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

[shinedown.45]

I find this a good strategy when playing in MTTs, but never employ it in a cash game.

 

[only_bridge]

Lets say you are no the bubble, 10 left on two tables, and you have an avg stack.

Normally you could just sit back and ease your way into the money, but then your table is giving you a hard time, and the other table is playing soft vs each other trying to help everyone at their table to cash. Cause they all mates.
So bubble take forever, you blind down, and are finaly forced to take spots and get knocked out.

 

[Big_Rudy]

I'm actually surprised by the number of people here who say they employ this strategy occassionally, or once in awhile "for information". It seems to me the information you are going to get from getting to see one hand is far, far outweighed by the value you pass up by not betting. Just my opinion. I have never done this, and will never do this.

 

[BluffYou123]

I'm actually surprised by the number of people here who say they employ this strategy occassionally, or once in awhile "for information". It seems to me the information you are going to get from getting to see one hand is far, far outweighed by the value you pass up by not betting. Just my opinion. I have never done this, and will never do this.

This.

 

[dj11]

I am equally surprised that there are so many folks who reject this out of hand.

Have you never checked down a hand, ever?

 

[RamdeeBen]

hmm..

Not sure how/why it's against the rules. I mean for example, I do this quite often in either, SnG's/ heads up vs someone in the early stages so I can assign ranges on them. Even if I know I have the best hand, I would rather check down to know 100% that I'm seeing their mucked hand rather than trying to get out an extra "worthless" 60 chips so early on.

Never had poker stars tell me I'm colluding with them checking down the nuts

However, though...I've heard it's illegal but hmmf, grey area imo.

 

[Demonomania]

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 legitimately face palmed.

+1 you're a troll

 

[Demonomania]

I am equally surprised that there are so many folks who reject this out of hand.

Have you never checked down a hand, ever?

I'm not saying it's wrong to check down what looks to be the winning hand, when you're unsure. I think everyone does this from time to time.

But the actual nuts (i.e a royal flush or top end of a straight flush)..?! Why would you ever toss possible profit, in hopes to see the villains whole cards?



Edit: I have no idea why I didn't just edit this into the post above. I literally just woke up. Feel free to do so if you're a mod.

 

[only_bridge]

I am equally surprised that there are so many folks who reject this out of hand.

Have you never checked down a hand, ever?

???
Sick that someone like you would check the nuts on river. I mean yeah when you are a total beginner, but your'e not.

 

[JohnBoyWWFC]

hmm..

Not sure how/why it's against the rules. I mean for example, I do this quite often in either, SnG's/ heads up vs someone in the early stages so I can assign ranges on them. Even if I know I have the best hand, I would rather check down to know 100% that I'm seeing their mucked hand rather than trying to get out an extra "worthless" 60 chips so early on.

Never had poker stars tell me I'm colluding with them checking down the nuts

However, though...I've heard it's illegal but hmmf, grey area imo.

Err... Ram, you can't collude heads-up buddy!

 

[sixpeppers]

This whole thread is lol, like watching monkeys play with computers.

Obviously there is some merit to checking the nuts last to act for the sole purpose of seeing your opponents cards, BUT almost certainly it is WAY better to bet every time, it should only happen in a situation where you have like the 1 card Ace high flush and the way the board ran out made it extremly unlikely for them to have the second or third (or maybe even fourth) flush, AND there actions have been peculiar enough for you to wonder what they could have been doing (like they check raised the turn on a 4flush when you hold the nut flush card and there are no straight flush possibilities). This situation would occur maybe every 1 million hands or more.

Collusion is just any time two players aren't actually playing versus each other the way they normally would (usually via agreement like softplaying or worse, actual dirty collusion where you bet he calls i raise). Just because you are now headsup doesn't mean you didn't collude with your opponent at some point in the hand.

Overall the rule of not being allowed to check back the nuts is about as pointless as the argument that checking back the nuts on the river is a good idea!

 

[Leo 50]

I think many players will check down at the river because

They are NOT sure they have the nuts
(Ace high flush with a possible Full house on the board for example)
I mean how often do we KNOW we have the nuts on a hand?

