POKER NIGHT: Poker rules issues in game

[furrykef]

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.

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.

[emtwo]

Originally Posted by jp-30

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]

Originally Posted by furrykef

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Origami

^
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]

Originally Posted by furrykef

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/chapter13-14.php
14-2, 14-3

Learn to play no-limit.

[furrykef]

Originally Posted by emtwo

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.

Originally Posted by Dorino

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by furrykef

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]

Originally Posted by furrykef

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]

Originally Posted by emtwo

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]

Originally Posted by furrykef

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]

Originally Posted by emtwo

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by emtwo

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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?