Talk:Nut hand

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.

I agree with you, but if you're correct in that the nuts in unbeatable, then this entire article, which defines the nuts as the "best hand in a given situation" is wrong. In other words, just because you have the best hand possible after the flop doesn't mean your hand is unbeatable. My friend and I argued about this for hours; he thinks the nuts means the best hand in a given situation, and I think it means unbeatable (two different definitions, as I just explained). However, we were both able to find sources that supported each opinion. Some sources even contradicted themselves, saying both "unbeatable" and "best possible hand," which are not the same thing pre-river.--71.245.176.176 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuts just means best at the moment. "I flopped the nuts" means the best hand possible at the moment. The word "nuts" would have no meaning otherwise, as a straight flush would always be the best possible "nuts" on any flop. 2005 21:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, who said it had to be probable to flop the nuts? Secondly, why do so many web-sites define it as an "unbeatable hand," like here? And why are there no sources on this page? --71.245.176.176 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to ask, what is your question? As the Caro link says, "The best possible hand at a given point in a pot." The nuts is an unbeatable hand, at that moment. The best hand at that moment. 2005 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On a flop of J♠8♠7♦ what would be the nuts? There is no hand at that very moment that beats T♥9♣. So, does any T9 qualify as the nuts? Or - amongst these - does it need to be the hand with the best post-flop prospects (i.e. T♠9♠? JocK 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As the term is commonly used among poker players, any 10-9 would be the nuts at that point--and good players are smart enough to know that just because you have the nuts, that doesn't mean you should bet the farm. Indeed, on that flop I would be cautious with any 10-9 other than spades, because I might be freerolled, and even with the spades I have to worry about higher flush draws and potential full houses. I have, in fact, flopped the nuts and folded in an Omaha/8 game, which was the correct play at the time. Only on the river does one use the term "nuts" to mean "unbeatable", and in that case it may not even be the theoretically best possible hand. For example, on a board of J♠10♠8♠3♥2♦, the theoretical nuts is Q♠9♠, but if your hand is A♠9♠, you could be said to have nuts because your having the 9 makes it impossible for any opponent to have the straight flush. Likewise something like K♠J♦ on a board of K♣K♥J♠5♦3♥ (which might even be tied, but not beaten). --LDC 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think a far more logical explanation is that it was derived from the expression "the dog's bollocks" (here), a.k.a. "the mutt's nuts", which means the best of the best. However, the previously linked page says this phrase originated in 1989, so if "the nuts" predates that (I was 2 years old in 1989, so I don't have a clue!) then maybe it is just coincidence. If someone could come up with a date for the term "the nuts" it may clear up the matter somewhat. Hpesoj00 14:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Joint"

"Flopping the joint" refers specifically, and only, to flopping a nut straight, not the nuts in general. --LDC 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)