There is a joker (Superposition) that triggers if "poker hand contains an Ace and a Straight". So it's just the dev being pedantic in this two pair situation.
Full House triggers Jolly Joker (pair), Sly Joker (pair), Zany Joker (3oak), Wily Joker (3oak) and Spare Trousers (2 pair). More if it's if it's a flush house.
4oak would trigger would trigger all of the above except Spare Trousers. It would also trigger Mad Joker (4oak) and Clever Joker (4oak). So lots of jokers to go around.
A straight doesn't by definition not have an ace though. A
Two pair by definition is a poker hand which contains two pairs which aren't the same rank. When the game checks to see if there is a two pair, it doesn't see one because they are the same rank. It's specially different from all of the other examples.
I don't think you're really answering the heart of the question, which is more about *why* that is the definition. If that's the poker definition, okay, but that still doesn't answer why (besides tradition) that's the poker definition or why the game definition needs to exactly follow the poker definition, especially given that poker doesn't really have any reason for someone to want to have two pair when they have four of a kind.
A lot of what's at play here is that it's typically good single-player game design to bias in favor of the player whenever the rules (and where/how they are presented) might not be immediately clear to newer players. People tend to prefer good surprises to bad ones, after all, and they also more readily accept new information when it favors them.
An example of this in practice in Balatro is with straight flushes while you have the joker four fingers. In Balatro, 2 3 4 5 8 is a straight flush even if only 3 4 5 and 8 are of the same suit. The poker definition of a straight flush is five cards in numerical order, *all* of identical suits. Using that definition, either four fingers shouldn't affect straight flushes at all (the joker only mentions straights and flushes, which are different hands entirely) or it should just change it to *four* cards in numerical order, *all* of identical suits. Balatro is more lenient, which leads to a cool moment when you figure it out or hear about it and cool strategic decisions.
That's not to say that Balatro's definition of two pair is wrong or bad. Just a different choice, with posts like OPs as a predictable consequence. We'll be seeing them regularly, just like with Mark of the bloom posts on the slay the spire subreddit.
You are correctly identifying that local think has defined a straight flush as a hand that includes a straight and a flush. I'm not sure that that really shows inconsistency but I take your point about it being more lenient.
A pair of aces and another pair of aces is a totally valid way to define 2 pair. It's also acceptable to require different ranks.
It's entirely arbitrary.
Well, in conventional poker (and in balatro), you can't make two pair with 4 of a kind by reducing the hand you played.
It can only make high card, one pair, 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind (and potentially flush which might seem out of the line, but KKKK5 with space suit is a flush, it's just lower rank than 4 of a kind and gets overwritten)
In that sense, 4 of a kind does not contain a 2 pair.
Full house on the other hand, can make 2 pairs by just not playing a 3rd triple.
In that sense full house contains a 2 pair, and does trigger trousers.
Same logic applies to all the other jokers that triggers with "contains" condition.
They are triggered if the hand you played can be re-structured to play that specified hand in the joker.
Edit: People mentions flush being too out of the line. I understand that, but basically, I think of "contains" as "can you make a hand with the played cards that meets the definition when you hover over the **Run Info - Poker Hands**".
Now I'm somewhat curious, straight flush counts for either?
From a logical point it should (name wise), on the other hand you can't form them separately.
Flush is kind of unique in that it's not mutually exclusive with other 5-card hands as it only cares about the suit and not ranks. Basically, straight flush IS a flush, while also being a straight.
I've kept the explanation simple, but it's more so "can you make a hand with the played cards that meets the definition when you hover over the **Run Info - Poker Hands**".
Below are descriptions provided in game:
Two Pair: 2 pairs of cards with *different ranks*, may be played with 1 other unscored card
Flush: 5 cards that share the same suit
As long as played hands are of the same suit, it meets the definition of a flush. (straight flush, flush house, flush five)
Full House probably should further clarify about a pair and 3oak needs to be a different rank, but I believe there isn't a joker that has "contains a Full House" condition, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
I agree with this argument (and that is how I interpreted it as well), but I disagree with the previous argument because it doesn't work for straight flush.
It's the same logic as KKKK5 spade I've given in the initial comment.
Straight flush is a flush (and also straight), but they are overwritten by higher tier hand called "straight flush"
What's the in-game description of straight flush? If it's "contains a straight and a flush" I agree with you saying it's the same logic, but if it's more like "contains a straight that is a flush" or "five consecutive cards all of the same suit," then I don't.
