POKER NIGHT: Poker rules issues in game

[poingpoing]

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.

[HoboStew]

Good catch, I cant believe nobody saw this! I am fining myself $10,000. I hope we get a chance to fix that, we will see. Not really up to me unfortunately.

[HoboStew]

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 $$$

[Jub]

I noticed a few times, it'll announce the winner, but give the pot to somebody else. No sidepot was in play, Max and I were all In, he beat me with a flush, yet pot went my way?

[frenchtoaster]

I witnessed a very similar situation; I had 2 pair and Max had 1 pair and it announced that Max won. Only the 2 of us were in.

I was all in, so it sounds like what happens is that I go all in, 2 other players call and they bet. One of them ends up folding, then even though I end up in a 1v1 situation for the remainder of the hand it announces the other player as the winner since he won money from the player who folded earlier.

This is actually pretty confusing as a player, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

[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.

[furrykef]

The same thing happens pre-flop, too. I think I saw this in the very first hand I played... I was like, "Well, this is an inauspicious beginning." Luckily it doesn't come up too often.

[Jake]

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?)

[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.

[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?

[IcedCube]

This happened to me quite often, mostly when another player (who should then have had the blind) was busted the previous round.

I believe that is what happened with you, could you confirm?

[emtwo]

All of these are indeed correct poker rules, with the one exception of the OP.

"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."

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.

"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.

"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."

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.

[der_ketzer]

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?

[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?"

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.

[langri]

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.

[furrykef]

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.

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 (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php) (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).

[emtwo]

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.

[der_ketzer]

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.

[jp-30]

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?

[Origami]

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

[furrykef]

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 (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php).

[emtwo]

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?

Basically if a player goes all-in, any further betting will go into a side-pot because the all-in player isn't eligible to win it. So if you go all-in with 200 chips and Max and Strongbad continue betting on top of that, chances are that their side-pot will be larger than the main pot that you are in. Even if your hand is the best on the table, you will not be announced the winner because the side-pot is larger.

I do, however, think it's hilarious that this was implemented to prevent "crazy sidepot situations." There are only 5 players in this game, which means a maximum of 3 side-pots (plus the main pot). OMG THAT'S SO CRAZY, IT WOULD TAKE 10 MINUTES TO ANNOUNCE 4 NAMES!

[emtwo]

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 (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php).

[mod edit]

Trying to say that something is an official rule of poker is like trying to say that something is an official rule of beer pong. There are no official rules. There are the most common rules, sure, but that doesn't mean anything.

[Kayube]

I've heard a lot of reports on the Steam forums of people losing hands that they shouldn't have. Is that related to the whole side pot thing or is there actually a bug that's causing people to get cheated out of winning hands?

[jp-30]

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

Yeah, in that situation I had the better hand (and I assume got paid out accordingly), but the opponent was called as the winner, I assume because their takings from the table were more than mine.

These Side-pots (and the way they're dealt with at the end of the round) are very confusing to poker n00bs.

[Dorino]

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 (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php).

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter13-14.php
14-2, 14-3

Learn to play no-limit.

[furrykef]

Trying to say that something is an official rule of poker is like trying to say that something is an official rule of beer pong. There are no official rules. There are the most common rules, sure, but that doesn't mean anything.
By your logic, you might as well find it acceptable if Telltale decides that a straight beats a flush. I defy you to find a rulebook that has your version of the rule.

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter13-14.php
14-2, 14-3

Learn to play no-limit.
Where does this contradict what I said? Certainly not in the sections you mentioned.

[jp-30]

I've heard a lot of reports on the Steam forums of people losing hands that they shouldn't have. Is that related to the whole side pot thing or is there actually a bug that's causing people to get cheated out of winning hands?

It's almost certainly a side-pot thing when they're all in. They're winning the side-pot, but that's not being announced or displayed.

[Dorino]

Where does this contradict what I said?

3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 3. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

This is the important thing. You're right that there are some mistakes, but you don't necessarily have to raise the last bet in no-limit.

[furrykef]

That rule is exactly what I said, isn't it? (I've pointed out from the beginning that raising all-in is different, and in that case you can obviously raise less than the minimum. IIRC it won't reopen the betting for players who have already acted, though -- they must either call or fold.)

[emtwo]

By your logic, you might as well find it acceptable if Telltale decides that a straight beats a flush. I defy you to find a rulebook that has your version of the rule.

I would have a problem with that simply because a flush is numerically less likely than a straight, but this is all hyperbole anyways.

