Checking the river with the nuts (potential WSOP spoiler...but not much)

[Dr. Neau]

Darvin Moon on Day 1 of WSOP.  Has the nuts and is last to act heads-up in the hand.

Opponent checks.  Darvin checks with what he knew were the nuts, saying something like "I bet and you fold anyway".

Everyone at the table knows he just broke a rule.  He gets a penalty for soft playing.

Makes sense to me...but I'm surprised I never heard of that rule! 

[pathand]

Saw that and I had not heard that before but it does fall in line with possible collusion or soft playing. I can't remember that situation in our games, but it could have happened since I was ignorant of the rule.   

[holdemholmes]

I saw this too...and I was not aware that this was an offical rule either. To be honest, I'm suprised it was only a one hand penalty.

[Dr. Neau]

Looking at the WSOP rules I can find.  Here's what applies:

37. Any player(s) adjudged or determined by Harrah’s to be colluding with other players will immediately be disqualified from the event, and will not be allowed to play in future WSOP events at any Harrah's Entertainment property.

76. Poker is an individual game. Soft play will result in penalties that may include forfeiture of chips and/or disqualification. Chip dumping will result in disqualification.

I must be missing something then...the other players said it's been a rule for a LONG time.

I guess it's gotta be the soft play rule, but I was expecting something a bit more concrete.  Darvin didn't think he was soft playing...in his mind he was just saving time.

[Dr. Neau]

And I'm reading over on 2+2 about this and some argue that Moon actually did this for a valid reason: to see the other guys cards.

[Dr. Neau]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/SaPYiPEh_tA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/SaPYiPEh_tA</a>

[holdemholmes]

And I'm reading over on 2+2 about this and some argue that Moon actually did this for a valid reason: to see the other guys cards.

I can see that being a valid reason.....but I mean in this spot what do you really expect to see...a busted draw? middle pair?
I can also see how it can be considered collusion and should not be allowed to happen......if I was his opponent I would of just mucked.

[stooks99]

This is a very old rule.  But, more importantly...I don't believe for once second that Darvin had any strategic reasoning behind doing this.  He's a very, very raw player and think there is an 80% chance that he just flat out forgot that he had spades.  I think he made himself look pretty stupid, but after last year...

[Blaster]

This is a very old rule.  But, more importantly...I don't believe for once second that Darvin had any strategic reasoning behind doing this.  He's a very, very raw player and think there is an 80% chance that he just flat out forgot that he had spades.  I think he made himself look pretty stupid, but after last year...

This crossed my mind too, however I think if's that was the case,  he knew he had a spade flush .. Just didn't realize it was "The absolute Nuts" .. so he checked ....

[Dr. Neau]

I think he simply checked because he wanted the other guy to have to show his hand...and if he bet, he knew the other guy would just toss his hand.

[troysteelerfan]

I think he simply checked because he wanted the other guy to have to show his hand...and if he bet, he knew the other guy would just toss his hand.

I think this is why he checked as well ^^^^^.  I have heard people mention the rule and discuss it - I read somewhere in a poker book that Doyle Brunson tells a story about somebody checking the nuts on the end and getting "in trouble" - I was suprised the penalty was only one hand and I do "get" the reason for the rule - the collusion aspect of it - "I check the nuts to keep from giving you the chance to make a play cause you're my friend"....but on the same line as he wanted to see the other guy show his hand - I would rather have bet and taken the pot without having to show mine....at least that is my thinking if I am in that hand in that situation and acting last....

[stooks99]

I like how we all of a sudden are giving Darvin Moon credit for reading abilities that justify checking the nuts in position.  There is no excuse for this check except absolute stupidity. 

Are we really to believe that he's fishing for information an hour into the main event?  Or, at least, information so important that he is risking serious value (and penalty..not that he knew that) by checking?

You people are letting him off way too easily.  I appreciate Darvin Moon's story, and I am happy that he probably inspired people to play poker that otherwise might not, but giving this guy any credit for 2nd level thinking is a little silly, to me.