Also the info you get from checking is not really worth it over time especially in cash games

Just my ¢

 

[BluffYou123]

We know we have the nuts because it's the best possible hand. When does the hurting stop with this lolthread?

 

[JohnBoyWWFC]

I think many players will check down at the river because

They are NOT sure they have the nuts
(Ace high flush with a possible Full house on the board for example)
I mean how often do we KNOW we have the nuts on a hand?

Then it's not the nuts is it? We're talking about THE NUTS. Do you know what that means?

 

[Leo 50]

Then it's not the nuts is it? We're talking about THE NUTS. Do you know what that means?

Johnny that WAS my point!

 

[only_bridge]

Johnny that WAS my point!

Stop trolling in the troll thread already

 

[prepare]

First, Information is always better than chips. Information on your opponent will last as long as your memory is good, Those chips you win will only last at most to the end of the tourney/ (well, I can't say for sure in cash).

But I don't even care about the question asked, Because the answer is that it's considered collusion, and whether its okay to break the rule some of the times depends on the situation.

man this "community" annoys me sometimes, if someone is wrong, explain to them that's its wrong, if the don't know the answer the answer you should give them or something of the sort for the answer, don't mock them because the don't know what effing collusion is. It shows your personality.

Which would be all right if it were a rare occurrence, but it seems when someone says something ... not standard in poker ... you guys basically do this every time, and I ignore it, but this time it pissed me off too much.

 

[Big_Rudy]

I am equally surprised that there are so many folks who reject this out of hand.

Have you never checked down a hand, ever?

Checked down a hand? Sure. Checked the nuts on the river when I'm the last to act? Nope. Never even considered it. Ok, NOW I've considered it......still think it's a poor play.

 

[Four Dogs]

I am equally surprised that there are so many folks who reject this out of hand.

Have you never checked down a hand, ever?

Seriously. I mean, don't you ever get board? In the course of a million hands or so I think I've played every single hand, every single way imaginable at least once. Is it always all about EV?

 

[RamdeeBen]

Err... Ram, you can't collude heads-up buddy!

Yeah indeed, so you are allowed to check the nuts in heads up for hand ranges, yet would be classed as colluding in a game with 3 or more players yet it's being used for the same purpose? Kinda seems a bad ruling just based on that imo.

btw..I also said I checked in other games too..but never received anything from pokerstars saying I was committing an offence

I just think its' a very grey area and it's like well define it more.

 

[Poker_play]

Wow interesting to see any discussion about it. Imo its a no brainer...throw out a bet. You never know when opponent has bottom pairand decides to call. You never know when villain is tilting and decides they want that pot and shove because they think ur bluffing. I see this happen all the time and create big pots for no reason (nuts vs complete air) Sure, this only accounts for a small% of hands...but just like anything else in poker, winning players need to consistently take any edge available to them.

 

[dj11]

I have to think you who say never are more gambler than player. Sure there is no gamble in a sure thing like the nuts, but to see it only 1 dimensionally, is a little myopic. After villain fire 2 bullets we already have made profit of the monetary kind, and when he checks the river, we can make profit of the knowledge kind.

These situations do not happen often, guessing that it is less than 1% of the hands we get involved with

 

[baudib1]

Fish ITT.

If your opponent's range is so weak that he can't call a bet on the river and will never check-raise, the value of seeing his hand is WTFminimal.

-- if you can't figure out what his range is in this spot, seeing his hand isn't going to help you. Because you probably can't make any use of this information anyway.
-- for meta purposes, if you know 100% he is going to fold, overbet shoving or min-betting (like $2 into $500 pot) is way better than checking back the nuts.

 

[TheGenera1]

I once saw someone check behind in an online poker game with quad jacks. Talk about passive... My theory tho is that he was so amazed at his hand they he was scared to push the opponent out of the pot and therefore doesn't get to show anyone his hand.

Or he just misread his hand.

 

[xdeucesx]

plz tell me CC hasn't gotten so bad as to having a discussion about checking the nuts on the river...



edit: too late