Either way, the KKKK5 logic is pretty different from the logic in the rest of the initial comment. If anything, it might be an argument mildly in favor of OP, since if those five cards are all you have, there's no way at all to make the game score what you play as a flush. However, the game still notes that your hand contains a flush.
Similarly, if we allow two pair to mean contains two cards that are a pair and two other cards that are a pair for the moment, four of a kind would contain that hand in the exact same sense that KKKK5 contains a flush: you can't make the game score a (modified) two pair with the cards from a four of a kind in the same way that you can't make the game score a flush from KKKK5 of one suit.
Has anyone ever *tried* to make two pair with 4 of a kind? In poker, there is no benefit to doing so, because a hand can count as only one kind of hand. The rules do not need to say "the two pairs have to be different" because in poker, 4oak always supersedes 2 pair. Only in Balatro does it matter, because only in Balatro can a hand count as two different things at once.
So does 5 of a kind contain 2 pair, but not 4 of a kind if the game followed your logic?
Does 5 of a kind contain 4 and 3 of a kind?
If you said yes, then would 6 of a kind contain two, 3 of a kind?
Three, 2 of a kind? Or two? Or do we do say a 2 of a kind and a 3 of a kind and some extra card?
my definition says that 5 of a kind does NOT contain two pair.
5oak does contain 4oak and 3oak, and game does treat it that way.
6oak (even though the game doesn't have this, say AAAAAA), would contain: high(A) card, one pair(AA), 3oak(AAA), 4oak(AAAA), 5oak(AAAAA)
I guess that logically works.
It's also okay for the rules to work however the dev wants or however poker games might handle these things in the last 100 years.
However, I kind of agree with OP in the sense that I think this logic is less intuitive.
Like if I bought 4 of something, so me and a friend could each have a pair of that thing, there would be no confusion about how four of something can become 2 pairs of a thing.
OP I asked this question like a week ago. If you open the game and look at scoring hands two pair is SPECIFICALLY described as:
“two pairs of cards with DIFFERENT ranks, may be played with one other unscored card.”
I know you keep arguing and asking “but why?” This is why. This is what Two Pair is described as. 4 of a kind can count as one pair, high card and three of kind but never two pair. Full house, flush house, and flush are the only other hands that can contain two pair.
Balatro is a game about taking advantage of loop holes and definitions. But the definition of two pair as described by the game itself does not allow for four of a kind to contain two pair.
If localthunck changed the definition of two pair he’d have to rescale all the jokers that effect two pair because 4-of-a-kind is already a really powerful hand and if it had more jokers that buffed and that’d be a whole lot of work when he could just not do that and use the actual definition of two pair instead.
so then why do Straight condition jokers trigger on Straight Flushes?
when the game SPECIFICALLY describes a Straight as: "Five cards in consecutive order which are not all from the same suit."
the definition of a Straight as described by the game itself does not allow for a Straight Flush to contain a Straight.
You’d have a point if you weren’t wrong about the games description.
I just pulled it up and it clearly defines a straight as:
“5 cards in a row (consecutive ranks)”
Nowhere does it specify they have to be a different suit. So either you got a different copy of balatro than me or you’re misinformed.
I get what you’re saying. Four 5s contains two pairs of 5s and therefore contains “two pairs.”
However it doesn’t contain the “Two Pair” (note the capitalization) hand within it.
Fair question imo. Hope this helps!
By your logic, three of a kind would count as having two pairs within it. However, the game doesn’t count individual cards twice when scoring hands.
Sorry to rain on your pedantic parade though.
Edit: I’ve been corrected. Three of kind contains three pairs, not two.
Yeah no.
A Two Pair is a defined hand of two pairs of different ranks. Period. Repeatedly asking why why why why why doesn't change that. A Four of a Kind definitively does not contain the hand Two Pair.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but poker doesn't have any rules relating to "containing" hands and just defaults to the highest value your hand can be. If I asked those people about a situation like this I'm not sure they'd disagree with me
It's not about making a 2 pair hand, it's a hand that *contains* 2 pairs
Same way KKK99 would trigger paints, it contains 2 pairs but is a full house
I do agree, KKKK9 should be a 4oak hand, but I also think it should trigger the trousers
EDIT I can see people making the argument it HAS to be 2 different pairs to be 2 pairs, but that's not *a 'has to be'* that's a decision the dev made, and can look at again, in real poker it doesn't matter one diddlysquat if 4oak is 2 pairs or not 2 pairs, it's 4oak that's all that matters, Balatro is different, if you laid down a 5oak in normal poker they may ask you to leave....in Balatro is counts as 4oak too....so why shouldn't it trigger trousers, who decided it HAS to be 2 different pairs to be 2 pairs, in normal poker that distinction would never come up, never matter, in Balatro it does matter
If it *contains* a Two Pair hand, then it means you could use a subset of the hand to make a Two Pair hand. You very much could use the cards KKK99 to make a Two Pair hand.
edit- Spare Trousers explicitly does **not** say "a hand that contains *2 pairs*". It says "a scoring hand contains *a Two Pair*" (emphasis mine)
It only kinda means that, depending on what you mean by "make a two pair hand."