**Yes, I know that what we see on TV is a very small percentage of the tournament, but you can get a very quick and obvious feel for how Darvin thinks by the things he says.  Tell me when you watched him last year you didnt think he looked like a sucker that just came to the poker room from the blackjack table and decided to play 2/5 with his winnings.**

[Dr. Neau]

I like how we all of a sudden are giving Darvin Moon credit for reading abilities that justify checking the nuts in position.  There is no excuse for this check except absolute stupidity.

Well, except for one second after the cards are turned over, he says "I knew you wadn't bettin'...just wanted to see what you had"

[Martini]

Ridiculous rule IMO. If the floor feels that a check behind with the Nuts is inappropriate then they can penalize based on the soft play or whatever is happening. You don't need a specific rule for that.

[stooks99]

I like how we all of a sudden are giving Darvin Moon credit for reading abilities that justify checking the nuts in position.  There is no excuse for this check except absolute stupidity.

Well, except for one second after the cards are turned over, he says "I knew you wadn't bettin'...just wanted to see what you had"

I mean, really?  Are we going to accept that drivel as a rational excuse?  I would find it more likely that he rolled his cards over, realized his error and then tried to cover it up.

Remember, we are talk about the same guy who, on national TV, lied to his wife about his hand at the FT, knowing full well that the world was seeing his hole cards.  He folded getting 6 to 1, which was amazingly the correct fold given the cards...and then proceeded to lie and claim he had a hand that would have been amazingly stupider to fold.

Also the same guy who, on a radio show, when he was asked about his big hand with Billy Kopp, swore up and down that the board wasn't paired, even though the people interviewing him clearly had evidence that it was in front of them. 

I'm not trying to demonize the guy, it just seems that we are giving him credit for having some deep-level thoughts on a pretty insignificant hand, when he has shown several times that he probably doesn't have that type of thought process.

[Dr. Neau]

People "pay to see it" all the time, knowing they will lose the hand.

This isn't much different...just backwards.

[pathand]

The guy often likes to show the best hand to players that fold to his bet at showdown. It appears he was run over by the deck, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't learned enough to make the occasional "2nd level" play. The camera was rolling, so who knows why he chose this hand to purposely show without making a bet. All that matters is that he made a mistake that many experienced players were unaware of. I think his only sin is that maybe he is too nice. Big deal.

[stooks99]

Again, I'm not saying the guy is a total moron, but the fact that we are immediately giving him credit for "just wanting to see what he had" and not "I'm not experience enough to pay attention to everything" is mind boggling.  He seems like a helluva guy, but he has shown a tendency to...well, to not pay attention, so why are we suddenly thinking he is doing anything different?

[austin5string]

...  I would find it more likely that he rolled his cards over, realized his error and then tried to cover it up.

That's what it sounded like to me when I watched the clip..

[Gobbs]

My understanding - and I could be wrong, my memory may be failing - is that, of course, the soft-playing rule has been around forever; however, the WSOP decided very recently (like last year, maybe?) to start enforcing it with the "must bet the nuts if you are last to act on the river" guideline.

I think this is a horrible application of the rule.

First, anybody who doesn't think I or a ton of other players wouldn't check the river to simply see my/their opponent's cards is sadly mistaken.  It's a valid move that has potential long-term gain.  Information is valuable (especially in big stack formats) and obtaining it for nothing is the nuts.  While I don't think Mr. Moon is necessarily the best poker player in the world, I do have to believe he is a better player than me and capable of using this valuable information much like I am.  It will certainly help him determine the player's range of cards in similar situations.  This rule restricts (somewhat) his ability to gain free information.  (NOTE: Regardless if this was truly his intention or not, it's still a valid reason to check the river in this situation.)

Second, if I truly wanted to soft-play a player on a given hand, a one-hand penalty certainly wouldn't stop me.  I can only assume the penalty gets more severe if you do it a second or third time to the same player, but how likely are you to get the nuts on the river against the same player twice while acting last?  Even if you do, the second time you can throw out a very small bet to avoid the penalty (and hope he doesn't re-raise).

Bottom line - it's a dumb (and I believe new) application of an old rule.

