DeletedUser
I thought a maximum of 4 raises per round was standard.
Overall, poker-house is a great idea for the game.
Overall, poker-house is a great idea for the game.
DeletedUser
Sylvester, yes players with a lot of money WILL have an advantage, because they can always go on. This is entirely realistic, but don't forget that no one knows how deep their opponent's pockets are and if there are only 2 players left in one can 'see' the other by paying double the current stake. 4 raises isn't the form i play, there are different standards in different areas. I'm basing the game on 1933 British rules, which codified the then current American practice and is pretty authentic. Subsequent amendments to the game have generally neutered the game to make it more of a casino-friendly activity. real poker is 'nastier' you can lose more and you can win more.
John Rose you are referring to 'texas holdem' there. There have been length discussions on previous topics that have ended up with those of us who are particularly into the idea rejecting that. Come on people noone forces you to enter this game. All you risk is $1-2 dollars per hand......live a little, it's not like it's real money. there really is no need to play safe on this one.
John Rose you are referring to 'texas holdem' there. There have been length discussions on previous topics that have ended up with those of us who are particularly into the idea rejecting that. Come on people noone forces you to enter this game. All you risk is $1-2 dollars per hand......live a little, it's not like it's real money. there really is no need to play safe on this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Okay, I'll have to look up the British rules as I am unaware of what they are.
DeletedUser1105
OK, Are we agreed on having unlimited raises, but being able to see the other person by paying double? At most, that will be $20 as the maximum raise is $10. That allows you to stop the rich man buying his way to the pot.
I agree that it should have a nastier side to it, because these were nastier times.
Damn it Ulthor. I hate it when you convince me.
EDIT: I've added this to the proposal.
EDIT EDIT: Ulthor, this 'double the stake to see' rule is only available if there are two players left, right? What if there are 6 players? How can a poorer player stay in the game?
EDIT EDIT EDIT: We have to consider how this could be abused. Obvious one: Players who are friends playing on the same table, using an instant messenger to compare hands and take others to the cleaners. How do we stop this? We could say 'no two players from the same town on the same table', but people could just leave thier town to come and play. Maybe we could have that rule AND make it so you can only play in the poker house if you are a member of a town. Is this too unfair on townless people?
I agree that it should have a nastier side to it, because these were nastier times.
Damn it Ulthor. I hate it when you convince me.
EDIT: I've added this to the proposal.
EDIT EDIT: Ulthor, this 'double the stake to see' rule is only available if there are two players left, right? What if there are 6 players? How can a poorer player stay in the game?
EDIT EDIT EDIT: We have to consider how this could be abused. Obvious one: Players who are friends playing on the same table, using an instant messenger to compare hands and take others to the cleaners. How do we stop this? We could say 'no two players from the same town on the same table', but people could just leave thier town to come and play. Maybe we could have that rule AND make it so you can only play in the poker house if you are a member of a town. Is this too unfair on townless people?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I don't see how this has addressed the cheating issue, or is it supposed to be a way to transfer money from player to player?
Until all aspects of the issue are resolved it isn't going to a vote.
Until all aspects of the issue are resolved it isn't going to a vote.
DeletedUser1105
Hightower, I know. That's why I added the last bit, so we can discuss ways around that potential for cheating.
DeletedUser
My first thought would be why doesn't the player play against the house and NPC's only.
Otherwise I think its going to be a hard sell.
As to the town getting proceeds, thats another kink.
Frankly I think the gambling aspect is going to be a hard sell.
Otherwise I think its going to be a hard sell.
As to the town getting proceeds, thats another kink.
Frankly I think the gambling aspect is going to be a hard sell.
DeletedUser1105
That's a fair point HT, but taking the player vs player out of the equation makes it a rather poor addition too.
And without towns getting proceeds, there would be no huge benefit to building one of these buildings. Which means they would have to be easier to build and if they were easier to build, there would be too many of them around.
There are many many poker sites out there. Surely they would be just as easy to cheat on as this? And with much more benfit i.e. real cash. If they manage it, we just need to find out how.
And without towns getting proceeds, there would be no huge benefit to building one of these buildings. Which means they would have to be easier to build and if they were easier to build, there would be too many of them around.
There are many many poker sites out there. Surely they would be just as easy to cheat on as this? And with much more benfit i.e. real cash. If they manage it, we just need to find out how.
DeletedUser
Is the poker house a "challenge free" zone, like the hotel? or are people going to be hit while playing?
At present, you can sell/bank items while sleeping in the hotel- are you saying while in the poker house, you can't bank, but you can still buy/sell?
At present, you can sell/bank items while sleeping in the hotel- are you saying while in the poker house, you can't bank, but you can still buy/sell?
