit-picking but I don't like this rule. There should be no rules governing the type of betting or game-play someone does in this way.

baker1

I think it a silly rule.

Imagine a situation where 4 people are still in a hand on the river and the board shows a broadway straight [no flush]. What is the point in each player having to bet and raise only for the pot to be chopped?

Jesus Wept

baker1 wrote:

I think it a silly rule.

Imagine a situation where 4 people are still in a hand on the river and the board shows a broadway straight [no flush]. What is the point in each player having to bet and raise only for the pot to be chopped?

It wouldn't apply if the nuts were on board.

Clareman

how about if a card was show dead and as a result you had the nuts, if you didn't raise then it would be interesting I'd say

Clareman

The-Rigger wrote:

It wouldn't apply if the nuts were on board.

I would imagine that it would only not be enforced if there was a royal flush on the board, straight to the ace or quads with an ace kicker (or quad aces with K kicker)