Jimulacrum
Full House
This does not relate to the content you quoted nor is it supported or implied by anything I said.So you’d be ok with a game that had four ace of spades in play but not a wild card? Am I reading that wrong?
This does not relate to the content you quoted nor is it supported or implied by anything I said.So you’d be ok with a game that had four ace of spades in play but not a wild card? Am I reading that wrong?
This does not relate to the content you quoted nor is it supported or implied by anything I said.
Sorry, what normal non wild cards are you talking about introducing?is no different than introducing a normal, non-wild card into play.
I'm talking about any game mechanic that takes an unseen card from the deck and introduces it into play. This is not materially different from taking a seen card and removing it from play. You start with 52 cards, and the rules of the game govern how they come and go.Sorry, what normal non wild cards are you talking about introducing?
If there are no queens left, probability is 0%. If only 3 queens are killed, there's 1 queen left, so you'd calculate based on that.I agree I’m crafting my replies wrong and it’s my opinion. In the other poker games you listed you can calculate the odds of getting a queen you need for a straight for example, but in these other games there may not even be a queen available to calculate upon.
The issue with wild cards (and, say, features like "Chicago") is the disproportionality. These circus-game features like forced discards and killed boards aren't disproportionate to the extent that they dominate all other aspects of the game. They're just one feature.I don’t hate those games, I actually enjoy them. I get your distinction about a wild card being powerful, but as you say, that’s just another variable to consider when playing.
*shrugs*I'm talking about any game mechanic that takes an unseen card from the deck and introduces it into play. This is not materially different from taking a seen card and removing it from play. You start with 52 cards, and the rules of the game govern how they come and go.
If there are no queens left, probability is 0%. If only 3 queens are killed, there's 1 queen left, so you'd calculate based on that.
It's no different than giving yourself 3 outs for a gutshot in Hold'em because the was exposed during the deal, or keeping track of all the spades that are gone in 7 Card Stud. The forced discards change what the probabilities are but certainly don't make them incalculable. (Wild cards don't exactly make them incalculable either, but they make a mess in other ways.)
I will say, though, that one of the downsides of Scarney is that it is such a skill-oriented game. I'd recommend it only for very experienced players, because there is so much to be gained by analyzing the killed cards. In some hands you end up being able to account for like half the deck by showdown, and experienced players will crush inexperienced players with this information.
The issue with wild cards (and, say, features like "Chicago") is the disproportionality. These circus-game features like forced discards and killed boards aren't disproportionate to the extent that they dominate all other aspects of the game. They're just one feature.
The difference is that once the wild card is out, the hand is basically over because the person with the wild card effectively has a 30-card hand. None of the other game mechanics we're discussing have this level of disproportionate effect.As long as we all have the same chance of getting the wild card I personally don’t see the difference.
I bet 5 Card Regular Poker players felt the same way when discards and redraws were introduced with 5 Card Draw.I’d probably take the opportunity during the round of this to go do other stuff, and a lot of people do the same with games where you lose cards and boards. It’s all just stuff you have to account for.
Sure. Great strategy. Same as Chicago. This is why wild cards generally suck; they take all the thought out of the game and turn it into a wild-card hunt.Don’t get the wild card? Fold.
As you say, it’s just another thing to account for.It's all just stuff you have to account for.
Yes I did say I liked scarney and derailment. What’s your point? Are you trying to trick me with my own words or something? Is that the gist of this discussion, trying to better me or some thing? Have at it. I like what I like and don’t like what I don’t like. Go for itAnd didn't you just say a couple replies ago that you personally like playing these games?
I interpreted something you wrote as suggesting that you sit out games with killed cards/boards, but I think I just misunderstood (looks like you said you'd sit out OP's game like other people sit out games with killed cards/boards).Yes I did say I liked scarney and derailment. What’s your point? Are you trying to trick me with my own words or something? Is that the gist of this discussion, trying to better me or some thing? Have at it. I like what I like and don’t like what I don’t like. Go for it
Ok. Do you have any feedback for the OP other than your clearly stated opinion many times that you don’t like wild cards? Any way for him to improve this without it?I interpreted something you wrote as suggesting that you sit out games with killed cards/boards, but I think I just misunderstood (looks like you said you'd sit out OP's game like other people sit out games with killed cards/boards).
Nothing wrong with having preferences. My issues have all been with the technical merit of your claims—specifically, that killed boards/cards are equivalent to wild cards and that not being able to calculate win probability on the openers makes a game not poker.
I left a comment with many criticisms and suggestions early in the thread.Ok. Do you have any feedback for the OP other than your clearly stated opinion many times that you don’t like wild cards? Any way for him to improve this without it?
As you mentioned in one of your books, people hate new game development. But they got developed and are played now anyway.I left a comment with many criticisms and suggestions early in the thread.
It takes a certain adventurous spirit to play a game for money that you've never played before, even for fun.As you mentioned in one of your books, people hate new game development. But they got developed and are played now anyway.
It takes a certain adventurous spirit to play a game for money that you've never played before, even for fun.
Lots of people bristle at the idea, but we have that adventurous spirit to thank for every game we play.
That’s my intention, to encourage him instead of just saying “seems stupid”.Keep innovating though. I’ll have my buy in ready
Damn thats a powerful card. So if the ace is high and you just luckily get it, you can drive the pot up to huge amounts and are guaranteed half no matter what? That one card beats all the other poker hands and any amount of skill. Remarkable.Highest spade in the hole wins half the pot.
Please, please, please let’s play this next year in Dallas so everyone can see me jump out a window.I feel like @Goldfish would like this game. Especially if you start taking cards away.
I’m pretty sure you and @BigSlick4523 are the same person, just two sides of gematria with a shared login.If I didn’t know any better, I’d read this thread and think Kricket is a giant nit.
Sometimes it feels like upndown and ekricket share a login. Can someone check the tower logs? (That’s a “A Few Good Men” reference).
all I know is that G word is the real deal its a wild world we live in Merry Christmas to allI’m pretty sure you and @BigSlick4523 are the same person, just two sides of gematria with a shared login.
this is why I love that sweet game we call SOHE lol if you got the nuggets in 1 hand and drive that pot up LOL and if you happen to have the best of both worlds it is a great feeling.
Damn thats a powerful card. So if the ace is high and you just luckily get it, you can drive the pot up to huge amounts and are guaranteed half no matter what? That one card beats all the other poker hands and any amount of skill. Remarkable.
We play highest spade in the hole gets half from time to time for 7 card stud variants, we call that "Chicago" (e.g. jacks & low, chicago), We've also played second highest spade gets half (if only one of the players at showdown has a spade, that gets half), low diamond gets half, second lowest diamond gets half, queen of spades up kills the game (black mariah), etc.Stampler?
I think is a circus game I’ve played.
Highest spade in the hole wins half the pot. Or something like that. Cant remember the exact rules
But reasonably popular game. Building on an existing game would make more sense