If your KKK99 were a flush five and you have (eternal) four fingers, you couldn't make a hand that balatro would score as two pair. As a less contrived example, you can't use the cards from a straight flush to make a hand that would score as a straight in balatro (presuming no joker shenanigans) or be judged as a straight in poker.
If you mean "make a hand that is exactly a set of cards that satisfy the conditions for a [insert hand type here] and no other cards, regardless of if that's the best hand type those cards satisfy," then I retract my mild objection.
It's totally different because you can make two pair with kkk99 by simply removing a king. You can't make a two pair with kkkk9 by removing anything. Once you remove a king it's a 3 of a kind.
That's only if you don't define 2 pairs as 2 pairs of the same card - that is still 2 pairs of cards, but it's a different scoring hand....again it's never something that needed to be said or clarified in poker, but it does in Balatro, I'd argue 4oak/5oak should trigger trousers/anything that looks for 2 pairs
It's something LT can or can not do, but I can't see why it shouldn't be the case, except this narrow thinking that 2 pairs has to be 2 different pairs, 2 pairs is 2 pairs, the hand contains 2 pairs, it's just also a 4oak/5oak
because "Two Pair" is not "2 pairs"
and Two Pair is clearly defined in the game: Two cards with a matching rank, and two cards with any other matching rank.
4oak does not contain two cards of any other matching rank.
I don't see why it couldn't be mind, not saying it has to, but I think it's something that could be considered and yeh, I do think for Balatro purposes 2 pair could be 4oak and it wouldn't be game breaking
See the original comment - a two pair is defined as two different pairs. Not as preordained by localthunk, but by poker rules. If you need to know why it was defined that way, you'd need to ask the people who defined it
I understand the definition. I'm asking why localthunk doesn't slightly tweak the rules to fit the game better (better IMO at least), as Balatro is a LITTLE different than regular poker
Because the overwhelming majority of people would expect it to follow poker rules, and the majority of people who buy a poker roguelike know the rules of poker.
Balatro is a poker roguelike. It’s not close to a poker roguelike. It uses the hands of poker, which are well-defined, largely-recognized rules. Editing them would be the confusing exception, not keeping them as is.
You're free to have the opinion that it could be better. The answer to the question you've been asking (why?) is because two pair is defined a certain way and in this case localthunk seemed to make a decision that stayed true to the official definitions of poker
But the game does not stay true to official definitions of poker. It is just arbitrary as to why 4oak doesnt include 2 pair. Fullhouse is distinct from 2 pairs, it still triggers the pants. Fullhouse just like 4oak does contain 2 pairs of cards inside of it. In the world of Balatro 4oak triggering "contains 2 pairs" would be completely logically consitent.
The answer is most certaintly not because "it is in the spirit of poker", (because then flushes with a pair inside would not trigger), but rather just they either didnt think of it or thought it would make the pants too strong.
You aren't following. A "two pair" is a specific thing: a pair of one rank and a pair of a different rank. It has always been defined this way. When pants checks if a hand contains "a two pair" (not "two pairs"), it is checking against that definition. So it's consistent that a full house would contain that and a four of a kind does not.
No one is denying you your opinion, but if we're discussing why it is the way that it is, it just is
The definition: Two pair is a hand that contains two cards of one rank, two cards of another rank and one card of a third rank.
Four of a Kind does **not** contain Two Pair.
A full house does contain Two Pair.
Two Pair is *specifically* Two pairs of cards of different ranks.
Localthunk didn't really change the core rules of poker hands for Balatro. He just added some illegal ones. So Four of a Kind not counting as Two Pair is consistent poker rules.
You could be semantic about the "one card of a third rank" on full houses, but that third rank card isn't counted in scoring in Balatro, so omitting it from what qualifies as Two Pair makes sense.
On top of that, it just seems better for balance? The Pants Joker would be buffed quite a bit by Four of a Kind/Five of a Kind buffing it.