[furrykef]

I would have a problem with that simply because a flush is numerically less likely than a straight, but this is all hyperbole anyways.
It is not hyperbole. To me, allowing (non-all-in) raises less than the size of the previous bet is a flagrant violation of the rules of poker, and almost anybody who understands why the rule exists would agree with me.

[emtwo]

It is not hyperbole. To me, allowing (non-all-in) raises less than the size of the previous bet is a flagrant violation of the rules of poker, and almost anybody who understands why the rule exists would agree with me.

Please explain why this rule exists and why it's so important to the function of a $5 video game.

[jp-30]

Can we keep this thread for issues directly relating to Poker Night, please?

We're getting sidetracked, and if you two wish to keep discussing this, there's the PM function.

[furrykef]

Please explain why this rule exists and why it's so important to the function of a $5 video game.
It's important to the function of a $5 video game because it's poker. It's called Poker Night at the Inventory, so it's not too much to expect it to follow the rules of poker.

The reason why the rule exists is because to prevents nuisance raises. Two players could keep reraising tiny amounts while a player is caught in the middle calling all these little bets. Also, these raises re-open the betting to players who have already acted. A player who is first to bet should not be allowed to put in a giant raise (after seeing how weak everyone else is) just because somebody added a raise that was 10% of the original bet.

Can we keep this thread for issues directly relating to Poker Night, please?

We're getting sidetracked, and if you two wish to keep discussing this, there's the PM function.
This is related to Poker Night, because Poker Night is in violation of the rules of poker. I'm explaining how and why in the hopes that Telltale will fix it. Conducting this discussion in PM would defeat the purpose!

[IcedCube]

I would have a problem with that simply because a flush is numerically less likely than a straight, but this is all hyperbole anyways.

There are no official rules of Hearts, and yet you still get one point per heart card you collect. By your flawed logic, you could choose ANY color as giving one point per card, or make ANY card the 13-point card that the Queen of Spades now is.

As these are the rules practiced by the leading agencies that are allowed to have people play these card games, they are as official as they can become. These are the rules in any casino, and they are the rules in any tournament.

EDIT: also, don't suddenly deflect the validity of an argument because it's irrelevant. It's still a valid argument, regardless of whether this rule needs to be in a game.

EDIT3: words can not describe the awe I'm struck by, seeing you do what you just did, emtwo. I'd tip my hat, if I had one. Oh, right, I tip my Poker Visor. ;)

[emtwo]

I'll solve all of this by doing something never before seen on the internet.

You, kind sirs, are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. I concede.

[jp-30]

Thanks guys. the issue is in the open for the Telltale guys to consider, and further public discussion on it isn't going to add anything more to that.

[furrykef]

Here, I will illustrate why Poker Night's rule is bad more vividly with a hypothetical example:

The player bets $2000.
Max calls.
Strong Bad calls.
Heavy calls.
Tycho raises $200, making it $2200. The pot is now $10,200, which should put how tiny the $200 is into perspective.
The player re-raises all-in. Now all the other characters are forced to make a decision to either forfeit the $2000 they invested or put in all their chips, just because Tycho put in that tiny raise. If he hadn't put in the raise, the player couldn't re-raise and the others wouldn't be caught in the middle. Thus, Tycho ends up screwing the whole table over (except for you). If Tycho were forced to raise the proper minimum, which would be $2000, then your opportunity to reraise all-in would be more legitimate, because Tycho would be making a greater commitment rather than reopening the betting for no good reason.

Thanks guys. the issue is in the open for the Telltale guys to consider, and further public discussion on it isn't going to add anything more to that.
I respect your position as a moderator, but I have to say I have two issues with this.
1) How do we know they are properly evaluating the merits and demerits of implementing the rule in a patch if we don't discuss them openly? I mean no offense to the designers' intelligence here, but that this issue occurred in the first place tells me that it should be explained.

2) This thread is called "Poker rules issues in game" -- i.e., how PNatI fails to implement the rules of poker properly. Since we're discussing a rule that it fails to implement properly, I think this discussion is very on-topic. If we don't discuss stuff like this here, then what's this thread for? :confused:

[Bunnyman]

I got an A-10 straight while the heavy had two pair but somehow he won the pot.

I am confused about this. Has it happened to anyone else?

[serializer]

Hey all,

I had a slight issue with a rule that doesn't seem to be covered here (although it could potentially be related to some of the unexpected wins described)

In Hold 'em, the winner is the player who can make the best 5 card hand out of the 7 available. However on one particular hand the game awarded a winner when it should have been a split pot.

I can't remember the exact cards but it was something like this:

Table: 6, 6, 10, Q, K
Me: 10, 4
Heavy: 10, 9

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.

From what the moderators are saying it doesn't sound hugely likely these rules issues will get fixed but has anyone else seen this?

