A secret poker game you can play on the subway (opens in new tab)

In the style of Texas Hold'em, both players could secretly choose two seats each and write them down. Then, you'd collectively choose 5 seats to be the shared "cards."

This next suggestion would stretch the "poker" definition somewhat, but I think it retains the same characteristics (imperfect information, shared "cards").

You start from a shared list of attributes (coat color, presence of a hat, etc.) and designate a row of seats. Each person gets one attribute secretly. You wager after each stop following poker conventions.

Only downside to this is that unlike poker, your hand can get worse after a stop.

> . I also don't think this can be called Poker, really. Poker is an imperfect information game,

There is no game of Poker. It is a wide variety of games like 5-card draw, Omaha, Texas, studs, Chinese open face poker. Also a slot machine where you draw 5 cards or pretty much any game that uses classical poker hand rankings is called poker. There is also a planning poker.

I think the name is fine

I made a more poker-esque game that doesn't require any dice or other materials, cause my friend and I were waiting in line forever somewhere. You play as a buyer haggling with a seller over some shiny vase. Each player establishes a secret random number*, being the max the buyer will pay (demand) or the min the seller will sell for (supply). Then they haggle, then they win the difference between the agreed-upon price and their secret number. Or, either can kill the deal at any time, and both are penalized based on their secret number**.

It's limited info, random, there are weak or strong starting positions, and you can bluff. Tournament style might be interesting because of the Prisoners' Dilemma. But I gotta say, it's a lot nerdier than this subway game.

* Both think of two numbers 0-50 and only say one aloud. Add the other person's number to your secret one and mod by 50. Then buyer adds 50.

** Seller penalized N, buyer penalized N - 50 iirc.

You might be able to do that with a betting aspect? If you and your partner both select two "rows" and keep them secret and then after each station you could change how much you're willing to stake you get some information based on the bet.

It's an imperfect solution but I still like the premise of this game, it just needs to be field tested a bit.

Without the iterative rounds of betting, raising and folding (which require imperfect information) it isn't poker, it is only a luck contest using poker-like combinations.

Is human behaviour not predicable enough for you? I bet passengers are more likely to congregate on the side that the door enters/exits, etc

The other day I was playing a game that let me project fire from my finger tips and fly. It was a lot of fun, but in reality it made no logical sense...

> The most obvious issues with...

... your comment is that you're trying to analyse everything instead of just having fun. Not everything is a math' problem. It's OK to have fun things that don't make sense. I don't think the author is trying to create a perfect gaming experience. I think the author is just trying to have fun.

Poker is not a card game, it's a betting game with imperfect information. This has no betting round so it is not poker.

You can fix this by allowing each stop to be a round of betting.

It's not like it's an official competition, and it's (probably) not for money, so I imagine you can just wing it and it will be fine. If there's a disagreement you just talk it out, which is also a good way to pass time on a subway.

I'd be more worried about overlap; if there are five women, and one is elderly, I'd rather count it as five queens than four and an ace.

People that only have a few stations to go tend to sit closer to doors.

But also, now that I think about it, this may only be caused by french metro layouts, I'm from France too and this fact seems true to me.

If your train is only a long corridor with seats on the edges, the "difficulty" of getting to/from a door is almost the same everywhere.

But in the french metro you have foldable seats right next to the doors, and groups of 4 seats between doors, and when the metro is busy, it's harder to get out of these 4 seats groupings.

Notice the image which says “A pair of aces is a good start”, because two elderly people are sitting there. Think of it like each row being a pre-populated hand (which may be missing some cards) based on the people already sitting there. You pick it and then the “cards” change themselves between stations.

In other words, you pick immediately once the game starts. Look around to see which row you think has the best chance to develop into something good by the time you reach the designated station.

Seems fun!

You choose any time to start (mutually agreed upon)

You can choose any row you want. The chance (skill?) comes into play in that people can get up from those seats and new people can come in. That's why you have to choose an end station. It probably wouldn't be very fun for just one stop.

Is there a list of phrases and words to avoid, to not be accused of using AI? It's getting kind of ridiculous what people identify an "AI smell". I understand if the word "delve" shows up five times in as many paragraphs, I guess, but just having a "conclusion" section is a smell now? Using the word "innovative" is a smell?

I feel awfully sorry for kids in school these days. Teachers must think everything they write is AI, considering they're still learning to write effectively and probably like to use bullet points, popular phrases like "dive into", and structured layouts that include introduction and conclusion sections.

In section "Works in every major city!", the author mentions they are from France.

Given that, it's not surprising that they used an AI to help with translation.

The sad thing is ChatGPT didn't invent that style. That was just the way clear, concise writing by skilled writers was at the time they trained the model. So now if you are actually a skilled writer who tries to convey ideas in a clear, concise way, you will appear robotic :(

Yep. Read the first few paragraphs and immediately noticed the stink. Using it as an assistant is fine, but you really shouldn't leave what it outputs untouched, especially when it's this obvious!

I wrote the article in a much simpler and "french to english" way, and asked the LLM to format it in a better english style. Looking at these comments I don't think I'll do it again. But it's also the only article that made so many reads and comments. What should I conclude ?

I got that feeling because of adjectives like “innovative”. Thought that it might be impolite to imply that in the comments, and was relieved that someone already did.

The premise of the article is still interesting.

Feels this way to me too.

FFS. I read it and learned something. Stop jousting windmills just because they seem like propellers on warplanes that are coming for you. Sometimes they are just windmills.

If you eschew the standard 4 suit deck and go for a differently scaled one I think it's pretty simple - just do it based on clothing choices or items carried with more value given to a rarer case.

Things like beanies, grocery bags, formal shoes could all be used to make suits and you have a bit more choices to play with on how you count the person. Do I count them as a "formal shoes" or a "grocery bag"? What do I think I'm more likely to see board later?

Maybe if the passenger is literally wearing a suit, that's a suit. Or any shirt color besides white. And you can't get a flush of non-suited passengers.

Traditionally, in poker variants with wild cards that enable 5 of a kind hands, it does IIRC beat a royal flush. )"Royal straight" isn't a thing; AKQJT straights are sometimes called "broadway", but they're never distinguished as a separate hand type. Whereas royal flushes do get distinguished from straight flushes, but not for any good reason.)

But all of this is moot because TFA doesn't define "suits" for the "cards" anyway. And of course the relative probabilities do change when you only have 5 ranks. (And we're also effectively "drawing" without replacement; there are an effectively unlimited number of each rank available.)

According to Balatro, it does

Happens all the time when I play with my son :P Same with kids and teens.

?

It doesn’t matter if both players assume the same gender.

Agreed. I posted the same thing but unfortunately got downvoted.

I don't imagine this game can cause any direct harm, but assuming someone's gender is not something people have a habit of doing.

> [...] adding a layer of excitement and unpredictability to your journey.

That's the bit that did it for me.

Use your common sense.

A more legit question would be "in a deck of cards there are 4 of each". Now, I don't play poker, but assuming that is 1 deck, it's 4 aces. If it's 2 decks it's 8 aces.

What happens if you get on 'that time of the day' and/or 'that specific station' and there are a bunch of old folks and you end up with "all cards are aces?". Someone is cheating!!! :)

Use your best judgement.

Who cares, it's a game, don't push your woke agenda into it

Aw I feel like it’s perfectly harmless in this instance, right? You don’t need to talk to the people, so there’s no risk of insulting them.

No, you use your eyes. That's why you play it with a fellow commuter.