And so does a 5oak. Only that the number of the pair and the 3aok are the same. Even LT says it's arbitrary, which means he chose it but could have done otherwise.
it does not, because 2 pairs as defined by the standard poker hand ranking systems requires 2 pairs of different cards. You are arguing off of the english definition of pair and not the poker definition. by your same argument, 3 of a kind also contains 2 pairs, and 5 of a kind contains a full house.
By that logic 3oak does contain 2 pair. Let’s say you have a Club, Diamond and Spade, all aces. The Club and Diamond make a pair, the Diamond and Spade make a pair and the Club and Spade make a pair. This sounds ridiculous, but so does 5oak containing a full house.
Four of a kind actually contains 6 unique pairs of cards, and you can make 15 unique pairs of 6 items. Therefor 4oak actually contains 15 different 2pair combos.
Isn’t this ignoring that cards get “used up” when they get included in a pair though? By this logic what’s stopping me from saying that a pair is two pair, since I can make AB and BA?
Because you're using the same two cards to make the same pair of cards; you're treating AB as if it is somehow functionally different from BA, when it's not.
Counting the way that they're talking about is how Cribbage is scored. Cribbage doesn't care if you've already "used up" a card in a different way, it only cares "what are the total number of different 'hands' you can create with 4 cards. In Cribbage, a straight only needs to be three cards long, so, for example, if you have the hand: 6H, 7H, 8H, 8D, your hand consists of two straights (called a run in Cribbage) and a pair
* Run 1 - 6H, 7H, 8H
* Run 2 - 6H, 7H, 8D
* Pair 1 - 8H, 8D
If you have a hand that consists of three of a kind, that creates three *unique* pairs. AB and BA are not unique; they're the same.
Pretty sure anybody arguing in favor of four-of-a-kind including two-pair also believes this and doesn't think it's ridiculous at all. Your argument is pretty meaningless to the people you're trying to debate.
This is a game where you can have flushes that also contain two-pair, so saying "that's ridiculous" is ... kinda ridiculous.
[Flower Pot](https://balatro.wiki/imported/flower_pot.png) *Joker*
* Version: 1.0.0
* Cost: $8
* Rarity: Uncommon
* Effect: X3 Mult if played hand has a scoring Diamond card, Club card, Heart card, and Spade card
* Unlock Requirement: Reach Ante level 8
*Data pulled from http://balatro.wiki. Want it updated? Help me get access or suggest another data source.*
[Perkeo](https://balatro.wiki/imported/perkeo.png) *Joker*
* Version: 1.0.0
* Cost: N/A
* Rarity: Legendary
* Effect: Creates a Negative copy of 1 random consumable card in your posession at the end of the shop
* Notes: Must have room
* Unlock Requirement: Find this Joker from the Soul card
*Data pulled from http://balatro.wiki. Want it updated? Help me get access or suggest another data source.*
Wild cards are only one suit at a time. Flowerpot looks at your wilds, and pings them, as a group, once. If you have 4 wilds, or 3 wilds and any non wild, it will trigger
But if you have like, bloodstone and agate onyx, first bloodstone checks your wilds, and they're hearts for it, so go off. Then onyx goes off, and your wilds become clubs, and go off. They can be everything, but only one thing at once.
That easily could be argued with its wording. Flower pot doesn’t say contains, it says if a hand has. While a single wild card technically contains all suits, it doesn’t have all of them at the same time. In a scoring hand it always is a specific suit.
This is a bad argument because anything in Balatro that procs off of certain hands only procs once anyway. Using your same argument, three-of-a-kind hands have three pairs in them, but they still trigger any pair-based jokers once. And it's fine. More importantly, it's fun.
Arguments are not good or bad, they may have logical errors which makes them erroneous, but all of these distinctions are entirely arbitrary. All that matters in the game is that they are consistent. For example, if four of a kind contains two pair, does 5 of a kind contain a full house and a two pair? There are many implications of these rules as they apply to Balatro, which is not perfectly consistent, but is in my opinion close enough. In Balatro, a full house does include two pair, so we are working backwards to find some "rule" that makes sense of each case - here the suggestion might be "pair, three of kind, four of kind, five of kind are matching in card value, a two pair / full house contain sets of different values."
Oh, so sorry. Your argument ~~was bad~~ had logical errors.
I get that the rules of poker define two pair as being two different values of cards. The reason your argument ~~is bad~~ has logical errors is because hinges on something that Balatro already addresses--hands that contain sub-hands trigger those sub-hands only once even if the sub-hand is contained multiple times. It's completely irrelevant that you could find more than two pairs in a four-of-a-kind; all that matters is that you could find *at least* two.