KC

[stooks99]

First, anybody who doesn't think I or a ton of other players wouldn't check the river to simply see my/their opponent's cards is sadly mistaken.  It's a valid move that has potential long-term gain.  Information is valuable (especially in big stack formats) and obtaining it for nothing is the nuts.  While I don't think Mr. Moon is necessarily the best poker player in the world, I do have to believe he is a better player than me and capable of using this valuable information much like I am.  It will certainly help him determine the player's range of cards in similar situations.  This rule restricts (somewhat) his ability to gain free information.  (NOTE: Regardless if this was truly his intention or not, it's still a valid reason to check the river in this situation.)

To me, you would have to be over 80% certain that your opponent is not calling to throw value out the window when you hold the best hand possible. 

[irishpenguin]

I think this is a horrible application of the rule.

^ This ^

[Gobbs]

First, anybody who doesn't think I or a ton of other players wouldn't check the river to simply see my/their opponent's cards is sadly mistaken.  It's a valid move that has potential long-term gain.  Information is valuable (especially in big stack formats) and obtaining it for nothing is the nuts.  While I don't think Mr. Moon is necessarily the best poker player in the world, I do have to believe he is a better player than me and capable of using this valuable information much like I am.  It will certainly help him determine the player's range of cards in similar situations.  This rule restricts (somewhat) his ability to gain free information.  (NOTE: Regardless if this was truly his intention or not, it's still a valid reason to check the river in this situation.)

To me, you would have to be over 80% certain that your opponent is not calling to throw value out the window when you hold the best hand possible. 

To me, you would have to know the size of the pots in question and the stage of the touranment to make that statement.  Without that knowledge, it's impossible to put a range of percentages on it (let alone something as specific as 80%).

Small pot early in the tournament, I don't need to be confident at all that he's not calling.  The information may be absolutely priceless if it allows me to win a big pot later in the tournament.  In this case, the knowledge is more valuable than the few chips gained.  (Of course, you also have to factor in that checking forces you to give away information, too.  You may want to bet so that you won't have to show if he folds.  It is just very situational.  Is the price of missing a bet and giving information away worth the information gained.  It's a judgment call.)

Big pot later in the tournament, I don't care if I'm 99.9% confident that he's not calling, I'm still betting.  At that point, the chips are far more valuable than the knowledge gained.

To put a generic number like 80% confidence on it really makes no sense at all.

KC

[KPrather]

Second, if I truly wanted to soft-play a player on a given hand, a one-hand penalty certainly wouldn't stop me.  I can only assume the penalty gets more severe if you do it a second or third time to the same player...

The vibe I got from it was that the floorperson understood that Darvin was unaware of the rule, and was sympathetic, so she only gave him a one-hand penalty. ISTR the exact verbiage of the rule details a one-ORBIT penalty.

[stooks99]

To put a generic number like 80% confidence on it really makes no sense at all.

KC

Ok, I'll modify:  You need to be REALLY confident.  How's that for generic?

I agree with you, though.  There is no way knowledge gained at this point is going to outweigh chips earned.  If his opponent rolls over a poorly played set/2pair hand, how great do we think his check is now?

[Martini]

If you have the Nuts (or even a very strong hand) at showdown time it is proper etiquette to show your hand immediately anyway. Waiting for the other person to show first is slow rolling.

"In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay."

http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm#THE_SHOWDOWN

So checking behind with the Nuts *shouldn't* get you information about the other player's hand anyway.

[Edit: to add last sentence which was left off first time around.]

[NotFadeAway]

I like how we all of a sudden are giving Darvin Moon credit for reading abilities that justify checking the nuts in position.  There is no excuse for this check except absolute stupidity. 

Are we really to believe that he's fishing for information an hour into the main event?  Or, at least, information so important that he is risking serious value (and penalty..not that he knew that) by checking?

You people are letting him off way too easily.  I appreciate Darvin Moon's story, and I am happy that he probably inspired people to play poker that otherwise might not, but giving this guy any credit for 2nd level thinking is a little silly, to me.