[divisionten]

I got an A-10 straight while the heavy had two pair but somehow he won the pot.

I am confused about this. Has it happened to anyone else?

If there is more than one pot going, this is possible. They only announce the winner of the largest pot- but you still won some money.

Next time this happens, look at your chip count. It should still increase.

[Dachannien]

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 $$$

This actually creates some problems in some situations. Suppose the following (ignoring blinds in this example to make the math easier):

You're almost out of chips at the beginning of the hand, and you go all in with $500. Max sees your $500 and raises $5000, and Strong Bad calls the $5500. After the flop, Max bets another $5000, and Strong Bad folds. So, Max will win the side pot (now $15000). After all the cards are dealt, though, in a rather suspenseful and dramatic-looking showdown between you and Max, it turns out you win the hand and the main pot. However, because Max won the really big side pot, it announces that he's the winner (which would normally mean that you're out, but in this case you actually tripled up).

I'm fairly certain that 95% (or more) of the complaints you all are getting about the game picking the wrong winner of a hand is related to announcing the winners of side bets. Fix the winner announcement problem and you solve all those other problems.

Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard to go through and announce the winner of each side pot and have them rake in some chips as it goes through. "Max wins the side pot!" or "Tycho wins the third side pot!" or whatever. Even if the same character wins more than one side pot, just announce each separately. It's also more fun, because each winner gets to give some snide remark when they grab their chips.

[divisionten]

Hey all,

I had a slight issue with a rule that doesn't seem to be covered here (although it could potentially be related to some of the unexpected wins described)

In Hold 'em, the winner is the player who can make the best 5 card hand out of the 7 available. However on one particular hand the game awarded a winner when it should have been a split pot.

I can't remember the exact cards but it was something like this:

Table: 6, 6, 10, Q, K
Me: 10, 4
Heavy: 10, 9

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.

From what the moderators are saying it doesn't sound hugely likely these rules issues will get fixed but has anyone else seen this?

Sometimes kickers are used to determine a tie when two players have the same hand. Just sayin'.

[Dachannien]

Sometimes kickers are used to determine a tie when two players have the same hand. Just sayin'.

Cards that don't wind up in the five-card hand assembled from your hole cards and the board are not considered kickers. In the previous poster's example, both players had the same two pair, with the same kicker being the high card from the board. (The previous poster shouldn't have described the Heavy's hole card as being his kicker, because it isn't.)

My question would be, did it announce the Heavy as the winner, but then split the pot anyway? Or did it actually give him the whole pot?

[Lifevirus]

I actually had a problem when I went to the menu during the card dealing. After I can back I realized I only was given one card, a queen. Mind you I never actually played the hand but it was weird that I was only being shown one card so I ended up folding. I wish I had screenshot it but I figure it was a random fluke, but i'll mention it here.

[furrykef]

Sometimes kickers are used to determine a tie when two players have the same hand. Just sayin'.
Yes, but sometimes the kickers come from the board and the kicker in your hand doesn't play. In serializer's example, both serializer and the Heavy would have TT66K. Neither the Heavy's 9 nor serializer's 4 even come into play. Now, if one of them had an ace, that would play, because it beats the king on the board.

As for whether this actually happened as described... no idea. I've seen somebody on the Steam forums complaining about the opposite "problem", where they didn't realize that their kicker doesn't play. So I would guess that it does in fact use the board cards for kickers properly.

[serializer]

Sometimes kickers are used to determine a tie when two players have the same hand. Just sayin'.

Yah, I understand the rules (as explained in my post). Read again :) You don't always take the kicker into account, for instance in the situation I outlined, where you can make a "best 5" cards without the kicker.

To really simplify things, let me boil it down to a really obvious example;

Cards on the table: Four aces and a King.
Cards in your hand: a two and a three.
Cards in opponent's hand: a four and a five.

Who is the winner? There isn't one - it's a split pot, because you both have the "Four aces and a King" as the best five cards you can make. The cards in your own hands just aren't used.

Edit: furrykef probably explained it more succinctly :)

[jp-30]

I respect your position as a moderator, but I have to say I have two issues with this.
1) How do we know they are properly evaluating the merits and demerits of implementing the rule in a patch if we don't discuss them openly? I mean no offense to the designers' intelligence here, but that this issue occurred in the first place tells me that it should be explained.

2) This thread is called "Poker rules issues in game" -- i.e., how PNatI fails to implement the rules of poker properly. Since we're discussing a rule that it fails to implement properly, I think this discussion is very on-topic. If we don't discuss stuff like this here, then what's this thread for? :confused:

Fair call.

