POKER NIGHT: Poker rules issues in game

[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):

Originally Posted by serializer

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]

Originally Posted by furrykef

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]

Originally Posted by furrykef

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.

[furrykef]

Originally Posted by serializer

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.

[furrykef]

I've finally found proof (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]

Originally Posted by emtwo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...