DeletedUser
i like this idea very much
but i dont think the devs will ever make this.
mostly becuz there are children playing the game
but if it were to happen. i have some ideas to how it whould work.
why not make it so that when you go to a table then the max you can start up whit is 100$ ?
then there whould be no rich dude to buy you out. only people whit skills whould have more money then you.
and then add the 10$ fee and then have the game set you up to a random table that whould make it alot harder for cheaters to play at the same table.
and if you leave the table and join another then it will cost you a 10$ fee again.
that is the only way i see it whould work, so that cheaters cant rejoin all the time until they get to the right table.
also i think that there should be a max for how long you can play. mabey 2/3 hours or something if other people should not be able to duel you when you play.
another solution whould be that you can be dueled when you play.
but you whould also be able to play poker when you are asleep and if you are playing when you are in a hotel you will be safe.
ill stop talking now
but i dont think the devs will ever make this.
mostly becuz there are children playing the game
but if it were to happen. i have some ideas to how it whould work.
why not make it so that when you go to a table then the max you can start up whit is 100$ ?
then there whould be no rich dude to buy you out. only people whit skills whould have more money then you.
and then add the 10$ fee and then have the game set you up to a random table that whould make it alot harder for cheaters to play at the same table.
and if you leave the table and join another then it will cost you a 10$ fee again.
that is the only way i see it whould work, so that cheaters cant rejoin all the time until they get to the right table.
also i think that there should be a max for how long you can play. mabey 2/3 hours or something if other people should not be able to duel you when you play.
another solution whould be that you can be dueled when you play.
but you whould also be able to play poker when you are asleep and if you are playing when you are in a hotel you will be safe.
ill stop talking now
DeletedUser
I believe a pot should be the way to go with all players buying in with the same amount of money. I think that the table creator should be able to set certain rules for the table like ante size buy in size and max bet size. We shouldn't limit peoples playing wants by setting these things in the proposal. Just have an option with multiple choice bullets like the hotel. And with the pot system all players can see each others money.
DeletedUser
i dont think tables should be made by players.
its a bad idea sins people whould ba able to cheat then.
i.e
player A set up a table whit settings
player B search for a table whit same settings.
player A lose all hes money and player B got a lot more.
it whould open up an easy way to multi acc and get alot of money fast.
if all tables have the same settings and you randomly is set up to a table it whould be alot harder to exploit it.
remember that we cant make this as free as in RL sins its only play money and people dont risk anything. so there will be cheaters out there trying to exploit it.
and you whould have to make it as hard as you can for them to do it. if the devs is ever gonna consider this idea.
its a bad idea sins people whould ba able to cheat then.
i.e
player A set up a table whit settings
player B search for a table whit same settings.
player A lose all hes money and player B got a lot more.
it whould open up an easy way to multi acc and get alot of money fast.
if all tables have the same settings and you randomly is set up to a table it whould be alot harder to exploit it.
remember that we cant make this as free as in RL sins its only play money and people dont risk anything. so there will be cheaters out there trying to exploit it.
and you whould have to make it as hard as you can for them to do it. if the devs is ever gonna consider this idea.
DeletedUser
Guys, I'm closing this.
Even if I could figure out what to suggest, I'm sure it would disagree with someone else's interpretation of the windings of this thread.
Feel free to regroup your thoughts and start another thread.
Even if I could figure out what to suggest, I'm sure it would disagree with someone else's interpretation of the windings of this thread.
Feel free to regroup your thoughts and start another thread.
DeletedUser
HEY POKER THREAD IS OPEN AGAIN. so lets start back off where we were here. then once we can come up with a good solid suggestion we can make a nice summary proposal.
DeletedUser
About the Building: I guess, instead of a Poker House, why not just upgrade the Saloon to level 2 and have a poker table in the saloon? The level then would determine how many tables can be created. Say, level 2=1 table, level 3=2 tables, level 4=4 tables, level 5=7 tables, etc.
DeletedUser
Good twist akoni.
So, what kind of poker, what kind of stakes, and how high buy-in are we talking?
And most importantly; how can we avoid abuse?
So, what kind of poker, what kind of stakes, and how high buy-in are we talking?
And most importantly; how can we avoid abuse?
DeletedUser
read the rest of the thread. we are not recapping for you.
DeletedUser
I have been reading it, and player vs the house, no player interaction has been brought up, whilst it does remove the whole problem with cheating, it was opposed by some for giving no interaction with other players.
Anyways, if this is to ever be moved into the vote section, we would benefit from a recap, on what we have agreed upon. Would make it easier for people to see what has acutally been worked out for proposal as well.
Anyways, if this is to ever be moved into the vote section, we would benefit from a recap, on what we have agreed upon. Would make it easier for people to see what has acutally been worked out for proposal as well.
DeletedUser
There's so many twists in this now......
Firstly let me say that this new idea of playing against the house is a pointless sterile bore.
There has been much thought put into this poker idea over many weeks in a number of posts. I certainly would not have wasted my time and concentration if I'd known that all along.
Hightower I applaud your efforts to get things moving here but you have to realise that it is mightily frustrating putting effort into something that has been a complete waste of time. So I certainly don't include you or any of the other mods when i say...
I am disgusted by the contempt with which this forum has been treated by the developers of this game. They don't deserve customers
I shall not be renewing my subscription until we get an apology and a commitment to proper interaction in the future.
Firstly let me say that this new idea of playing against the house is a pointless sterile bore.
There has been much thought put into this poker idea over many weeks in a number of posts. I certainly would not have wasted my time and concentration if I'd known that all along.
Hightower I applaud your efforts to get things moving here but you have to realise that it is mightily frustrating putting effort into something that has been a complete waste of time. So I certainly don't include you or any of the other mods when i say...
I am disgusted by the contempt with which this forum has been treated by the developers of this game. They don't deserve customers
I shall not be renewing my subscription until we get an apology and a commitment to proper interaction in the future.