User Avatar Image

POKER NIGHT: Poker rules issues in game

posted by poingpoing on - last edited - Viewed by 2.1K users

the blinds are being done incorrectly when it gets to heads up play.

during heads up play in texas hold'em the small blind is supposed to be the button and the big blind is the other player. the button/small blind acts first pre-flop and acts last post-flop. currently in the game, the button is big blind during heads up play, and this leads to the button having last action pre-flop AND post-flop.


I hope someone from telltale games can see this and patch the mistake.

113 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • All of these are indeed correct poker rules, with the one exception of the OP.

    [quote="Arodin"]"Standard poker rule is that a raise must be equal or greater than the previous bet. I find it really pestering when I bet 5000 after the flop, and then Max re-raises 400 more."[/quote]

    In no-limit, any raise is acceptable as long as it is equal-to or greater than the big blind, regardless of what the previous raise was.

    [quote="langri"]"I'm playing a hand right now that shows The Heavy with a $600 blind..... and no other blind.

    Was this game tested at all?"[/quote]

    If the player who would be the small blind gets busted in the previous hand, the next hand will have no small blind. This is to prevent the small blind skipping to the Heavy, who would unfairly not have to pay a big blind in that scenario.

    [quote="langri"]"Ok, I thought I knew poker, but this hand has me baffled.

    Strong Bad finished the hand with: 8 8 A Q 10
    The Heavy finished the hand with: 8 8 A 10 6

    The game stated that The Heavy won the hand.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't Strong Bad have won this hand with the better kickers? If so, this is a SERIOUS problem."[/quote]

    This issue has been posted a few times (even once by me!). What happened was that there was a side-pot in that hand, yet the game only announces the winner of the largest pot.

  • @langri said: Ok, I thought I knew poker, but this hand has me baffled.

    Strong Bad finished the hand with: 8 8 A Q 10
    The Heavy finished the hand with: 8 8 A 10 6

    The game stated that The Heavy won the hand.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't Strong Bad have won this hand with the better kickers? If so, this is a SERIOUS problem.

    that depends. Did the heavy have a flush?

  • @emtwo said:
    "I'm playing a hand right now that shows The Heavy with a $600 blind..... and no other blind.

    Was this game tested at all?"

    If the player who would be the small blind gets busted in the previous hand, the next hand will have no small blind. This is to prevent the small blind skipping to the Heavy, who would unfairly not have to pay a big blind in that scenario.


    This is not the case from what I've seen. This has happened without anyone having been eliminated. It looks like they're actually posting the blind, but the GUI does not *indicate* that they've posted the blind. Annoying.

  • @der_ketzer said: that depends. Did the heavy have a flush?

    Nope. The announcer said, "Strong Bad has a pair of eights! The Heavy has a pair of eights! The Heavy wins!"

    Blew my mind.

  • @Jake said: Did Max only put in $400, or was that the amount he raised after checking you? (as in, when he "raised $400," to your $5000 bet, did you see $5,400 disappear from his chipstack?)


    I'm sure he meant Max put in $5400, but that still violates the rules. If you bet $5k, the minimum raise allowed is also $5k, so Max's options are to put in $5k (by calling) or put in $10k or more (by raising) -- nothing in between (unless he's going all-in). The minimum raise allowed is always the size of the previous bet or raise.

    This is actually a serious issue (from the standpoint of a 'real' poker player like me) because the $400 raise re-opens the betting for everybody who has already acted. That allows the players who were first to act an advantage in this situation that they wouldn't have under the standard rules.

    @Jake said: In no-limit, any raise is acceptable as long as it is equal-to or greater than the big blind, regardless of what the previous raise was.


    Absolutely not correct. "Any wager not all-in must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round." See rule 6 under "betting and raising" on this page (this is the set of rules which I believe is used in most cardrooms in the U.S., but I believe virtually every cardroom has this rule).

  • @furrykef said: I'm sure he Max put in $5400, but that still violates the rules. If you bet $5k, the minimum raise allowed is also $5k.

    That's not a rule. Common house rule maybe, but not a hard and fast poker rule. EDIT: At least, not in no-limit.

  • @langri said: Nope. The announcer said, "Strong Bad has a pair of eights! The Heavy has a pair of eights! The Heavy wins!"

    Blew my mind.

    yeah just noticed this. Well I just got up and am still tired. (stupid waking up at 5:30 am.

  • @HoboStew said: We only announce the winner of the biggest pot. If there is a side pot with a different winner, that wont get called out, but the money should all be in the correct place. You can get into some crazy sidepot situations and we didn't want to spend 10 minutes calling out a bunch of names when the pot resolves, so we took the shortcut of just announcing the winner of the big $$$

    I'm new to Hold Em. Just trying to get my head around a situation I saw earlier... So when you go all-in and your 'all in' amount is way less than the pot... If you win, you only win as much back as your stake. So the balance of the pot goes back to the person who put it in and he gets called the winner by Winslow as he is gathering the most money off the table?

    Or am I confusing myself even further?

  • ^
    Umm....technically the person that doubled-up his stake should be considered the winner.

  • @emtwo said: That's not a rule. Common house rule maybe, but not a hard and fast poker rule. EDIT: At least, not in no-limit.


    I probably edited my post after you posted this, but yes, it is a rule, and I even cited the rule from an extremely popular rulebook.

    Here it is again:
    "Any wager not all-in must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round." See rule 6 under "betting and raising" on this page.

Add Comment