**Yes, I know that what we see on TV is a very small percentage of the tournament, but you can get a very quick and obvious feel for how Darvin thinks by the things he says.  Tell me when you watched him last year you didnt think he looked like a sucker that just came to the poker room from the blackjack table and decided to play 2/5 with his winnings.**

This

I mean, really?  Are we going to accept that drivel as a rational excuse?  I would find it more likely that he rolled his cards over, realized his error and then tried to cover it up.

Remember, we are talk about the same guy who, on national TV, lied to his wife about his hand at the FT, knowing full well that the world was seeing his hole cards.  He folded getting 6 to 1, which was amazingly the correct fold given the cards...and then proceeded to lie and claim he had a hand that would have been amazingly stupider to fold.

Also the same guy who, on a radio show, when he was asked about his big hand with Billy Kopp, swore up and down that the board wasn't paired, even though the people interviewing him clearly had evidence that it was in front of them. 

I'm not trying to demonize the guy, it just seems that we are giving him credit for having some deep-level thoughts on a pretty insignificant hand, when he has shown several times that he probably doesn't have that type of thought process.

This

Again, I'm not saying the guy is a total moron, but the fact that we are immediately giving him credit for "just wanting to see what he had" and not "I'm not experience enough to pay attention to everything" is mind boggling.  He seems like a helluva guy, but he has shown a tendency to...well, to not pay attention, so why are we suddenly thinking he is doing anything different?

And this.

People are certainly giving Darvin Moon way, way, way too much credit here.

[stooks99]

NFA, I don't know how to react.  I'm not used to getting someone's whole hearted support around here.  TY, sir.

[Detroitdad]

NFA, I don't know how to react.  I'm not used to getting someone's whole hearted support around here.  TY, sir.

Actually, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you as well. I just can't do all the fancy quotes like NFA can.

[Blaster]

 A lot of players call a river bet, & then quickly say , "I knew you had the boat" ..... & most of them actually weren't paying to see, but actually called, because deep down they weren't sure he "had the boat" , & were hoping their trips or flush were good...
 & then  they simply needed to say the "I knew" line for some face saving...

 I'm leaning twords that's similar to what happened here w/Moon.. Flipped over his winning hand not realizing it was the absolute nuts....
... & I also believe he had no clue about the rule/penalty either ...
        

[austin5string]

NFA, I don't know how to react.  I'm not used to getting someone's whole hearted support around here.  TY, sir.

Actually, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you as well. I just can't do all the fancy quotes like NFA can.

I agree, too.. His reaction doesn't sound confident and strategic.. It sounds like "Oh crap, I'm an idiot and just checked the nuts, what should I say to make myself sound smart?"

[Gobbs]

The point isn't that he did or didn't mean to do it that way....the point is, he could have checked to see the cards and the rule (kind of) prevents him from doing it.  I don't know if he did or didn't check just to see his hand.  I don't care.  The point is, he could have.

KC

[stooks99]

The point isn't that he did or didn't mean to do it that way....the point is, he could have checked to see the cards and the rule (kind of) prevents him from doing it.  I don't know if he did or didn't check just to see his hand.  I don't care.  The point is, he could have.

KC

I see your point here, I just don't think that it's an appropriate time to make your opponent roll his hand over.  I know, poker is about gathering information, but in this particular situation...hell, any situation where you have the nuts in position... making your opponent open a hand that you KNOW is a loser is very poor etiquette.

[holdemholmes]

making your opponent open a hand that you KNOW is a loser is very poor etiquette.

x2

[Dr. Neau]

making your opponent open a hand that you KNOW is a loser is very poor etiquette.

x2

Well, that's not what happened here.

Darvin didn't *make* him turn it over.  In fact, it was on Darvin to turn first since he was the last to bet.

The other guy simply turned his hand over.

So get off the etiquette rant.

[Gobbs]

The point isn't that he did or didn't mean to do it that way....the point is, he could have checked to see the cards and the rule (kind of) prevents him from doing it.  I don't know if he did or didn't check just to see his hand.  I don't care.  The point is, he could have.