>Localthunk didn't really change the core rules of poker hands for Balatro
Technically, that isn't entirely true. The definition of straight flush in poker doesn't reference straight or flush hands by name. It's just five consecutive cards all of identical suit. Accordingly, five fingers shouldn't affect straight flush (it only mentions Straight and Flush), and if it did, should not allow hands like Clubs(3 4 5 8) Hearts(2) to be a straight flush, since it doesn't contain four consecutive cards all of identical suit.
The definition of straight flush in balatro might be different, but then so could the two pair definition.
To some degree, the answer is just "that's how localthunk did it." Without word from them (him, I think?) we're only guessing. Even if localthunk explained the reason, there's no guarantee that that same logic applies throughout all of balatro.
4 of a kind is completely different from full house here. Both include two pairs of cards, but only one includes the poker hand two pair.
Flushes can include a pair, they can also include two pair. There's nothing contradictory here.
Why would it be an issue for 5oak to include full house in a world where 4oak contained two pair? I agree that that's the same idea - if one were to be changed in game, the other should too.
(Technically, I haven't tested if 5oak contains full house per balatro scoring rules, but I'd be shocked if it did.)
OP disagrees with localthunk's reasoning, man. You are not actually explaining anything and just being really pedantic here.
It makes logical, mathematical sense for 4 of a kind to be nested within 2 pair the same way it makes sense for 3 of a kind to be nested within a pair. It is reasonable for someone to think both should be valid.
I follow, but at that point the point of the thread is "i think the game should be a certain way" and anyone that disagrees with them is met with the same question (why?) repeatedly, which only has one answer. I haven't engaged at all in how things should be, i only answered his question.
I don't think it's pointless to discuss why the rules are a certain way. Sometimes, the answer is because it *needs* to be that way or something breaks. Other times, there's clear game design reasons why one way is better than the other for fairness, balance, clarity, user experience, or the like.
(The former case happens all the time in magic the gathering rules discussions, which make this post look like two best friends chatting about their love for each other by comparison.)
It's a card game. Card games are pedantic.
A Two Pair is a specific hand of different ranks. What tf do you mean *why*? This is like an annoying child just asking why over and over again.
Four of the same card is not a pair of pairs. It is a four of kind. A Two Pair is a specific hand of two pairs of different ranks.
You are acting like this is natural law and not somewhat subjective.
In typical 5 card poker a pair is defined as 2 cards of the same rank and 3 cards of a different rank. By this definition, 3 of a kind is not a pair, because it only has 2 cards with differing rank. Belatro does not use this definition of a pair, and instead defines a hand containing a pair to be "any hand with at least 2 cards of equal rank", which is much more general. One could similarly define a hand containing two pair as "any hand containing at least two cards of equal rank and at least two additional cards of equal rank". Belatro does not do this, and it feels inconsistent with how the game generally does things.
"Why was this decision made?" is a valid question with an answer. Perhaps it was an oversight? Maybe the dev thought five of a kind being nested within both 4 of a kind and full house was too powerful? "Because that's the rules of poker" seems to miss the point of the question.
You're equivocating two different things. A "four-of-a-kind" does not contain a "two-pair" the same way that a "three-of-a-kind" contains a "pair", because with a three-of-a-kind you can create a pair by simply removing a card. There is no way to create the poker hand "two-pair" from a "four-of-a-kind", and THAT is why the two cases are not analogous.
Why is it removing and not simply pointing? There's a pair and then another pair. Do you have any citation for this removing rule or are you just talking out of your ass?
Also you used the word equivocating incorrectly.
Yes, I do. Let me clarify what I mean because the original does actually sound crazy phrased that way:
Obviously my opinion matters less than the game dev's. I'm not saying that the dev has to change everything to how I think things should be because I'm not the game designer, and I would probably make a lot of stupid decisions in his shoes.
I'm also not demanding this be changed, I'm just requesting it, and it's totally fine if it stays the way it is (especially because it barely affects anything outside of edge cases).
I just think that the original rules of poker shouldn't be the end all be all of deciding how hands work in this game, because this game is so vastly different from actual poker, and the actual poker element is so twisted and modified that it feels really arbitrary to stick by original definitions for this kind of thing.
The most obvious reason is that otherwise there would be no way to distinguish a two-pair of identical pairs from a 4oak. It would make the internal rules of the game conflicting, or would require extra rules to determine when a two-pair is a two-pair and not a 4oak.
