POKER NIGHT: Poker rules issues in game

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.
«13

Comments

  • HoboStewHoboStew Telltale Staff
    edited November 2010
    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.
  • HoboStewHoboStew Telltale Staff
    edited November 2010
    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 $$$
  • JubJub
    edited November 2010
    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?
  • edited November 2010
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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.
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited November 2010
    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?)
  • edited November 2010
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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?
  • edited November 2010
    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?
  • edited November 2010
    All of these are indeed correct poker rules, with the one exception of the OP.
    Arodin wrote:
    "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.
    langri wrote:
    "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.
    langri wrote:
    "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.
  • edited November 2010
    langri wrote: »
    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?
  • edited November 2010
    emtwo wrote: »
    "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.
  • edited November 2010
    der_ketzer wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    Jake wrote: »
    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.
    emtwo wrote:
    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 (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).
  • edited November 2010
    furrykef wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    langri wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    HoboStew wrote: »
    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?
  • edited November 2010
    ^
    Umm....technically the person that doubled-up his stake should be considered the winner.
  • edited November 2010
    emtwo wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    jp-30 wrote: »
    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!
  • edited November 2010
    furrykef wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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?
  • edited November 2010
    Origami wrote: »
    ^
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    furrykef wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    emtwo wrote: »
    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.
    Dorino wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    Kayube wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    furrykef wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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.)
  • edited November 2010
    furrykef wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    emtwo wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    furrykef wrote: »
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    emtwo wrote: »
    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.
    jp-30 wrote: »
    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!
  • edited November 2010
    emtwo wrote: »
    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. ;)
  • edited November 2010
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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.
  • edited November 2010
    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.
    jp-30 wrote:
    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:
  • edited November 2010
    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?
  • edited November 2010
    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?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.