Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A secret poker game you can play on the subway

experience.prfalken.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#81

Post by cauliflower2718 »

pmarreck wrote: post #29
Aransentin wrote: post #9

This article has a strong ChatGPT smell. Things like "in the world of", "let's dive into", the bullet points, "conclusion" section, etc. Anyone else have the same feeling?

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.

Agree -- especially if this was a post about something a real person thought of, but edited with AI (the author is in France, so it seems reasonable to use AI for editing; also it's a small blog that has been around for a while and not a content farm).

For some reason I think I would find it less valuable if the idea itself came from an AI, too.

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#82

Post by hot_gril »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #20

The most obvious issues with this is that the game boils down to predicting passenger patterns, but you're still just comparing two RNGs, which is one of the worst kinds of games. I also don't think this can be called Poker, really. Poker is an imperfect information game, where your hand tells you some information about your opponents' hands. It would be interesting to read HN's ideas on how you can simulate the shar…

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.

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#83

Post by hot_gril »

latexr wrote: post #7
jbs789 wrote: post #4

It’s not clear to me when or how you “choose” your row of 5. I feel dense but I don’t think this is described…

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 ch…

This makes it sound a lot more fun.

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#84

Post by hot_gril »

golergka wrote: post #33

For a second I wondered how would you assign suits to people — but quickly realized that this would be easy, but probably racist.

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.

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#86

Post by poincaredisk »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #69
antasvara wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This misses the information your secret hand gives you about the other player's chances. In poker if I got an Ace in my hand the chance of the opponent having an ace lowers. If I got somebody wearing a black coat, this has no impact on the chance of my opponent having a black coated passenger.

This actually increases their chances, because they can pick the same seat.

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#87

Post by Retric »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #69
antasvara wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This misses the information your secret hand gives you about the other player's chances. In poker if I got an Ace in my hand the chance of the opponent having an ace lowers. If I got somebody wearing a black coat, this has no impact on the chance of my opponent having a black coated passenger.

Discard any hands where you pick the same seats, at the end.

You can also play actual poker like this. Each player writes down random numbers 0-51 in predefined order. You reveal some of those numbers to the other player who adds their own number mod 52 to get their private hand. You all slowly reveal both numbers for shared cards. If one of your cards matches the shared card you have to start over, same deal if at the end multiple players end up with the same cards.

It’s a slow process, but when the goal is wasting time and you don’t have cards it’s a poor substitute.

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#88

Post by AStonesThrow »

Adaptations here may account for: no "rows of 5" or even 4 seats (a photo anticipates this variant

But moreover, folks here buffer a lot of personal space, and seats fill in checkerboard patterns, bags and parcels on unoccupied seats, and when the checkerboard is full, most folks would rather stand than request/insist/apologize for sitting down

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#89

Post by kelseydh »

dbl000 wrote: post #35
marras wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found myself looking for some rules on how you can influence your "hand" - is it "legal", for example: - to stand in a specific place in order to (subtly) direct other passengers into a specific section of the car, or - to take a seat yourself and give it up to an elderly person later on, in an attempt to gain an extra ace ;)

A group of friends and I used to play what we called "cheater's poker". There were no stakes expect bragging rights, but you were allowed to cheat in anyway what so ever. Stacked decks, marked cards, false shuffles etc. I'm curious what that would look like in this game and how far you could take it before it became socially awkward. Could you ask a friend/plant to come to a particular station at some time and sit in…

Cheaters poker sounds like a blast, but it sounds like it would descend pretty quickly into a physical game of trying to peak at other people's cards and them defending theirs (and the game deck).

Re: A secret poker game you can play on the subway

#90

Post by kuboble »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #58
kuboble wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you say is true. Except in your first post you didn't say "I personally prefer a convention of calling only those games poker". You said "you can't call it poker" with a tone of an authority. And I say that you can.

> You said "you can't call it poker" with a tone of an authority. This is a misquote, if I ever saw one. What I've actually written (emphasis added): " I also don't think this can be called Poker, really ." In other words, this is my personal line of thought, with the argument given in the next sentence, and "really" means "to some extent it can, but not to the full".

Fair enough. My mistake.
Post reply on HN