KC

I see your point here, I just don't think that it's an appropriate time to make your opponent roll his hand over.  I know, poker is about gathering information, but in this particular situation...hell, any situation where you have the nuts in position... making your opponent open a hand that you KNOW is a loser is very poor etiquette.

What the good doctor said!!!!  Nobody made anybody do anything...but if the player is going to show me, I'm not going to stop him.  Players often show their hands on a checked down river when they don't have to.  It's just what a lot of players do.  Are you going to blame Moon for not telling him ahead of time that he didn't have to show?

KC

[stooks99]

making your opponent open a hand that you KNOW is a loser is very poor etiquette.

x2

Well, that's not what happened here.

Darvin didn't *make* him turn it over.  In fact, it was on Darvin to turn first since he was the last to bet.

The other guy simply turned his hand over.

So get off the etiquette rant.

No, the other player was first to act.  Darvin is not obligated to show first because there was no betting on the river.  The whole "aggressor shows" rule is only when there has been aggresive action on the last round of betting.  Darvins bet on the turn does not obligate him to do anything first on the river.

**From RRoP**:8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay.

So, seeing as how when Darvin checked, he didnt open his hand immediately, he, in essence, MADE the first to act show.  He didnt open his cards until the other player tabled.  

I will say this again.  We have seen this man openly lie on national TV about his play.  We have seen this man obviously not notice huge details of very important hands.  So, now with this happening, I see no reason to think anything except that he just thought he had a pair of 8s and was trying to showdown cheaply.  He wasn't "trying to see what he had" because he knew he was good, he checked because he didnt think he had a strong hand and he was just HOPING he was good.  

Is it still a rant if I'm right?

I am really shocked at the support his play is getting in this thread.  It really seems like a very elementary mistake.

[stooks99]

On a side note, I want to say something positive about Darvin Moon.  I don't think he is a super-advanced poker player, but I think he was fully aware of that last year, which is why his extra-aggressive style was so perfect.  He knew enough to know that he would never outplay the good players, so he used aggressive to help equalize things. 

What irks me about this particular situation is him pretending to have a plan for this stupid play. It wouldn't have been that terrible to just say, "wow I forgot I had spades".

[Gobbs]

making your opponent open a hand that you KNOW is a loser is very poor etiquette.

x2

Well, that's not what happened here.

Darvin didn't *make* him turn it over.  In fact, it was on Darvin to turn first since he was the last to bet.

The other guy simply turned his hand over.

So get off the etiquette rant.

No, the other player was first to act.  Darvin is not obligated to show first because there was no betting on the river.  The whole "aggressor shows" rule is only when there has been aggresive action on the last round of betting.  Darvins bet on the turn does not obligate him to do anything first on the river.

**From RRoP**:8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay.

So, seeing as how when Darvin checked, he didnt open his hand immediately, he, in essence, MADE the first to act show.  He didnt open his cards until the other player tabled.  

I will say this again.  We have seen this man openly lie on national TV about his play.  We have seen this man obviously not notice huge details of very important hands.  So, now with this happening, I see no reason to think anything except that he just thought he had a pair of 8s and was trying to showdown cheaply.  He wasn't "trying to see what he had" because he knew he was good, he checked because he didnt think he had a strong hand and he was just HOPING he was good.  

Is it still a rant if I'm right?

I am really shocked at the support his play is getting in this thread.  It really seems like a very elementary mistake.

I am really shocked that you think it matters if he knew he checked the nuts or not.  The point isn't if he knew or not...the point is, he could have known and either way, the rule hinders him from checking to see his opponents hand.

I have no idea what you mean with your "in essence" stuff, but it really doesn't matter.  He checked and the other player turned over.  That's the whole story.

KC

[stooks99]

making your opponent open a hand that you KNOW is a loser is very poor etiquette.

x2

Well, that's not what happened here.

Darvin didn't *make* him turn it over.  In fact, it was on Darvin to turn first since he was the last to bet.

The other guy simply turned his hand over.

So get off the etiquette rant.