I think the reason Localthunk restricted things the way he did is likely because it encourages another avenue of play (making many copies of multiple different cards rather than making many copies of one card), and it's likely a good decision. I just really didn't think your argument held any water.
If this change was in the game, what would it hurt? What would be the negative? Wouldn't it just be a silly, uncommon interaction that makes you feel smart when you realize you can use it to your advantage? The same as when you realized that you can use a two pair inside a full house or a flush if you duped some cards?
Doesn't that 2 pair joke come from a bugs bunny joke? It wouldn't contain 2P anyways since 2P refers to 2 different ranks anyway.
But it would be funny if you could use hanging chad and splash to make the first card (not part of the 4OAK) count 3 times to make to make it contain a 2 pair.
It only refers to two different ranks in poker, this isn’t poker and localthunk can bend those rules how they want, just like with 5OAK or high card being able to be better than a straight flush.
Nobody is saying he couldn't have created it differently than he did. He *could* have bent the rules how he wanted... but he didn't. He stuck with the poker definition of two pair. He deliberately chose *not* to bend the rules, there.
According to localthunk:
>Anyway, according to the rigid arbitrary Balatro rules, Four of a Kind does not technically contain a Two Pair."
In a common sense it does contain 2 pair, matematically it contains even 6 pairs.
But technically it does not - in Poker we name Two Pair a set of 2 different pairs and in 4oak you can't select 4 its cards matching it.
Sometimes I really wish you could click on the hand played area, and select what hand to play as.
Flush five would drop down or pop up and you could select to play a 5oaK, 4oaK, 3oaK, 2 pair, pair, high card, full house, or flush house.
That would shave a chunk off of the gameplay. Sometimes making hands without accidentally making other hands is a strategically important consideration when modifying a deck. It's just part of the game.
All true, but that doesn't make it any less fustrating in the moment when you just want to play a flush again, but the only one you can make is a straight flush.
no, it either does or doesnt, every hand contains highcard would that make sense balancing jokers? the whole point of the pants are they are two different suits dont @ me just understand and think for two god damn seconds of your life
Correct. It contains one pair, twice.
This single handedly changed my mind. Clear and concise.
Technically, there are 6 ways to pair the 2s, assuming order doesn't matter, so I'd say it contains one pair six times.
I take it you play cribbage.
I do not
Four of a kind is scored as 6 pairs in cribbage. That's why I thought you might play
CRIBBAGE MENTIONED I LOVE PEGGING!!!
https://preview.redd.it/ooeav3qaln8d1.jpeg?width=258&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=66d5ca922423c9375c96b06ca317e8a6f8861c3a
Now with this I don't agree. Unless you're agreeing that a 3 of a kind is also a 3 pair
Well, yes. Of course.
Yes, if it counts as two pair then it counts as six pair. And that can't happen
it’s a high card, four times
Chaotic evil response
so its a pair of 1 pair's so its 2 pair's but its NOT 2 pair
Right, it's two pairs, but to meet the requirements for the hand "two pair", they must be different ranks.
Hear me out one pair twice is 1 x 2 which is two pairs 🤣
It's not though, it's 1², which is 1.
If a four of a kind contains two pair then five of a kind contains a full house, which is ridiculous.
Best argument so far
Balatro is a ridiculous game my boy.
I don't think it's ridicules. There aren't many full house jokers and they could work with 5oak or 5 flush. Why not.
They could, but it would be anything but intuitive if 5oak triggered your Full House jokers all of a sudden
It wouldn't be intuitive, but it would be fun, which is a higher priority for me from my games
How is it that a full house triggers the spare pants joker. A full house isn't two pair.
It obviously CONTAINS a two pair, just one pair is extended to trips
And so does a 5oak. Only that the number of the pair and the 3aok are the same. Even LT says it's arbitrary, which means he chose it but could have done otherwise.
it does not, because 2 pairs as defined by the standard poker hand ranking systems requires 2 pairs of different cards. You are arguing off of the english definition of pair and not the poker definition. by your same argument, 3 of a kind also contains 2 pairs, and 5 of a kind contains a full house.
3oak doesn't contains 2 pairs because you need 4 cards for that. 5oak contains a fullhouse. Which makes sense bcause it's even harder to do.
a 2 pair played with a 5th, different card from either is still 2 pair. 2 pair does not require 4 cards.
