User Avatar Image

POKER NIGHT: Poker rules issues in game

posted by poingpoing on - last edited - Viewed by 1.1K 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
  • Kamikaze_Tutor - but was there a side pot?

  • Going back to serializer's problem (quoting it again for convenience):
    @serializer said: So, we both have two pair. The game awarded Heavy the win, presumably due to his 9 kicker - but the 9 and my 4 weren't in the final hands. We both had the same best 5 cards: 10, 10, 6, 6, K. If there are better cards on the table then the kickers aren't used.
    Somebody on the Steam forums said that it still announces only one winner in a split pot, but it does split the pot correctly. So most likely there is no problem here (other than the very poor announcing, as usual).

  • Not true. The announcer doesn't say anything (I think) in such a case.

  • Guess we can never be sure about this possible bug until we have a video, then...

  • @furrykef said: Going back to serializer's problem (quoting it again for convenience):

    Somebody on the Steam forums said that it still announces only one winner in a split pot, but it does split the pot correctly. So most likely there is no problem here (other than the very poor announcing, as usual).



    Hmm ... possibly, but I've definitely had split pots ... can't specifically remember what was announced on those occasions but I'm sure a message is displayed or it's announced in some way.

  • @furrykef said: We've already discussed the subject to death in this thread. Robert's Rules of Poker (which is the most popular rule set, but this particular rule is observed in virtually all rule sets) says it applies to any raise. It's item #6 under "betting and raising" on this page.

    I'm editing the Wikipedia article to match the standard rule.



    Ok ... sorry to bring this up again but it's been bugging me 'cos when I play with friends we never play the way you describe. One of the guys we play with is really serious about the game and follows world tournaments and stuff all the time, consequently he generally knows the rules inside out - so I'd be really surprised if he was missing something as major as this!

    I've just re-read the item #6 you linked to and I'm pretty sure your interpretation is wrong.

    The rules states:

    "6. Any wager must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round, unless a player is going all-in."

    So it's saying in any one round the bet must be the same or higher. So it only applies to re-raises. Once another card has been dealt, a low bet can be made again.

    Obviously the game is still getting this wrong because it's possible to re-raise by a small amount, and I don't think we enforce this in our games either. But still, it doesn't apply to all raises for an entire hand.

  • @serializer said: So it's saying in any one round the bet must be the same or higher. So it only applies to re-raises. Once another card has been dealt, a low bet can be made again.


    Yes, when a new card has been dealt, a low bet can be made again. No argument there.

    But the rule applies to raises, not just reraises. Example: Big blind is $200. Suppose we're on the flop and the Player bets $2000. Everybody calls to Tycho. Now, if the rule applied only to reraises, Tycho could raise $200 because it would be a raise, not a reraise. This reopens the betting for a trivial bet, which is the situation this rule is designed to prevent. Why should it have to be a reraise for the rule to apply?

    I think when you are saying that the rule only applies to reraises, you're assuming that the initial bet is the size of the big blind, which isn't necessarily true (and, in fact, rarely is true on and after the flop). But when it is true, obviously the first raise can be any size as long as it is at least as big as the big blind, since that was the size of the initial bet.

  • It was just me and the heavy and on the table was:
    A (diamond) 6 8 9 10 (hearts)

    I had a 7 (hearts) in my hand to make the straight flush.
    The heavy weapons guy had a Q (hearts) for just a flush.

    The announcer said we both had a flush but since the heavy had a higher card he won the pot. This was on hard difficulty so I am not sure if it is supposed to cheat to make the game harder haha!

    I probably won't ever see another straight flush in my life... but if I catch this again I'll take a screenshot.

  • Haha Strong bad had a straight 8-9-10-Q-J

    I had to pairs and i won lol. QQ and 77

  • I'm getting a similar bug in regards to no-all-in, no side pot calls in which two pair beats a straight. There's many examples above.

    That's wrong! A straight beats a three of a kind, two pair, a pair, and a high card.

    I've also come into a situation in which the dealer calls a straight flush (a all-one-suit straight) a normal straight, which is beaten out by a flush. That also is incorrect. A straight flush beats all.

    Beatable, yes. Buggy? Sure. We need to retrain the dealer in his knowledge of poker hands.

Add Comment