No, the other player was first to act.  Darvin is not obligated to show first because there was no betting on the river.  The whole "aggressor shows" rule is only when there has been aggresive action on the last round of betting.  Darvins bet on the turn does not obligate him to do anything first on the river.

**From RRoP**:8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay.

So, seeing as how when Darvin checked, he didnt open his hand immediately, he, in essence, MADE the first to act show.  He didnt open his cards until the other player tabled.  

I will say this again.  We have seen this man openly lie on national TV about his play.  We have seen this man obviously not notice huge details of very important hands.  So, now with this happening, I see no reason to think anything except that he just thought he had a pair of 8s and was trying to showdown cheaply.  He wasn't "trying to see what he had" because he knew he was good, he checked because he didnt think he had a strong hand and he was just HOPING he was good.  

Is it still a rant if I'm right?

I am really shocked at the support his play is getting in this thread.  It really seems like a very elementary mistake.

I am really shocked that you think it matters if he knew he checked the nuts or not.  The point isn't if he knew or not...the point is, he could have known and either way, the rule hinders him from checking to see his opponents hand.

I have no idea what you mean with your "in essence" stuff, but it really doesn't matter.  He checked and the other player turned over.  That's the whole story.

KC

I think there are a couple of different discussions in this thread.  We are obviously not on the same one.  Sorry for the confusion.  A few of us are talking about the validity of his play, the rest are talking about the rule by itself. 

[Gobbs]

I'm talking about the rule.  I don't care about his play....sorry, I didn't understand you were talking about the play and not the rule.

KC

[deacon_bluez]

If you held the nuts and wanted to see the other player's cards, you would make a tiny value bet on the end. If villain still folds, you pretty much know his cards anyway from that.

Checking on the end makes absolutely no sense, unless it was by accident.

[Gobbs]

If you held the nuts and wanted to see the other player's cards, you would make a tiny value bet on the end. If villain still folds, you pretty much know his cards anyway from that.

Checking on the end makes absolutely no sense, unless it was by accident.

Mental note: Post Oak Bluffs would not be effective against Deacon, but small value bets will get paid off big.

KC

[holdemholmes]

If you held the nuts and wanted to see the other player's cards, you would make a tiny value bet on the end. If villain still folds, you pretty much know his cards anyway from that.

Checking on the end makes absolutely no sense, unless it was by accident.

Mental note: Post Oak Bluffs would not be effective against Deacon, but small value bets will get paid off big.

KC

I guess if he's gonna throw that info out there you'd have to use it .

[Gobbs]

If you held the nuts and wanted to see the other player's cards, you would make a tiny value bet on the end. If villain still folds, you pretty much know his cards anyway from that.

Checking on the end makes absolutely no sense, unless it was by accident.

Mental note: Post Oak Bluffs would not be effective against Deacon, but small value bets will get paid off big.

KC

I guess if he's gonna throw that info out there you'd have to use it .

Actually, now he has me set up for a Post Oak Bluff.  I'm wise to you, Deacon!!!

KC

[holdemholmes]

A little reverse psychology....or maybe reverse reverse psychology? Yea...one of the two.

[Gobbs]

A little reverse psychology....or maybe reverse reverse psychology? Yea...one of the two.

I think I know what he thinks I know, but I don't know if he knows that I know what he thinks I know.

KC

[holdemholmes]

A little reverse psychology....or maybe reverse reverse psychology? Yea...one of the two.

I think I know what he thinks I know, but I don't know if he knows that I know what he thinks I know.

KC

I completely understand.

[deacon_bluez]

A little reverse psychology....or maybe reverse reverse psychology? Yea...one of the two.

I think I know what he thinks I know, but I don't know if he knows that I know what he thinks I know.

KC

RATS! You've got me....

Or have you?

[Gobbs]

A little reverse psychology....or maybe reverse reverse psychology? Yea...one of the two.

I think I know what he thinks I know, but I don't know if he knows that I know what he thinks I know.

KC

RATS! You've got me....

Or have you?

Why do I feel like Charlie Brown and you're holding the football?

KC