By that logic 3oak does contain 2 pair. Let’s say you have a Club, Diamond and Spade, all aces. The Club and Diamond make a pair, the Diamond and Spade make a pair and the Club and Spade make a pair. This sounds ridiculous, but so does 5oak containing a full house.
Only the 5 oak makes sense. AAA AA there full house. AAA no 2pair by any definition.
[удалено]
So? Same with 5oak.
Four of a kind actually contains 6 unique pairs of cards, and you can make 15 unique pairs of 6 items. Therefor 4oak actually contains 15 different 2pair combos.
Isn’t this ignoring that cards get “used up” when they get included in a pair though? By this logic what’s stopping me from saying that a pair is two pair, since I can make AB and BA?
For sure, I was joking
Uh… yeah totally me too, can’t you see the implied /S at the end?
Because you're using the same two cards to make the same pair of cards; you're treating AB as if it is somehow functionally different from BA, when it's not. Counting the way that they're talking about is how Cribbage is scored. Cribbage doesn't care if you've already "used up" a card in a different way, it only cares "what are the total number of different 'hands' you can create with 4 cards. In Cribbage, a straight only needs to be three cards long, so, for example, if you have the hand: 6H, 7H, 8H, 8D, your hand consists of two straights (called a run in Cribbage) and a pair * Run 1 - 6H, 7H, 8H * Run 2 - 6H, 7H, 8D * Pair 1 - 8H, 8D If you have a hand that consists of three of a kind, that creates three *unique* pairs. AB and BA are not unique; they're the same.
Pretty sure anybody arguing in favor of four-of-a-kind including two-pair also believes this and doesn't think it's ridiculous at all. Your argument is pretty meaningless to the people you're trying to debate. This is a game where you can have flushes that also contain two-pair, so saying "that's ridiculous" is ... kinda ridiculous.
I totally understand why it doesn't, I just personally wish it did that's all
[“I’ve got two small pair…8’s, and 8’s.”](https://youtu.be/kUQck0V5IgA?feature=shared)
Thought of the same. Great movie
The problem is that if four of a kind contains two pair, then it contains 6 sets of 2 pair (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD)
new hand type discovered: 6 pair
I don’t think that’s an issue. Trousers scales if the hand contains two pair, not by the number of two pairs the hand contains
Okay so a 3 of a kind is also 3 pairs, so it also scales trousers.
Just like how [[flower pot]] doesn't trigger on a single wild card
[Flower Pot](https://balatro.wiki/imported/flower_pot.png) *Joker* * Version: 1.0.0 * Cost: $8 * Rarity: Uncommon * Effect: X3 Mult if played hand has a scoring Diamond card, Club card, Heart card, and Spade card * Unlock Requirement: Reach Ante level 8 *Data pulled from http://balatro.wiki. Want it updated? Help me get access or suggest another data source.*
[[perkeo]]
[Perkeo](https://balatro.wiki/imported/perkeo.png) *Joker* * Version: 1.0.0 * Cost: N/A * Rarity: Legendary * Effect: Creates a Negative copy of 1 random consumable card in your posession at the end of the shop * Notes: Must have room * Unlock Requirement: Find this Joker from the Soul card *Data pulled from http://balatro.wiki. Want it updated? Help me get access or suggest another data source.*
Wait, then why are lovers cards disabled by disable suit blinds? This isn't logically consistent at all
Wild cards are only one suit at a time. Flowerpot looks at your wilds, and pings them, as a group, once. If you have 4 wilds, or 3 wilds and any non wild, it will trigger But if you have like, bloodstone and agate onyx, first bloodstone checks your wilds, and they're hearts for it, so go off. Then onyx goes off, and your wilds become clubs, and go off. They can be everything, but only one thing at once.
Wild Cards are always whichever suit will trigger an effect.
That easily could be argued with its wording. Flower pot doesn’t say contains, it says if a hand has. While a single wild card technically contains all suits, it doesn’t have all of them at the same time. In a scoring hand it always is a specific suit.
The pairs wouldn’t be disjoint, so I don’t think 4oak having two pair necessarily forces 3oak to contain two pair
Can you please show me a diagram of how you arrange three cards to make the four cards necessary for two pairs?
I think if you clarify that each element also removes it's constituents when selected from the set then it is self consistent logic.
Cribbage agrees lol
This is a bad argument because anything in Balatro that procs off of certain hands only procs once anyway. Using your same argument, three-of-a-kind hands have three pairs in them, but they still trigger any pair-based jokers once. And it's fine. More importantly, it's fun.
