Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 2403636, member: 23910"]
You're absolutely right, it's not always collusion or soft play every time somebody fails to bet/raise the nuts on the river.  More often that not it's a brainfart or a misclick or just plain ignorance.

Like I said above though, that's not a good reason to get rid of the rule.  It's just a good reason to give floor people the leeway to make a judgement call on how severe the penalty is, if one is even given at all.

Erm... no, it benefits all players by stopping people from soft playing or colluding in certain situations.

Furthermore, I don't think that the rule as it stands hurts anyone, so there's no good reasons to get rid of it.  Overzealous application of the rule (imposing a one-round penalty for a novice player's genuine mistake, for example) can be detrimental, but that's the fault of the floorperson choosing the penalty, not the rule itself.

And I'm sorry, but there's absolutely [b]no possible misinterpretation[/b] of the term "nut hand".  It's a clearly defined term in poker.  You can make a bunch of other arguments about the rule, but its [i]definition[/i] is crystal clear.  A player either has the nuts, or they don't.  They're either last to act, or they're not.  And they either bet/raise, or they don't.

As for Ivey mucking his hand yes, that proves that brainfarts happen.  And like I've said a bunch of times now, that's just an argument for floorpeople being given leeway in applying penalties, not an argument to get rid of the rule.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us