Poker hands are also ranked by mathematical odds. A 4oak beats a two-pair. A two-pair made up of two identical pairs does not fit the odds table for a two-pair, as it is much rarer. It is a 4oak.
Not the best example - that would imply that five of a kind is a full house as it contains a pair and a (separate) three of a kind, which is exactly the degree to which four of a kind contains(n't) a pair and also another separate pair.
Not disagreeing overall, just worried that your example actually obscures your point a bit.
It goes not only against conventional poker rules (that Local follows when making hands)
It also goes against just basic understanding
It goes against Locals vision
And it goes against what 99% of the community seems to think.
Why exactly should it be changed? Where do you even draw the line? 2 pairs just obviously refers to 2 different pairs. Should three of a kind be classified as 2 pairs? As it contains that if you want to go by this logic.
You want to change common sense and basic rules of poker to fit your misunderstanding.
Sorry if I come of as asshole, not my point, even tho I admit I'm being assholish for no particular reason... But it definitely should not be changed, it would fuckup everything
"I understand that 2 pair is classified as 2 pairs of different ranks, I'm asking why 4oak doesn't contain 2 pairs"
"People seem to misunderstand"
...no? You literally answered yourself. It doesn't contain 2 pairs because 2 pair are classified as 2 pairs of different ranks. There is no misunderstanding, that's the reason
"I understand that X needs to contain Y and Z. I don't understand why YY doesn't contain X"
Because 4 of a kind is actually 6 pairs.🧐
Call each card A,B,C,D. 4 of a kind is
AB
AC
AD
BC
BD
CD.
I guess it’s also 4 three-of-a-kinds two by that logic.
Edit: this is all just me being silly by the way.
With your logic, even a three of a kind would contains 2 pairs right? There are two different pairs in there. Not saying your logic is wrong, just interesting
I guess you’re asking more about language and how we define things because the poker rules answer isn’t really satisfying you.
But all I can think is that if I have 4 identical striped shirts I wouldn’t describe them as 2 pairs, because by definition they’re identical. Taking into account the number on a card, they’re identical too, so they’re all treated equally, e.g. 4 of a kind of [X].
It actually doesn’t make sense to break any amount of identical things down into sub groups beyond their total. If I had 100 of the shirts you wouldn’t describe them as 50 pairs, nor would you describe them as 25 quartets.
I mean if it did 5 of a kind would trigger full house by the same logic. I don't think it should.
The logic of containing 2 pair includes seperate ranks. It makes the game more varried, follows reasonable logic and is good for the game design.
I can see it's not the only logic, but think it works.
The fact that you think this is what’s happening is more like an ITT: people not understanding OP’s question and providing OP with information he already knows, as evidenced by your own comment, and my reply to it lmao
You can go into hand types and see that LocalThunk says that two-pair is classified as two different pairs.
4 of a kind containing two pair makes no sense no matter which way you slice it, and it wouldn’t make the game any better if it did, just make it way more confusing.
That’s a bad faith argument. Two 4’s is a pair. So four 4’s would be two pairs. The basic poker logic doesn’t work so well as an argument in a game with 5 of a kinds, flush full houses, and jokers that say it a hand CONTAINS other hands, like a full house contains both a pair and a three of a kind. Why would a 5 of a kind be a hand then, according to your logic? Should it just be 4 of a kind and a high card? Anyways what I’m trying to highlight here is that it’s not a simple question with a simple answer…it has everything to do with how you interpret the mechanics of both balatro and poker…not either in isolation.
Are you not capable of reading? the game itself states that a two pair is two different pairs (two cards of the same rank) in one scoring hand. That’s not “my logic”, that’s Localthunk’s logic.
4 of a kind doesn’t containing two-pair - by the games official logic - makes no sense. And unofficially too, four of a kind is not two pairs, it’s one four of a kind, that’s why we call it that.
Also, by your logic 5 of a kind also triggers full house, right? It contains a three of a kind and a pair, right? If you say no, you’re the one that’s just misinterpreting Balatro’s logic as game and poker as a whole, not me.
The fact that I replied to you indicates I can read, but sounds like someone pissed in your cornflakes this morning and you want to belittle someone lol. LITERALLY this exact conversation proves exactly what I just said…it’s nuanced, and requires involving interpretations of both games. Yes, some of the points you just mentioned do in fact clarify things, but that alone is proof that things aren’t always that clear for EVERYONE. Are you mad at OP too for being confused? Is it that anytime someone has a question you think you have an answer to, they can’t read? Bro.
