Why are you not allowed to check the nuts on the River if you're last in line?

[Foxhound3857]

I never understood that rule.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

It is considered a sign of collusion. Besides making a mistake what motivation could you have to do this?

 

[Foxhound3857]

It is considered a sign of collusion. Besides making a mistake what motivation could you have to do this?

What do you mean by collusion?

 

[ophir silverman]

it is debatable. potentialy profitable because next time he checkss to someone on the river he might fold in order to muck. I think you are a gennius

 

[Foxhound3857]

I don't really understand what he meant by collusion though. The only reason I'd do it is to get the other player to turn up their hand first so I could see the cards they were playing, and that's only if I'm sure they wouldn't call a bet.

 

[Poker_play]

loll fox
brilliant.
you should fold on the river with the nuts. then opponent can muck. +EV

 

[smokeme]

because ur suppose to take peoples money not be friendly with them. and checkin down the nuts is kinda being friendly lol. but u got a point u wanted to see the players cards. but why not bet really small where he mite call if ur gona check with the nuts.

 

[Foxhound3857]

But why is it against the rules in live tournaments? What the hell is collusion?

 

[Poker Orifice]

But why is it against the rules in live tournaments? What the hell is collusion?

It's pretty obvious... isn't it?

 

[Foxhound3857]

It's pretty obvious... isn't it?

No. Explain. Please.

 

[fletchdad]

If I get this right, you dont know what collusion means????

Collusion is when 2 (or more) players make different plays against each other in order to help one another or exploit a 3rd player....i.e. cheating.

If a multi way pot where you have the nutz gets reduced to HU OTR, and you are IP, and the other player checks, why would you want to check behind???? Cause you want to give him a walk???? Hmmmm why do you want to intentionally leave another player IN the game??

 

[OzExorcist]

But why is it against the rules in live tournaments? What the hell is collusion?

OMG - Darvin Moon ITT IMO

Seriously though - if you have the nuts on the river, you're last to act and you don't bet, it's assumed that you didn't bet because you wanted to go soft on your opponent. That's assumed because there is no good reason to check the nuts in position on the river, so the only logicial conclusion is that you're working with the player you're checking after, which is against the rules.

 

[Foxhound3857]

OMG - Darvin Moon ITT IMO

Seriously though - if you have the nuts on the river, you're last to act and you don't bet, it's assumed that you didn't bet because you wanted to go soft on your opponent. That's assumed because there is no good reason to check the nuts in position on the river, so the only logicial conclusion is that you're working with the player you're checking after, which is against the rules.

Oh, no, my motivation would be to see the other players cards if I knew for sure they wouldn't call a bet or a raise, in order to get information on them.

 

[Demonomania]

There's no actual way to "know for sure" they won't call a bet on the river. ..just saying.

And to not try for more value (however little it may be) when you have the nuts, is completely absurd imo

 

[Foxhound3857]

There's no actual way to "know for sure" they won't call a bet on the river. ..just saying.

And to not try for more value (however little it may be) when you have the nuts, is completely absurd imo

There is value in checking it down because that forces the player to turn up their hand first, which means I get to see what cards they were playing. I get information on them that I can use against them later.

 

[colepure]

There is value in checking it down because that forces the player to turn up their hand first, which means I get to see what cards they were playing. I get information on them that I can use against them later.

I totally agree with this statement, however only when u believe your opponent(s) would fold to any bet.

 

[JohnBoyWWFC]

But only if they were the aggressor. Otherwise you have to show and they can muck.

 

[BlueNowhere]

There is value in checking it down because that forces the player to turn up their hand first, which means I get to see what cards they were playing. I get information on them that I can use against them later.

How is nobody calling you out on being a troll? Go to bbv on 2p2, you'll fit in.

 

[fletchdad]

There is value in checking it down because that forces the player to turn up their hand first, which means I get to see what cards they were playing. I get information on them that I can use against them later.

Not betting the nutz last in OTR is simply absurd IMO. Only bad players and cheaters will employ this "strategy". Maybe in a high stakes cash game there could be a reason*, but I dont think so.

* Cheating????

 

[nc_royals]

There is value in checking it down because that forces the player to turn up their hand first, which means I get to see what cards they were playing. I get information on them that I can use against them later.

Chips are worth more than getting to see this one hand he's playing. Do this at a table of regulars at a casino and see their reaction. Their going to assume you and your opponent know each other and you are not wanting to bust him. Going to make you very popular.

 

[Four Dogs]

I've done this a few times in HU tourneys when I want my opponent to see my cards. May sound strange but when your playing 100-200 hands vs the the opponent it's important to let him know that you're capable of checking back strong hands. It totally messes with their heads. And if it also leads them to believe you're a worse player than you really are, so be it. Has nothing to do with cheating.

 

[acky100]

maybe because its retarded

 

[Big_Rudy]

OMG - Darvin Moon ITT IMO ...

maybe because its retarded

Best answers ITT, imo.

 

[dj11]

I too occasionally do this. For the exact reason Foxhound mentions, and the secondary reason Four Dogs mentions.

I don't do it often.

Take, for instance, the situation where maybe midway thru a MTT and you have a bully at the table, and no one has seen any hand of his for a long time. That would be a time to see just what the **** he has been betting.

At which point it was a tactic in my whole game strategy.....to understand, to the best of my ability, each of my villains. Unless he was showing me something extremely strong at that point, I would have just done serious damage to him, without taking all his chips, which is where the problem arises about softplay. But more than likely he would have had me covered in that hand, and I feel I would be justified in my action, and could probably convince any judge of my actions that I was OK in doing it that way. Not positive tho.

Now if it were a standard thing I was doing like every hand I was involved with, rather that suffer the wrath of rule, I would probably become the runt of ruin from all the villains at my table.

Overall, I think value betting, however small, when you get to that point, is the better path.

 

[only_bridge]

There is value in checking it down because that forces the player to turn up their hand first, which means I get to see what cards they were playing. I get information on them that I can use against them later.

Almost always overrated IMO.