so, i know this is pretty dumb probably, but ive been arguing with a friend about this and i wanted to ask you what the right answer is....
lo, lets say, you hold A :heart:K 
on
4 :heart:5 :heart:7 board.
is it considered 2nd or 3rd nuts?
i mean, it is the 3rd best hand you can have, right after 6♥8 and 3 :heart:6
but there is ofc only one 6♥ in the deck, so it should be considered 2nd nuts right? 
3rd nuts imo.
If someone had KK on AAK flop we could pose the same question. He could have AA or AK, but I still think we have the 3rd nuts.
Not a dumb question at all. I don't know the answer either, so let's hope someone knows for sure.
Originally posted by Jeniman
I think you have the 3rd best hand possible but its the 2nd nuts possible.
well, exactly, thats why im asking
If AKh is the 3rd nuts, how can you make the 2nd nuts, that not possible,
cause the 6h has to be in their hand.
So i think theres no 3rd nut possible.
nice 
i think it's the 3rd nuts but you should consider it as the 2nd nuts for all practical purposes.
theres 2 better combinations possible, so there are two combinations you have to consider, therefore AK is 3rd nuts, it doesnt matter that only one of them can exist at once, there are still 2 possible nuts on this board that are nuttier than your nuts.
its just combinatorics, when you want to figure out how often you are ahead you have to consider 2 better combinations instead of one. If you had 63 on this board youd have 2nd nuts
Originally posted by fuzzyfish
If you had 63 on this board youd have 2nd nuts
How is this 2nd nuts? 3 :heart:6 is the nuts since there is no way you can be beat on that flop.
but look at it this way:
if 6♥3♥ is the nuts (whis is!) cause 6♥8♥ cant exist,
then AK is 2nd nuts...
and vice versa - with 6♥8♥ ...
at the same time, there can only be 1 hand better than yours, 2 varieties, true, but just 1 hand....
therefore, AK should be 2nd best hand
Originally posted by zumpar
but look at it this way:if 6♥3♥ is the nuts (whis is!) cause 6♥8♥ cant exist,
then AK is 2nd nuts...and vice versa - with 6♥8♥ ...
at the same time, there can only be 1 hand better than yours, 2 varieties, true, but just 1 hand....
therefore, AK should be 2nd best hand
No AK is still the 3rd nuts because there are 2 handcombos that beat you. With 36 you have the 68 combo blocked thats why you have the nuts while with AhKh you still have to be worried about 2 other hands that have you beat and both of those hands are still possible.
It doesn't really matter that both are not possible at the same time there are still 2 possible handcombos that have you beat.
Its true that there are 2 hand combinations that have you beat 63h,68h.
But if one exist the other cannot.
There is no way around this, cause one hand hand blocks out the other.
You can also say there are 2 nuthands posible at the same time.
So AKh still be 2nd nuts.
63h is the nuts no hand can beat you
68h is the nuts no hand can beat you
AKh is the 2nd nuts above beat you.
Originally posted by MatejM47
No AK is still the 3rd nuts because there are 2 handcombos that beat you. With 36 you have the 68 combo blocked thats why you have the nuts while with AhKh you still have to be worried about 2 other hands that have you beat and both of those hands are still possible.It doesn't really matter that both are not possible at the same time there are still 2 possible handcombos that have you beat.
i think this nails it, to think in terms of hand combos. A+ explanation! (yes i'm serious)
Use the word "best" instead of "nuts" and it becomes pretty clear that you have the third best hand.
When you are combo counting the 36 and 68 count as two combos.
AK is the third best hand here and as such is the third nuts.
If you want to get really picky, the nuts is an absolute term and as such the second nuts cannot ever actually exist. It's an oxymoron.
The phrase should be - second to the nuts.
I'm not advocating that becomes common use and everyone understands the term the second nuts, so it's fine.
But, I think the problem is more one of semantics than a poker issue.
It's 3rd nuts, this is not even open to debate...except as stated above it could be more properly stated as "3rd to the nuts" or whatever.
Originally posted by trickybob
If you want to get really picky, the nuts is an absolute term and as such the second nuts cannot ever actually exist. It's an oxymoron.
I agree with this and thats the whole point, there is no 2nd nuts out there.
I'd also like to say 3rd.
And as stated above, if you were to hold 6 :heart:3 you could consider it the nuts as you block the true nuts.
But when only holding A :heart:K we worry about 2 combinations, and whether they include the same card or not is irrelevant.