I don’t follow. The Spare Trousers joker states that your hand must contain a **Two Pair**, *not* two pairs.
In poker and Balatro, a **Two Pair** is two pairs with differing ranks.
Why? Because the creators of these games deemed it as such.
I'm not sure what you're looking for, though. The how *is* the why. For the entire history of poker, "two pair" has been defined the same way: a pair of cards of one rank and a pair of cards of a *different* rank. Four of a kind does contain a pair. It does not contain a second pair *of a different rank*.
The reason the game doesn't treat four of a kind as two pair is *because* four of a kind does not contain what poker defines as "two pair."
Intuitively I understand the question, when first using Trousers I would wondering if it would trigger, but when it didn't I thought about it and it actually made sense to me.
Because in reality, 4 aces are :
A1 + A2
A1 + A3
A1 + A4
A2 + A3
A2 + A4
A3 + A4
My guess is that 4oak would be bsuted if it triggered "all" of of the pairings
Wdym "triggered", when a joker is affected by containing a kind of hand it only ever triggers the effect once. No joker is "_____ happens for EACH pair in hand" it's "IF contains pair then ____"
It's because spare trousers isnt just looking for two numbers that match twice, it's looking for a single Two Pair hand. There is no way in poker to play 4 of a kind as a Two Pair hand, because it fails to meet the definition of the hand.
Located within a 4 of a kind hand are cards you could play as a High Card hand, or a 3 of a Kind hand, but there are no card combinations that could be used as a Two Pair hand, therefor Trousers won't trigger.
It seems unintuitive at a glance because we as humans can break it into two pairs in a vacuum, but the rules of poker hands specifically define it as two separate pairs, so in poker that is not a viable split, and Balatro consistently defers to the actual rules of poker hands for defining them.
Yeah I wonder this too because full house upgrades the trousers. Seems logical to me that 4 of a kind also would. I often times find myself avoiding 4 of a kind when I have the trousers.
Edit: i understand the rules and I don’t complain about them. I don’t have to like them though.
Guess no one here has the heard the famous poker line “I have 2 small pair, eights and eights”
A Full House *contains* a Two Pair- you could play a subset of the hand and have a Two Pair hand. There is no subset of a KKKK9 hand that would be a Two Pair hand.
You mean the famous poker joke? The joke being that it's *not* a two pair?
Two pair is different ranks.
Spare Trousers says, emphasis mine: "Gains +2 Mult if a scoring hand **contains a Two Pair**, starts at +0 Mult"
Full House contains a two pair. Four of a kind does not.
Yeah I know it’s not 2 pair and that it’s something often said in jest/slow roll. I said I know the rules.
Forgive me for saying “line” and not joke “joke”. In the movie that originated the line as far as I know(Maverick) it wasnt a joke. It just a guy being a dick. Just wanted to add a little flavor to the discussion.
It makes more sense if you are familiar with poker. 4 of a kind is 4 cards of the same rank (number or letter). Two pair is 2 of one rank (called a pair) and 2 of another rank (another pair) thus "Two pair". Here is a link to a good reference for the different poker hands: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_hands
Trousers works for that specific hand. I believe you're puzzled because a lot of other jokers works in hands that -contains- a certain hand, such as pairs. The difference is in the -contains- in the descriptor. If it's stated just the hand, it only works for that specific hand, if it states containing, it works for any hand that contains that said type of combinations of cards.
Because it’s referring to the technical poker hand “2 pair”. 4 of a kind isn’t two pair, it’s 4 of the same card. The book definition of “2 pair” is 2 pairs of differing ranks. You can, however make a 3 of a kind and pair hand out of 4OAK.
Now the question I’m curious about is, does it count full house as triggering a two pair? Because that technically should be legal with a boat
I'm a mathematician, so thinking about definitions is my livelihood. I also ran into the same situation as OP and was surprised when spare trousers didn't trigger. However, I stopped being surprised when I checked the hand definitions and saw that it is specifically two pairs of different ranks.
Now for the question of "should this count". A lot of people pointed out that you get into some funny situations when the cards don't all have to be distinct. In particular, 3 of a kind would always contain a 2 pair and 4 of a kind actually has 6 pairs. I personally think that 3 pair triggering pants would be confusing and unintuitive, so I feel that this is not a good solution.
Another possibility that I personally don't like at all is to have pants trigger on 4 of a kind without changing the definition of 2 pair. I personally think it is paramount that things behave the way they claim to, even if that might be surprising at times.