It just looked like the 3 of you were heading off on a tangent and arguing with each other, rather than addressing the situation in the game. You really need a Telltale employee to step in and comment on the situation you're discussing, or else the 3 of you could have carried on all night.

One of you three had conceded in the end, but carrying on wasn't going to fix the situation in the game. I've seen enough discussions of this nature take a turn for the worst, so I hoped to temper the discussion so that that sort of direction was less likely.

It's all worked out great, you guys made a few more good points. Everyone's aware of the situation, and nothing got out of hand. There are a bunch of new posters here, and while us mods (well, it looks like I'm the only one who's been on for a while) can second guess the intentions of a lot of the people who have been around a while when a fast-posting discussion erupts, we need to have a slightly more cautious outlook when it comes to new posters. Especially during the huge spike in traffic that comes with a new release.

[GuruGuru214]

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.

Yeah, I had a similar thing happen to me, except it was with me and Max and Max "won".

[NeatNit]

Ok, what the hell is a side pot and what causes it to be made?

[divisionten]

Ok, what the hell is a side pot and what causes it to be made?

Side pots occur when at least one player goes all in. That person ha bet all their money. After everyone has finished calling the bet, any player who wishes to raise from that point onward puts that money- automatically- into a side pot. The person who went all in, if they had the best hand wins the initial pot ONLY. The side pot (or pots, if several people go all in on different bets) goes to the person who had the best hand after that one.

EX:
Player 1 100$ (A, A)
Player 2 1000$ (9, 10)
Player 3 1000$ (2, 4)

At some point in the game, Player 1 goes all in. Afterwards, Player 2 and 3 continue to bet. and the rest of the cards are turned over. In the end:
(A, A, 6, 7, 8)
Player 1 has four of a kind and wins the main pot. Player two has a straight and wins the side pot. Player 2 has probably won more money than 1 (side pots can get larger than the initial one) and will be declared the winner. But Player 1 will still get the main pot and stay in the game.

[Klaad]

Hello,

I've experienced what looks like a problem to me : at some point, the game stopped asking me what I wanted to do, but as I never folded, I was still in.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9798/whathappened.jpg

When it came to showdown, I did not get the pot, presumably because the game considered I was out, even though it stated that I got 2 pairs. Strong Bad got the pot. Is there a problem here? =s I don't remember all the details about the current state of the game, though.. I'm kinda new to playing poker actually, maybe I missed something. Thanks a lot.

[Xocrates]

Hello,

I've experienced what looks like a problem to me : at some point, the game stopped asking me what I wanted to do, but as I never folded, I was still in.
-img snip-

When it came to showdown, I did not get the pot, presumably because the game considered I was out, even though it stated that I got 2 pairs. Strong Bad got the pot. Is there a problem here? =s I don't remember all the details about the current state of the game, though.. I'm kinda new to playing poker actually, maybe I missed something. Thanks a lot.
The game stopped asking you because you were all in. And I'm assuming you were still in the game after that hand, because you won the pot. However Strong Bad won the side-pot and that's the one the game announces.

[Jub]

So I folded, Max and Strongbad were all in, Heavy and Tycho folded.

Strongbad won with 2 pairs vs Max with a pair of aces.

Somehow I won the game, and the two were eliminated?

[NeatNit]

Yeah, of course... What else do you think should happen?

;)

[furrykef]

Um, last time I checked, NeatNit, a player who folded cannot win a pot.

This sounds very similar to a well-known bug that Telltale Texas Hold'em has. I'll be very disappointed if I find that this bug does indeed exist in this game...

By the way, regarding the side pot confusion: I know Telltale has said that it works the way it does to speed up the pace of the game and to keep things simple. But I have to ask, Telltale... was that minor convenience really worth the massive PR hit you're taking from people who don't understand what's going on? Sure, I understood what's going on from the beginning because I've played poker a lot, but a lot of people here aren't hardened veterans, and many of them are thinking "Pair loses to two pair? This is BS. I'm never playing this @#!!* again." No doubt you're hearing a lot of people complain, but the number of people who silently get frustrated and give up is surely even greater.

To put it succinctly: the cure is far worse than the disease.

[ebordeau]

Um, last time I checked, NeatNit, a player who folded cannot win a pot.

I think the little winky face means that was sarcasm. :) But I could be wrong.

By the way, regarding the side pot confusion: I know Telltale has said that it works the way it does to speed up the pace of the game and to keep things simple. But I have to ask, Telltale... was that minor convenience really worth the massive PR hit you're taking from people who don't understand what's going on? Sure, I understood what's going on from the beginning because I've played poker a lot, but a lot of people here aren't hardened veterans, and many of them are thinking "Pair loses to two pair? This is BS. I'm never playing this @#!!* again." No doubt you're hearing a lot of people complain, but the number of people who silently get frustrated and give up is surely even greater.

