2024-11-14T20:11:44Z
1 Like
I think Matt is making the same error he points out: if you are already fluent in poker this may well be a great bridge to the larger world of boardgaming. But if not, it really has very little to say.
2 Likes
I had a skepticism about this but I thought swvag got closest to convincing me there is a kernel of something interesting. It’s less poker (which is not a game about making good hands but a game about balancing odds and opportunism).
The way they described it was it was about understanding over time what good is and then using that developed collective understanding to make plays.
If you don’t know poker you might think that any of the hands people have heard of actually show up when it is far far more likely that the best hand might be a pair.
Actually it’s a shame Quinns is gone given he’s the biggest advocate for gambling.
3 Likes
Fair. I think in the three-player game I tried we had one hand that was better than “high card” through the whole game.
1 Like
We played it at 3p and didn’t like it much. I don’t see how you can win (except by dumb luck) if two players have a pair and they are almost the same (like a pair of 3s and a pair of 4s). We just assumed it would be better with more players. Might give it another go.
1 Like
I suspect that if you have already played quite a bit of poker you will assume that the best anyone will have will be a pair most of the time, and try to rank your hands relative to that expectation.
(I still object to the components basically being a normal deck of cards, and the chips, and a few extra cards with special rules.)
1 Like
One of the designers of this killed himself on November 18. There was a tribute thread on BGG. It said he had been suffering from chronic pain and depression for years. 
6 Likes
Oof. I hadn’t realised he was the Zendo guy.
1 Like