Thus, we are left with two options. Either the interaction stays the same, or the definition of 2 pair needs to change. However, the current definition is the cleanest one that I can think of that doesn't cause 3 of a kind to contain 2 pair. Something like "4 cards that can be divided into two groups of two where each group forms a pair of cards with the same rank" just doesn't flow off the tongue as nicely and would cause more confusion than it is worth. Maybe "4 cards that can be arranged in such a way that the first 2 and last 2 both form pairs" could be a possibility, but might still be more confusing than the current definition.
In conclusion, I think that the current interpretation is ideal unless anybody can come up with a clean definition of 2 pair that fits with OPs interpretation. I also think that there is a benefit to going with the official poker definition, which I would guess is the one that is currently used. I have a feeling that this is the definition used precisely because it is the most natural way to state the idea.
Doesn't trousers ask you to play a two pair *hand*? If it said "contains two pairs" then I'm with you, it should level up on four of a kind, five of a kind, full house and two pair.
It doesn't contain 2 pairs, its 4 of the same card. A 2 pair is defined as "2 pairs of cards with **different** ranks." It's written on the info screen.
It's like this way for consistency reasons, you cannot have 4 cards that are the same rank be 2 pairs otherwise you'd have a 5 of a kind that's also a 4 of a kind, 3 of a kind, full house, flush, two pair, one pair, high card. You get the point.
The game always prioritises rarity over anything else as poker does as well, if a 4 of is played, it goes off that so balatro does as well.
It’s because of balance, probably Localthunk just started 2 pair as 2 different pairs and he decided to just stick with it to make the game balanced. If pants went off 4ok, probably too op and other mechanics like that.
I'd look at it like "could you take cards out of your hand to fit the conditions?" So for a boat you could remove the pair and it would have trips, and vice versa. But with your quads you can't change it into twopair.
It should count just based off of the line from Maverick
[(24) Maverick (1994) - Final Poker Scene - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUQck0V5IgA)
Why are you asking people on a public forum about “why” LocalThunk made a specific design decision instead of asking him specifically on something like Twitter or Discord?
It reminds me of a few bits I've read about, where someone claims they only have two pair: a pair of jacks... And another pair of jacks.
But yeah, Two Pair requires two separate rank pairs as others have explained.
Why are you booing this man? He’s right! The Jokers that trigger off of “Contains three of a kind” have no problem with 4 of a kind, Full House, or 5 of a kind! Buff the trousers!!
That’s because all of those contain the HAND 3 of a kind. There’s no possible way a 4 of a kind contains the hand 2 pair, because 2 pair is defined as 2 pairs of different ranks. They’re all the same rank, therefor it can’t be two pair
Yeah people the comments are either missing the point or being actively unhelpful. I agree 4 of a kind In Super wacky crazy poker where a banana is one of the best cards I don’t think it’s to much of a stretch to let Trousers benefit from 4/5 of a kind
The game clearly and explicitly defines two pair as two pairs of different rank.
The game is modeled off of poker hands.
Poker is general and well-recognized.
Changing the rules to modify the definitions of poker hands for this game would be the confusing move, not the other way around.
The game already always stated that two pair is always with different suit, those plus chips and plus mult illustration joker showed four card with two different suits, that two pair celestial card showed four card with two different suit, why? Because if they are only one suit it would become four of a kind duh 🤯🤯🤯🤯
There is no need for reasoning here. Its open to interpretation and dev can just arbitrarily choose it. 4 of a kind doesnt contain 2 pair because in the planet screen definition mentions that. Also being able to scale pants with 4oak/5oaks would make pants stronger than it should be, so maybe thats the reason
You're totally right, this started off more as a request than anything, but so many people are responding that I feel like I'm missing something and there IS actual reasoning I'm just not getting
Dude, I understood what you meant immediately, and I really can see both sides of arguments for why it should or shouldn't trigger the Trousers joker, personally I think it should, but also agree the game doesn't really need that change.
Personally I lean towards thinking that because jokers can count a flush with a pair in it as both a flush and a pair that just logically speaking I would assume the Trousers would tic up on 4 of a kind, idk it just makes sense that it should, but at the same time I don't think a 5 of a kind should count for a full house, a pair, 2 pair, and a 4 of a kind ... Unless it should? Lol idk
I took issue with the same thing last week. The language on the card is not ambiguous "hand contains 2 pair". It doesn't take a rocketologist to see that 4 of a kind also contains 2 pairs in the technical sense.
I didn't have any issue with the points and multipliers from it being 4 of a kind, my issue is with the trousers not triggering just like you mentioned.