To put it succinctly: the cure is far worse than the disease.

I agree! And as emtwo stated earlier, at most you'll have 4 pots to announce. Why not just give us the opportunity to skip the announcements if we want?

[Klaad]

The game stopped asking you because you were all in. And I'm assuming you were still in the game after that hand, because you won the pot. However Strong Bad won the side-pot and that's the one the game announces.

You are correct, thanks for answering. Have fun!

[Elvenmonk]

I think the little winky face means that was sarcasm. :) But I could be wrong.



I agree! And as emtwo stated earlier, at most you'll have 4 pots to announce. Why not just give us the opportunity to skip the announcements if we want?

That's an option Iwant. I get tired of right clicking past him.
Also would be cool to be able to mute certain players, but that's for a different thread.

[EternalStar]

I wonder if I can replicate this weird happenstance. I had a round where someone with a King High beat someone with a pair of something (can't remember what it was.) Is there any time in poker where a high card can beat a pair?

[furrykef]

Is there any time in poker where a high card can beat a pair?
No, that's just yet another instance of the side pot confusion we've been talking about. The second-best hand will win a side pot if the winning hand is not allowed to contest the side pot. If this side pot is larger than the main pot, then, for some strange reason, the game announces the side pot winner as the winner of the hand, but the main pot and side pots are still awarded correctly to the respective players.

[Harald B]

If Telltale decided there's only time to announce one winner per round, it would be better if the game just called the one who, y'know, actually has the best hand; regardless of who is in what side pot, I mean. There would be a lot less confusion that way.

[phil035]

ok playing the game about to take out the heavy we both go all in i have pair 5 he had a 2 4 i had 5 6 the flop was K 5 10 8 7.
can some1 tell me how he won and another one was 2 full houses both the same but one person takeing more of the pot??

would like answers to these

[Klaad]

Hello again,

Has anyone ever experienced the situation where a player with 0$ would still stay at the table for several rounds, being given no cards, only staring at other players...?

Pic here (http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5327/whathappened2.jpg)

I should add that Max and Tycho should have left the game together, but for some reason Max is still here. Also, the side-pot displayed on the screen comes from the previous round. It looks like that Max is waiting to be awarded the side_pot, which may happen the next time a round involving the side-pot occurs, I don't really know as it's my current game... What do you think about it?

[jp-30]

@Phil, When you go all in, you get unexpected results called due to the side pot bet, though everyone gets the correct amount of winnings. Have a look through this thread and you'll see some better explanations of what's happening.

[winternet]

Heavy went all in with 2000, tycho called, I went all in with 21 something thousand, tycho folds, heavy wins, I lose all my money. What the ...?

[Arodin]

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?)

Yes, 5400 came out of his chipstack, meaning he called the 5000 and raised 400 more. This is not a legal bet. The raise must be at least the amount of the previous bet, meaning his options in that situation is to call 5000, fold, or raise to at least 10000. Raising 400 more in that situation is nonsense.

Here's a link and quote from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_hold_%27em#Betting_structures


In no-limit hold 'em, players may bet or raise any amount over the minimum raise up to all of the chips the player has at the table (called an all-in bet). The minimum raise is equal to the big blind. If someone wishes to re-raise, they must raise at least the amount of the previous raise. For example, if the big blind is $2 and there is a raise of $6 to a total of $8, a re-raise must be at least $6 more for a total of $14.

[Harald B]

It looks like that rule only applies to reraises, not regular raises. Didn't you say Max raised 400 over your initial bet of 5000? That would still be legal, provided the big blind was less or equal to 400.

[winternet]

My poker name doesn't change (strange in my opinion), some graphics problems (chips staying in the middle of the table for no good reason) some blinds and pot issues ( doing all-ins larger than your opponent might result in losing all the money). These are the main problems I found.

[furrykef]

It looks like that rule only applies to reraises, not regular raises. Didn't you say Max raised 400 over your initial bet of 5000? That would still be legal, provided the big blind was less or equal to 400.
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 (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php).

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

[serializer]

and another one was 2 full houses both the same but one person takeing more of the pot??


Sounds like the same issue I had, where 6 cards are being taken into account to decide a winner...

[furrykef]

Are you sure it was six cards and not a side pot issue?

[ExoByte]

Good catch, I cant believe nobody saw this! I am fining myself $10,000. I hope we get a chance to fix that, we will see. Not really up to me unfortunately.