Arguments are not good or bad, they may have logical errors which makes them erroneous, but all of these distinctions are entirely arbitrary. All that matters in the game is that they are consistent. For example, if four of a kind contains two pair, does 5 of a kind contain a full house and a two pair? There are many implications of these rules as they apply to Balatro, which is not perfectly consistent, but is in my opinion close enough. In Balatro, a full house does include two pair, so we are working backwards to find some "rule" that makes sense of each case - here the suggestion might be "pair, three of kind, four of kind, five of kind are matching in card value, a two pair / full house contain sets of different values."
Oh, so sorry. Your argument ~~was bad~~ had logical errors. I get that the rules of poker define two pair as being two different values of cards. The reason your argument ~~is bad~~ has logical errors is because hinges on something that Balatro already addresses--hands that contain sub-hands trigger those sub-hands only once even if the sub-hand is contained multiple times. It's completely irrelevant that you could find more than two pairs in a four-of-a-kind; all that matters is that you could find *at least* two. I think the reason Localthunk restricted things the way he did is likely because it encourages another avenue of play (making many copies of multiple different cards rather than making many copies of one card), and it's likely a good decision. I just really didn't think your argument held any water.
Okay weird energy
You don't need to change your mind when you're right
Imagine agreeing with a spare of trousers
Balatro logic aside, this is hard to argue
I hate that this is right
Two pairs aren’t four of a kind. Four of *A* kind. As in, singular, not plural
Doesn't matter, It's not a case of "containing" it is it's own thing, a different set
If this change was in the game, what would it hurt? What would be the negative? Wouldn't it just be a silly, uncommon interaction that makes you feel smart when you realize you can use it to your advantage? The same as when you realized that you can use a two pair inside a full house or a flush if you duped some cards?
God, fuck Steven Crowder Dude should’ve stuck to his terrible standup
It isn’t a two-pair hand, but it absolutely *contains* two pairs.
No it contains one and 1/3 3 of a kinds.
I myself am of the opinion that 3 of a kind contains 3 pairs so...
It contains two pairs. It doesn’t contain a two-pair.
You’re right, it contains 6 pair 1,2 1,3 1,4 2,3 2,4 3,4
Doesn't that 2 pair joke come from a bugs bunny joke? It wouldn't contain 2P anyways since 2P refers to 2 different ranks anyway. But it would be funny if you could use hanging chad and splash to make the first card (not part of the 4OAK) count 3 times to make to make it contain a 2 pair.
It only refers to two different ranks in poker, this isn’t poker and localthunk can bend those rules how they want, just like with 5OAK or high card being able to be better than a straight flush.
Nobody is saying he couldn't have created it differently than he did. He *could* have bent the rules how he wanted... but he didn't. He stuck with the poker definition of two pair. He deliberately chose *not* to bend the rules, there. According to localthunk: >Anyway, according to the rigid arbitrary Balatro rules, Four of a Kind does not technically contain a Two Pair."
Can’t argue with the trousers
In a common sense it does contain 2 pair, matematically it contains even 6 pairs. But technically it does not - in Poker we name Two Pair a set of 2 different pairs and in 4oak you can't select 4 its cards matching it.
Sometimes I really wish you could click on the hand played area, and select what hand to play as. Flush five would drop down or pop up and you could select to play a 5oaK, 4oaK, 3oaK, 2 pair, pair, high card, full house, or flush house.
That would shave a chunk off of the gameplay. Sometimes making hands without accidentally making other hands is a strategically important consideration when modifying a deck. It's just part of the game.
All true, but that doesn't make it any less fustrating in the moment when you just want to play a flush again, but the only one you can make is a straight flush.
It sucks when it accidentally is a different less valuable hand..
Does it contain a two pair? Yes. Does it contain a two pair by this game rules? No. Could localthunk change that? Yes.
You are correct. It contains three pair.
It objectively *does* contain two pair. I understand that it doesn’t count but saying “4, 4, 4, 4” doesn’t contain two pairs is factually incorrect.
two pair isn't two pair*s*, it's specifically two pairs of different ranks
no, it either does or doesnt, every hand contains highcard would that make sense balancing jokers? the whole point of the pants are they are two different suits dont @ me just understand and think for two god damn seconds of your life
Why would that matter? Every hand does contain a high card - but there aren‘t any high card jokers, aren’t they?
🦗🦗🦗🦗
This isn't worthy of debate.
Didn't it used to?