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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"
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....)
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.
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...
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...
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)
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.
* 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.
* 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.
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.
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)
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 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.
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 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'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.
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)?
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
I had to pairs and i won lol. QQ and 77
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.
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?
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"
____________
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....)
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).
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...
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...
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)
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.
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
In any case, I urge you to use Robert's Rules of Poker 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'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.
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..
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?