Given that this thread is full of bugs i reported when TellTalePoker first launched in '05, i wouldn't get super excited about your time frame.

[Arodin]

Sounds like the same issue I had, where 6 cards are being taken into account to decide a winner...

How is that even possible? There's no such thing as a hand made up of six cards. Did someone get a six of a kind?

*edit*
Oh I see what you mean, two hands the same, but it appeared to use a sixth card kicker? More than likely there was a side-pot. I've played through about 10 tournaments, and I haven't encountered any of these issues people are reporting. I suspect a lot of these bug reports may stem from a misunderstanding of poker rules.

[furrykef]

I've played through about 10 tournaments, and I haven't encountered any of these issues people are reporting. I suspect a lot of these bug reports may stem from a misunderstanding of poker rules.
All the "pot goes to wrong player" reports come from a misunderstanding of the rules (granted, the interface makes it very easy to misunderstand what's going on). The issues with raising less than the minimum and with the blinds/betting order being incorrect when heads-up definitely do exist and are definitely not misunderstandings of the rules.

[serializer]

Oh I see what you mean, two hands the same, but it appeared to use a sixth card kicker? More than likely there was a side-pot. I've played through about 10 tournaments, and I haven't encountered any of these issues people are reporting. I suspect a lot of these bug reports may stem from a misunderstanding of poker rules.

Well, I'm absolutely certain there was no side pot in this case. I play poker most weeks with a bunch of friends so I would kind of notice if that was the case. I totally concede I could have just misread the hands, but I'm fairly certain it's happened more than once. I'll keep an eye out and try to get a screenie if it happens for definite.

I think a major problem is perhaps that when the winners are announced, the final cards only seem stay on the screen for a couple of seconds, so it can be hard to look at all the cards and check whether the winner was correctly called. It might be easier if the cards stayed on the screen until "Deal Next Hand" was clicked, then there'd be time to double-check whether rules were being honoured!

All the "pot goes to wrong player" reports come from a misunderstanding of the rules (granted, the interface makes it very easy to misunderstand what's going on). The issues with raising less than the minimum and with the blinds/betting order being incorrect when heads-up definitely do exist and are definitely not misunderstandings of the rules.

I agree most or all cases are down to this, but compounded by the cards not remaining on screen. As someone who has played quite a bit of poker, I'm still not able to read all the hands that fast every time. I can only imagine how difficult it could be for a total novice to understand what's going on! At least when playing in RL, someone who's fairly new can say "hold on, why did that person win?" and everyone can stop and explain the hand that just happened.

[Arch Evil Angel]

I had an issue where it was just Heavy and I. The cards on the table made a straight of spades (pardon my lack of poker terminology) that had an Ace in it. Heavy had nothing in his hand, and I had an Ace. The game automatically assigned my hand to be a pair of aces while Heavy got a straight. And, before you ask, no, there was no side pot. Anyone else experience something like this?

[furrykef]

I had an issue where it was just Heavy and I. The cards on the table made a straight of spades (pardon my lack of poker terminology)
You mean a flush? :confused:

Maybe he had a spade in his hand that gave him a better flush? It's impossible to tell what happened if we don't have a screenshot...

[SultS]

I did lose a pot as well, when me and Heavy both had the same full house, but he had better hole cards (that didn't come into play and shouldn't matter). There was no side pot.
On the other time we had identical hand again, this time three of a kind with shared kickers, the pot was split between us.

[Kamikaze_Tutor]

Just contributing to the odd stuff that happened to me:

Max own against my Straight with a Pair of Jacks. And to add insult to injury, Tycho won against my Pair of Jacks with a Straight (which is legit).

[furrykef]

Kamikaze_Tutor - but was there a side pot?

[furrykef]

Going back to serializer's problem (quoting it again for convenience):
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).

[NeatNit]

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

[furrykef]

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

[serializer]

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.

[serializer]

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 (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php).

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.

[furrykef]

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.

[templeton]

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.

[RMJ1984]

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

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

[STrRedWolf]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_hands).

[furrykef]

I've finally found proof (http://yfrog.com/f/mvstraightflushyp/) (not my pic) that straight flushes are sometimes being registered incorrectly. (Of course it could be photoshopped, but when several other people have claimed it, I'm inclined to believe it.)

Suggestion to Telltale: There are many open-source libraries that rank hold'em hands correctly and that have already been thoroughly debugged. Why roll your own?

[Falanca]

I called a hand with 800$ (while having 11,000$) after Heavy's all in of 8,000$. I wonder if I'm able to do that.

[WayneFrancis]

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

Well ... seems like all the poker tournaments use that "house rule". It is a bit like saying that "3 strikes and you are out in baseball is a house rule"

[furrykef]

WayneFrancis - yeah, we already took that argument to its conclusion.

