The rules for Texas Hold’em are relatively simple. But your software does NOT follow them. I’m referring to the fact that the program cannot handle the situation when a player WAS in either the big or small blind and loses ALL his/her chips. Your program simply skips a hand (or two) and moves the dealer position to the next player. The ACTUAL rules for this game require that the BIG blind moves only one position and the small blind and dealer button are placed as required to deal the next hand. In some cases, the small blind may be “dead”, i.e. no small blind is placed. I’ll be glad to explain it further if necessary.
I mentioned this a while back…I assume it is to complicated for the poker program…
Hi, This has been raised before and we do not expect to change from the present format. We use the ‘Forward moving Button’ system, as do most online poker sites. It is quite programmable but we believe simpler is better.
The alternate system involves the Button sometimes being ‘dead’ (on an empty seat) and players sometimes having to post big blinds or small blinds irrespective of seat position, even while on the Button seat. We don’t think it is necessary to implement this system at the moment
Rob
4 Likes
Almost every rule of poker is (or has been , or will be) subject to change by local option. That’s why it’s important to EVERY player in EVERY game to know the HOUSE rules wherever we play. House rules can and do change from house to house. There is no “universal rule-making body” to officiate this, and likely never will be. Even if there was a “Commissioner of Poker”–boy, I’d love that job–his/her authority probably wouldn’t extend to every home or club game. We poker players don’t even agree on such basics as what the best “Low Hand” is. Is it A-2-3-4-5, A-2-3-4-6 of assorted suits, or 7-5-4-3-2 of assorted suits? Something as simple as whether or not the Button moves is certainly a legitimate house rule decision. As long as the house rules are applied consistently, players ought to be able to adapt to them easily.
1 Like
I understand your answer and I am NOT trying to convince you to do otherwise now. Obviously, your company has made a decision which is your right to do. I accept that.
It is my personal opinion that the game SHOULD be played by the standard rules and that those rules CAN be incorporated into software without causing unfair situations. Just my two cents.
Regards,
Larry
Larry, you are referring to the Dead Button Rule which is used in most of the casinos and card rooms I play tournaments in, However, it is not an inherent rule of poker. House rules are set by the house or site and there can be a large number of minor variations. It is just a matter of learning those rules.
2 Likes
Actually there is…the Tournament Directors Assosciation…although there is no requirement that thier rules be followed…
If you don’t have to follow them, they aren’t “rules,” they’re just non-binding suggestions. You and I can make non-binding suggestions, with just as much authority.
.
If poker players could agree on much, we’d have a Commissioner of Poker whose job it would be to enforce agreed upon rules. This has been suggested before, by the way, back in the early 90s. Part of the problem is that there is no real organization of the players or even the casinos/card rooms. And, if there was, it would be nearly impossible to agree on who that Commissioner ought to be. Mike Caro was put forward as a candidate by one of the writers at The Card Player (when June Fields was still owner/editor). I backed Mike Sexton (then and now) and still think he’s the only person respected widely enough in the industry to get support by a plurality of players and owners. Almost everybody knows who he is, at least.
.
On the plus side, most players consider this a non-issue, as long as whatever the house rules are, they’re enforced evenly so no player is advantaged or disadvantaged by them. And, if the rules are unevenly enforced, we go find other games to play in.
1 Like