Royal Flush

[Josh]

I, personally, feel it's a little bit silly to give the Royal Flush its own entry in the Final Hands report. First, because it's not going to happen very many times, and second, because it's a straight flush. Giving it its own classification will skew the straight flush statistics. While straight flushes don't happen very often, this is a statistical tracking application, and I believe it should strive for the most accurate statistics. If you are interested in finding your Royal Flushes, simply search through the existing straight flush hands. Yes, it's great when you get one, but does that really warrant giving it its own grouping?

I'm willing to make this change if enough people think it's a good idea. So if you think it's a good idea, please let me know by replying to this post. It would also help if you give your reasons behind wanting it in its own, separate group.

[WhiteRider]

It's just a straight flush - you don't have a separate category for A-high straights..
No separate category for me, thanks - keep it as it is.

[truck562]

[quote="Josh"lqs]I, personally, feel it's a little bit silly to give the Royal Flush its own entry in the Final Hands report. First, because it's not going to happen very many times, and second, because it's a straight flush. Giving it its own classification will skew the straight flush statistics. While straight flushes don't happen very often, this is a statistical tracking application, and I believe it should strive for the most accurate statistics. If you are interested in finding your Royal Flushes, simply search through the existing straight flush hands. Yes, it's great when you get one, but does that really warrant giving it its own grouping?

I'm willing to make this change if enough people think it's a good idea. So if you think it's a good idea, please let me know by replying to this post. It would also help if you give your reasons behind wanting it in its own, separate group.[/quotelqs]

Josh, I was one of the readers who sent you a ticket with my Royal. Yes, it does happens so infrequently. I didn't realize that it would need its own catagory. Leaving it under straight flushes is good by me.

John
Truck562

[Galaxy]

I only mentioned that as a "bug" because the description in the history file is different than in PT3.
For sure it should be in the statistics for Straight Flushes. I thought only about a change of the name "Straight Flush Ace High" to "Royal Flush".
If this is not possible without additional consequenses to the statistics leave it as it is.

-Galaxy

[Josh]

We could change it to say "Royal Flush" in the description instead of "Straight Flush, Ace High", but keep it in the Straight Flush category. Is that an acceptable compromise?

[Galaxy]

This is a good solution I think.

-Galaxy

[truck562]

It is a good compromise.

Thanks

[Josh]

That's what we're going to do then. Thanks for your input.

[iraYzer]

[quote="Josh"rxp]We could change it to say "Royal Flush" in the description instead of "Straight Flush, Ace High", but keep it in the Straight Flush category. Is that an acceptable compromise?[/quoterxp]

I'd also say that's a good compromise! gw

[MasterLJ]

Along the same lines, I always wanted a distinction between an under full/one card full and one card straights. Mostly to see how often you are losing with said hands... not sure how many would be on-board with that feature but it would add a lot more usefullness to reviewing those statistics.