[NeatNit]

I called a hand with 800$ (while having 11,000$) after Heavy's all in of 8,000$. I wonder if I'm able to do that.Yes, but then you end up in debt and the bank eventually takes your house.

____________


Sorta. You can only put in the amount you have for obvious reasons. If there are more players still in besides you two, then a side-pot will be created with the rest of Heavy's money that you couldn't call and the other players could, so if you have the best cards you can't win more than you put in from each other player.
If there are no other players, Heavy gets the rest of his money back (and man do I hate seeing that number slowly drop all the way down to 0 and then jump back up to 8,000....)

[CoolJosh3k]

I've had a problem only once;

My Pair vs Tyco's Two Pair. Announcer said I had won (which is wrong), but the pot was given to Tyco (as it should).

[Tea]

I just lost to Max's Ace High with a pair of Queens :(

[furrykef]

OK, guys. Every time you say "My [hand] lost to [worse hand]", can you please mention if there was a side pot or not? 'Cause if there is one, the issue has been discussed to death.

[Specula]

Keping it short since I doubt I'm the only one who's had this problem:

The game does not seem to be able to properly recognise which hands of cards are worth more. Today I've gotten a straight flush and Heavy got a pair of aces. Somehow the game thinks Heavy had the better hand and since I went all in, I lost the tournament when I should have won. I've had other cases where I've lost with a three of a kind hand to a king high hand, a pair of threes lost to a jack high and so on.

I've read over it and the only response to this I've found is: "For the 10,000th time, it shows who won the main pot, not the side pot". I hate to break it to you, but this is not how texas hold 'em works. It is deterimined exclusively by the cards in hand, winning hand takes all. a winning hand does not 'lose' because there is a side pot. Whoever suggested this has obviously not played Texas Hold'em for more than 15 minutes. So no, this is a bug that needs to be addressed. I suppose it was too much to expect a game costing $5 would actually work...

[furrykef]

I've read over it and the only response to this I've found is: "For the 10,000th time, it shows who won the main pot, not the side pot". I hate to break it to you, but this is not how texas hold 'em works. It is deterimined exclusively by the cards in hand, winning hand takes all. a winning hand does not 'lose' because there is a side pot.
No, the winning hand does not take all. If that were the case, side pots wouldn't even exist. A player can only win the portion of the pot they invested in. The game does have a strange definition of "winning hand", though (which the patch will fix).

This isn't to say that the situation you describe is necessarily a side pot issue. It shouldn't be possible to have the best hand and lose the tournament on that hand...

[NeatNit]

I've read over it and the only response to this I've found is: "For the 10,000th time, it shows who won the main pot, not the side pot".No, the name you hear is only the name of thee prson who got the most money, no matter if it's the main pot or a side pot. Still, you should never lose a game with a winning hand, so I'm not sure what happened.

And to further clarify the above post, once you go all-in, everyone else can at best call you. Any further raising goes into a seperate pot which you cannot win. (and this also includes any extra money that was bet before you that you couldn't call, I believe)

[Jorin]

There's definitely something screwy with the hand evaluation logic. I just saw the Heavy with AA778 (not a flush, announced as two pair) beat Tycho with A A884 (again, announced as two pair). It wasn't a matter of taking the side pot or anything, Tycho was busted out as a result of the hand. Of course, the eval logic is /usually/ right, so I suspect it's some subtle memory overwrite bug or somesuch, but it's still annoying.

[Jake]

From the upcoming update:


Poker & Gameplay Fixes

* At the end of a hand, winners of the main pot and any side pots all announced individually. (Previously, only the winner of the biggest pot was announced.)

* Each round, the minimum raise starts at the big blind until someone raises, after which the minimum raise is the amount of that last raise.

* In heads up (one on one) play, the dealer is now the small blind and first to act pre-flop.

* If a someone folds and is part of a side pot, and after the fold only one person remains in the sidepot, the sidepot gets cleared and paid out to that one remaining person.

* The tutorial now automatically comes up once, the first time the game is played. It is still also available on-demand from the Poker Help screen.

* Players who have a straight flush, four of a kind, full house, flush or straight will now get the appropriate hand achievement even if everyone else folds to them in that hand.

* Fixed issue causing character tells to almost never play.

* Fixed issue causing only one of the player's hole cards to display when skipping dialog.

* Improved readability/consistency on the unlockable Strong Bad card deck.

* Max properly leaves the table after his "I'll be in the bar" bust out line.

[Veloso]

From the upcoming update:

...

