A sexy as fuck guy called James, who just makes all the womens vaginas twinge and is so attractive, women instantly fallen in love with him!
by chlobs May 10, 2022
by Sevensevensevensevensevenseven November 28, 2015
Not having loot. None. Especially when the state of being stone cold broke is not typical for the individual who finds themself stove cold broke.
by New York Knifedealer June 23, 2018
Have you ever had a guy like stone cold cote
by Breh boy February 17, 2017
by Pussy Feind December 5, 2015
The above definition of the "nuts" is incorrect. The nuts is the best possible hand. So, contrary to the above, if a straight flush (or full house, etc.) is possible, then an ace-high (non royal) flush is *not* the nuts. If someone says they have the nuts but another possible hand could beat them, they are wrong.
Things I am not sure about (below refers to holdem):
1) Often (but not always) the nuts = "nuts, given the face up cards" and does *not* (this is the controversial point) demand that all the cards 5 community are showing; i.e., in holdem, it is often thought possible to have the nuts on the flop (and/or turn), even if another hand could improve to beat you (but no hand can now beat you).
NB: If one can have the nuts with more cards to come, we can perhaps distinguish between nuts and "unbreakable" nuts. The question is if all nuts are (implicitly) unbreakable.
2)Stone cold nuts means either A) unbreakable nuts, and/or B) un-tie-able nuts; The nuts that not only cannot be beat, but cannot be tied. If I have the nut straight, I cannot be beat, but I can be tied. If I have the nut flush, I cannot be tied.
I have heard stone cold nuts = to nut hand that cannot be tied *and* wins the entire pot. But, it seems like the stone cold nuts might fail to win the entire pot, if one is all in with them before the side pots are built. So, I don’t like this definition.
Basically, SCNs > Nuts, but I can think of three ways they could be better: a) unbreakable, b) un-tie-able, c) entire-pot-winning. If we conclude c is wrong, and if we go with b, that allows us to have: nuts, unbreakable nuts, stone cold nuts, and STONE COLD UNBREAKABLE NUTS. All delicious to squirrels like me.
Finally, there are the two possible histories behind "nuts"... 1) source of pleasure, or 2) wild west poker players would put their wagon axle nuts on the table when they wanted to prove that their bet was good b/c they would not be able to drive away if they lost (and would then have to pay their debt). If you like the wild west version, then maybe you might also think that people would only play "the nuts" if nuts were always unbreakable, if tie-able (thus, nuts = you can't break this, stone cold = you can't even tie this). So, can your nuts be broken?
Things I am not sure about (below refers to holdem):
1) Often (but not always) the nuts = "nuts, given the face up cards" and does *not* (this is the controversial point) demand that all the cards 5 community are showing; i.e., in holdem, it is often thought possible to have the nuts on the flop (and/or turn), even if another hand could improve to beat you (but no hand can now beat you).
NB: If one can have the nuts with more cards to come, we can perhaps distinguish between nuts and "unbreakable" nuts. The question is if all nuts are (implicitly) unbreakable.
2)Stone cold nuts means either A) unbreakable nuts, and/or B) un-tie-able nuts; The nuts that not only cannot be beat, but cannot be tied. If I have the nut straight, I cannot be beat, but I can be tied. If I have the nut flush, I cannot be tied.
I have heard stone cold nuts = to nut hand that cannot be tied *and* wins the entire pot. But, it seems like the stone cold nuts might fail to win the entire pot, if one is all in with them before the side pots are built. So, I don’t like this definition.
Basically, SCNs > Nuts, but I can think of three ways they could be better: a) unbreakable, b) un-tie-able, c) entire-pot-winning. If we conclude c is wrong, and if we go with b, that allows us to have: nuts, unbreakable nuts, stone cold nuts, and STONE COLD UNBREAKABLE NUTS. All delicious to squirrels like me.
Finally, there are the two possible histories behind "nuts"... 1) source of pleasure, or 2) wild west poker players would put their wagon axle nuts on the table when they wanted to prove that their bet was good b/c they would not be able to drive away if they lost (and would then have to pay their debt). If you like the wild west version, then maybe you might also think that people would only play "the nuts" if nuts were always unbreakable, if tie-able (thus, nuts = you can't break this, stone cold = you can't even tie this). So, can your nuts be broken?
by Raising Cain (medium stakes NLH player) April 2, 2008
by cornerhunter February 15, 2009