- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bizarre Poker Rule.....
Posted on 8/18/10 at 9:24 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
Posted on 8/18/10 at 9:24 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
So, can any of the late night poker gurus tell me how this prevents collusion?
Again:
Also, just so we don't have to do this again:
Again:
quote:
Excuse my stupidity, but how does this prevent collusion?
If we both check, I win the pot with the nuts. If I bet, my partner will fold and, you guessed it, I win the pot with the nuts.
Also, just so we don't have to do this again:
quote:
And you know for 100% fact that he/she will fold how?
quote:
Because we are colluding!!! If we are working together, why would he/she call. If anything, we probably have a predetermined amount or percentage worked out before hand to let the other player know to get out.
Edit: we are working to beat the table/ tourney not each other.
0
Posted on 8/18/10 at 9:25 pm to TJG210
quote:
quote:
I don't know why the rule even exists since it's considered bad form to cite it
Do you think it was bad form for the table to gripe about Moons action?
What I think is bad form doesn't matter. What I am saying is that I've read it's "bad form" (whatever that means) to demand to see a player's hand. Not cricket, old boy, and all that sort of rot.
I don't know what the general consensus is on a Moon-like situation, as I had never heard of the rule before.
Posted on 8/18/10 at 9:31 pm to Kafka
quote:
What I am saying is that I've read it's "bad form" (whatever that means) to demand to see a player's hand.
not sure I understand (and I'm an old poker player, not familiar with the Hold'Em jargon)...are you saying we both check then you just throw your cards in, but I demand to see them after winning by default?
Posted on 8/18/10 at 9:35 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
are you saying we both check then you just throw your cards in, but I demand to see them after winning by default?
You and I are in a hand
Showdown -- you show a Royal Flush
I muck my hand
Any player at the table can demand to see my hand
Posted on 8/18/10 at 9:42 pm to Kafka
quote:
Any player at the table can demand to see my hand
I don't have a problem with that, if you stay until the end, your cards are in play...although I'd probably never actually demand it unless I thought something fishy was going on.
Posted on 8/19/10 at 9:02 am to Kafka
quote:
You and I are in a hand
Showdown -- you show a Royal Flush
I muck my hand
Any player at the table can demand to see my hand
If we are still dealing with the "Darvin" situation, not this. Only if a hand makes a call can any player demand to see it. In a check-check situation, nobody can demand to see your hand. There has to be some action, with a call.
As I said, I let him show, then I muck. He is entitled to nothing.
See Robert's Rules of Poker.
This post was edited on 8/19/10 at 9:04 am
Posted on 8/19/10 at 9:12 am to Ghazi
How does this rule prevent collusion? TIA
Posted on 8/19/10 at 9:25 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
How does this rule prevent collusion? TIA
If I knew someone (a buddy) was trying to dump chips to me, I would check raise them on the river to make his fold look convincing. If he has the nuts and I don't realize this he is obligated to call me (in the instance of the pocket cam) so he would check the nuts if he were expecting me to move on it.
not likely at all, but one explanation
Posted on 8/19/10 at 9:26 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
How does this rule prevent collusion? TIA
Simple. It's soft-playing and it's almost universally considered cheating, in a tournament. Here's why -
You (Player A), I (Player B), and another player (Player C) go to the flop of Ac Kd 2s. A bets, B calls, C gets out of the way. Turn 8h. Check, check. River, 10d. Check, check. Player A has 2h2c and Player B has QhJh. I have clearly checked the nuts on the river.
This is collusion because, unbeknownst to the rest of the table, I'm banging your sister, so I act cordial with you and don't want to knock you out of the tourney, in the event you have a hand like 2/2, which you almost certainly call with and might even raise with on the river. I however, soft play you, by not playing my hand (because I'm concerned for you). I've cheated everyone else in the tourney, not the least of which is Player C, because everyone else benefits from any single elimination (moving closer to the money or higher up in the money). My soft-play could possibly have let a player remain in the tourney, to every other player's detriment. When you have the nuts, and, by definition can't lose, your not betting the river only works to benefit your opponent - ergo, the collusion.
This is, I believe, the common thinking on why it's considered collusion - it works to screw everybody else in the tourney because it diminishes the opportunity to knock someone out.
This post was edited on 8/19/10 at 9:29 am
Posted on 8/19/10 at 10:29 am to PokerLawyer
quote:
This is collusion because, unbeknownst to the rest of the table, I'm banging your sister, so I act cordial with you and don't want to knock you out of the tourney, in the event you have a hand like 2/2, which you almost certainly call with and might even raise with on the river. I however, soft play you, by not playing my hand (because I'm concerned for you). I've cheated everyone else in the tourney, not the least of which is Player C, because everyone else benefits from any single elimination (moving closer to the money or higher up in the money). My soft-play could possibly have let a player remain in the tourney, to every other player's detriment. When you have the nuts, and, by definition can't lose, your not betting the river only works to benefit your opponent - ergo, the collusion.
This makes sense, I guess. I always thought of collusion, as we were trying to beat the table/ tourney; therefore, why would my partner call me. Like I said previously, if I was going to collude, I would have a predetermined bet to tip off my partner (most likely an easily identifiable percentage). However, this would probably be unnecessary, as we are not trying to beat each other in the first place.
I guess what you are saying is collusion too, just not as involved. It is basically giving a buddy a break, not necessarily working together to beat a table/ tourney.
Posted on 8/19/10 at 11:37 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
So this rule only applies if you have the absolute nuts right? If I'm in a hand with my buddy and I have AA on a flop of A 10 4 10 2 and I check it down, that would not be a penalty, correct?
Posted on 8/19/10 at 11:49 am to Htown Tiger
Is it a check after the river if you are last to bet, or is it a check from any position on the last card that is illegal?
Posted on 8/19/10 at 12:06 pm to blufftonpirates
Check if you are the last to bet and you have the nuts.
Posted on 8/19/10 at 2:26 pm to Htown Tiger
quote:
So this rule only applies if you have the absolute nuts right? If I'm in a hand with my buddy and I have AA on a flop of A 10 4 10 2 and I check it down, that would not be a penalty, correct?
Correct. That said, if you check aces full, in that spot, it is extreme soft-playing which will probably get you some dirty looks, but not penalty.
Posted on 8/19/10 at 3:40 pm to PokerLawyer
Yes the rule says you cant check down the absolute nuts if you are the last to act. You always have to create 'action' - bet if someone checks to you, or raise if someone bets. It's a rule enforced only in tournaments by very few casinos and obviously WSOP. This situation happens every year at the WSOP since it's a pretty obscure rule.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News