Talk:Nut hand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page. |
[edit] Nut losing hand?
The article claims:
- There is also a possibility of having a nut losing hand. This occurs where the board has four of a kind and a deuce. In this situation, if you hold pocket 2's, there is no possibility of this hand winning a showdown with any other hand.
This doesn't make sense to me; if the hand loses, it is by definition not the "nut hand". In this situation, the quads on the board means the player isn't actually using either of their pocket cards -- they are just playing the board, and hence do not have the nuts (the nut here would be AAAAK). I've removed the paragraph from the article, but I'd be happy to add it back if someone can explain what it means. Neilc 19:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, clearly it is a losing hand, and not really the nuts. However, my point was only that the other player must have a better hand than you. This is because, any opponent must have a better kicker than you. you have four of a kind with a 2 kicker, he must have at least one kicker better than a two, since three 2's are already in play.User: Nlsanand
- A nut hand is ABSOLUTELY unbeatable. If there's quads on the board and you have a K kicker, you do not have the nuts. The A kicker would be the nuts. If there's 3 of a kind on the board without another pair (such as 33348) and you have the 4th, you have the nuts no matter what your kicker is, as no one else could have four of a kind.
[edit] Etymology
What's the source of this claim to the origin of the term? I strongly suspect it has more to do with "having the hand by 'the nuts'"--it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone came up with a more socially appropriate explanation of the term after its coinage. 130.85.168.205 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Absolute vs. Actual Nut Hand
Following the edit by 70.231.40.214, does anyone think that this extra info is unnecessary? Admittedly poker players could figure this out themselves by playing community card games, but I'd like some opinions about, and reasoning (from 70.231.40.214 and others) as to whether or not this information is redundant.
- I'd say remove it as uneccessary and confusing. 2005 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I say leave it. It explains a point that isn't immediately obvious. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think maybe the way I put it before is a bit long winded and confusing, and it did feel out of place in that paragraph. I think the way it is now is a lot better, thanks. Hpesoj00 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