* Each round, the minimum raise starts at the big blind until someone raises, after which the minimum raise is the amount of that last raise.


The betting situation is much improved post-patch, but still not right. While the patch notes describe the rule correctly, the actual patch does something different.

On the start of each new betting round (pre-flop, post-flop, turn, river), the minimum bet should be the big blind. In the current implementation, however, the minimum bet is based on the last bet on the previous betting round, which is incorrect.

[furrykef]

In the current implementation, however, the minimum bet is based on the last bet on the previous betting round
*jaw drops*

Umm... yeah, that's certainly wrong. ^^;;;; Granted, I can't really imagine when it'd be correct strategy to bet less than that amount, but the game shouldn't enforce that.

By the way, I haven't played the patch, so I've yet to test this rule, but I should reiterate a detail in case it may have been missed: if a character raises less than the minimum (because he is going all-in), it should not reopen the betting. For example, if I bet $1000, and Tycho raises all-in for $100 more, I'm not allowed to reraise, because Tycho's raise was less than $1000. It's an important rule in "real" poker, but I'm willing to look the other way if there aren't any plans to implement it. ;)

- Kef

[HoboStew]

The betting situation is much improved post-patch, but still not right. While the patch notes describe the rule correctly, the actual patch does something different.

On the start of each new betting round (pre-flop, post-flop, turn, river), the minimum bet should be the big blind. In the current implementation, however, the minimum bet is based on the last bet on the previous betting round, which is incorrect.
It is hard to find universal agreement on rules, so we just went with the top googled sites for holdem rules:
In no-limit hold 'em, players may bet or raise any amount over the minimum raise up to all of the chips the player has at the table (called an all-in bet). The minimum raise is equal to the size of the previous bet or raise. If someone wishes to re-raise, they must raise at least the amount of the previous raise. For example, if the big blind is $2 and there is a raise of $6 to a total of $8, a re-raise must be at least $6 more for a total of $14.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_hold_'em) Once a bet has been made, the minimum you can raise is the size of the last bet. So if your opponent bets $5, the minimum raise you can make is $5 (for a total bet of $10). Again, the maximum raise is the total of whatever you have in front of you.(http://www.pokerlistings.com/texas-holdem-betting-rules)

[furrykef]

But nobody plays no-limit hold'em that way. The rules you cite assume that you understand that the betting is reset to the size of the big blind on the next betting round. Notice that both articles you cite say the minimum raise -- not the minimum bet -- is the size of the previous bet or raise.

In any case, I urge you to use Robert's Rules of Poker (http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm) as your guide. It is much more well-specified than the sources you cite, and it is the most common rule set in the United States. I imagine most other rule sets are very close, if not identical, as far as actual gameplay is concerned.

[Veloso]

Well, it certainly doesn't help that there's a lot of misinformation out there. Even this thread had a lot of debate on what the right rules are. This is unfortunate, because it makes these rules questions seem controversial, and really they're not. While people play all sorts of crazy rules in home games, practically any online or brick-and-mortar cardroom you visit will use the rules we're describing.

In any case, I urge you to use Robert's Rules of Poker (http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm) as your guide. It is much more well-specified than the sources you cite, and it is the most common rule set in the United States. I imagine most other rule sets are very close, if not identical, as far as actual gameplay is concerned.

Second this. You could also look at the Poker Tournament Director's Associaton (http://www.pokertda.com/)'s rules. They aim to make a standardized set of tournament poker rules. It's a different ruleset that gives the same answers to the questions being asked here.

[Shen-Zhi]

so... uhm... the update installed today on steam. i never had an issue before the update, maybe i was just lucky.

but a few minutes ago i missed the grand prize (SASHA!!) because a pair of eights from strongbad beat my pair of jacks!

attached the file (hope that works, my first image upload..)

edit: uhm.. not really a big picture but sure donwloadble and possible to enlarge. this got anything to do with side pot (which i haven't fully understood by now)?

yeah i'm a poker noob..

[PISLIX]

Well, I don't know much about poker. I'm gonna shoot a question.

2 pairs on the table. 10-10, 2-2
1 pair on my hand. 6-6
no pair on Max's hand.

The game decided that it was a tie... Was it correct?

[furrykef]

No, that wouldn't be correct. It'd be nice to have a video or screenshot to be sure that it happened that way, though...

[PISLIX]

No, that wouldn't be correct. It'd be nice to have a video or screenshot to be sure that it happened that way, though...
Dang it! From now on, I'll take screenshots...

[kruse]

Trying to say that something is an official rule of poker is such as putting forth effort to say that something is an official rule of beer pong. There are no official rules. There are the most common rules, sure, but that doesn't mean anything.