2

My understanding is that it's common in limit games where usually there is a 4-bet (or 3-raise) betting cap to remove this cap when a hand is heads-up.

If so, what happens in a situation where we reach the river (in a flop game like hold'em) and the nuts is on board (for example a board of T♣J⋄Q♥K♠A♣)?

Does the betting remain uncapped in this instance and if so, how is this handled in a tournament situation, where calling behind as last to act on the river with the nuts is a punishable offense (due to the potential for soft-playing)? Are we obliged to sit and wait for the two players to get all their money in, one bet at a time, or should a TD faced with this situation rule that as the nuts were on board, no penalty is due? Is there any explicit mention of this situation in any published or widely accepted rule-set like TDA or similar?

I'd hope that if any player was dumb enough to call a floor on someone for calling behind in this situation, any decent TD would rule no penalty, but I'm just curious if this is documented in any TD rule books anywhere, or if anyone has first hand experience with such a situation?

I suppose the same question could be applied to PL or NL games, but there it's very easy (and not as time-consuming) to avoid calling behind with the nuts, so it seems like it would be less of an issue.

3N1GM4
  • 1,564
  • 7
  • 26
  • Funny, I am interested in the answers. Btw. the 10 is T, if you want the card be displayed :) – RayofCommand Dec 06 '16 at 16:07
  • @RayofCommand thanks, I saw a separate question the other day which implied that the T card didn't work, glad to know it does! – 3N1GM4 Dec 06 '16 at 16:09
  • Floor men and dealers are reasonable people. – paparazzo Dec 06 '16 at 16:39
  • 1
    @Paparazzi usually they are, yes, but I've seen some pretty crazy rulings over the years, including some crazier than penalising someone for calling behind with the nuts on the river when the nuts is on board and cannot be beaten! – 3N1GM4 Dec 06 '16 at 17:20
  • 1
    Then call for a ruling before you let betting close out. – paparazzo Dec 06 '16 at 17:24
  • @Paparazzi yes, that's a perfectly reasonable way to prevent the situation from occurring, but my question relates to how this would likely be ruled on if someone did not protect themselves in that way. – 3N1GM4 Dec 06 '16 at 17:25
  • If that is the question then I am going to VTC based on opinion based. – paparazzo Dec 06 '16 at 17:57
  • @Paparazzi I guess what I'm getting at is whether this situation is explicitly covered in any published rule set (TDA etc), if we want to avoid opinion-based answers. I will update the question to make this clear. – 3N1GM4 Dec 06 '16 at 18:03
  • You mention omaha, but you can't play the board in omaha – Drunix Dec 17 '16 at 14:26
  • @Drunix good point, will edit accordingly – 3N1GM4 Dec 17 '16 at 14:50
  • "My understanding is that it's common in limit games where usually there is a 4-bet (or 3-raise) betting cap to remove this cap when a hand is heads-up." Really? I can't think of one cardroom I've played in where that's been the case... where are you playing where that happens? – ChristopherBrown Jan 26 '17 at 00:10
  • @ChristopherBrown There are a few places online which appear to confirm my understanding for example on [PokerListings](http://www.pokerlistings.com/fixed-limit-texas-holdem-set-up-and-play): "In Limit Hold'em there is a "cap," meaning there can only be one bet and three raises in any single betting round [*unless there are only two players remaining in the hand*].". I also found a few threads on 2+2 which referred to this, for example: [Fixed limit betting cap rules](http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/live-casino-poker/fixed-limit-betting-cap-rules-1480367/index2.html). – 3N1GM4 Jan 26 '17 at 10:09

1 Answers1

-1

Laws of nature prevail over tournament rules. We are allowed to avoid vicious circles, stack overflows and catch 22's without penalty.

Jon
  • 5,737
  • 2
  • 15
  • 39
  • Can you give an example of how each of these applies to poker? –  Dec 10 '16 at 06:05
  • Yes. if the rule says you must bet or raise the nuts, and you do not because the nuts are on board, you have a catch 22, choices being to waste time making and obviously unnecessary raise thus wasting time, or be in violation of the rules. – Jon Dec 12 '16 at 21:27
  • I've seen this more commonly referred to as Rule #1, as many poker rulebooks begin with a rule which essentially states that any of the other rules can be bent or broken by a floor person if it's in the interest of all players, or the fairness of the game. Basically, it covers "common sense" decisions like this one I suppose. – 3N1GM4 Jan 26 '17 at 10:13