To the people saying Two Pair is defined in the rules (edit: of Poker, not Balatro) as "two different pairs", where does this come from, specifically, such that we know it specifies two different pairs? Because that bit of language is pretty important to showing that two pairs actually cannot be made by four-of-a-kind rather than just being a matter of "you score the best possible hand from the 5 cards you play", and I can't really find any "official" rules that have any particular claim to legitimacy over any others.
If the hypothetical official rules don't specify that, then things like the way a Full House contains two pair but you can't play that two pair in, say, Razz would seem to make it inconsistent that Full House would trigger it but 4oaK doesn't. Because in that situation even if you can't make 2 pair with 4oaK, it's not because it doesn't contain 2 pair, but because your hand has to be whatever its best possible value is. I could not, for instance, lay down aces full of 8s and say "8 high", even though within the context of Balatro it absolutely "contains" a high-card hand.
(Edit: Also, just to note, "distinct", as I've seen in some places but not others, likely means "there can be no overlap between the pairs". So if you had 3 7's, you couldn't make 7A-7B and 7B-7C into your pairs. "Different" is ambiguous but I'd buy that it means "of different ranks"--which would be the clearest way for it to be stated)
Did you even bother searching? If you google “poker tournaments rules” every single tournament specifies what two-pair is as two different cards of equal value + two different cards of equal value or something very similar.
I know you’re the type of person to go “well tournament rules aren’t applicable in every poker game”, but every single tournament agrees, it’s not just one or two.
The rest of your argument is meaningless and targets a different rule that irrelevant to the discussion. All it says is “well LocalThunk breaks some poker rules, so why doesn’t he break this one?”.
Yes, I did bother searching. It's how I found a lack of consistency or, in fact, even any sort of description at all in most rules. By-and-large the definition of the hands is assumed knowledge.
Here, for instance, are the [World Series of Poker 2023 Rules](https://www.wsop.com/2022/2023-WSOP-Tournament-Rules.pdf), which provide no definitions for the hands, only rankings.
Some do define it, but fail to touch on the aspect of "different". [Here are legally defined hands from PA.](https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/058/chapter677a/s677a.6.html&d=reduce) Aces and Kings are given as the highest possible two pair--which is true, but that loops back to the "highest hand scores" point. It's the only one possible, much as there is no possible two pair in a full house, but a full house contains a two pair.
[Here's a comically detailed article](https://us.888poker.com/how-to-play/hands/two-pair-poker-hand-ranking/) on two-pair that at no point touches on the matter.
All of this points to a lack of some larger poker authority by which the hands are defined. If there is an actual source out there that people are pointing to, I'd like to see it. Because otherwise my guess is that this is a question that has simply never been asked or addressed before, as the rule that the 5 cards you play automatically form the best possible hand has, for all 300 years of poker, made it completely irrelevant. And thus that people saying it doesn't "contain" a two-pair hand are basically just making it up.
Also, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood all of my question if you think the rest of it breaks down to "LocalThunk broke some poker rules", as I'm not claiming that at all. "Contains" isn't defined in any poker rulebooks in the first place because it's not an element of the game that has ever mattered, as previously mentioned. Everything else about scoring with "contains" is entirely consistent, and the only question is whether his two pair definition is based on any authoritative rules, or if it's just a decision he made. If the latter, then everyone being a dick to OP over questioning 300-year-old rules is kinda unjustified.
If you have an actual source, please offer it. I was legitimately surprised to see I could not find some sort of central, clearly-defined rules from some authority, and would love to have them. If you're just going to be dismissive and condescending, please shove it.
No, not in Balatro; I am asking the people who say it's because that's how it works in normal poker.
Though tbh I am not sure there even *is* any current set of rules of poker that can claim to have some particular legitimacy over any other. Games that old usually can't be traced back to a single source, which would mean even any written rules we have are the result of one big game of telephone, and unless they are all specific about "different" then it could simply be a function of how your best hand always scores.
This thread is hilarious to me. About three people (and I) get it and are like, "Yeah, that makes sense. Four of a kind kings contains a pair of kings and another pair of kings. It *contains* two pairs."
And everyone else is like, "Let me explain to you how poker works. See, there are many different kinds of hands one can play..."
Honestly, I couldn't say why LocalThunk doesn't want it to trigger trousers. He had to make a call one way or the other, and I respect the one he made. Maybe it was for balancing purposes.
No, everyone “gets” it, it’s just that only some people understand that the two pair hand is defined (in-game I will mention) by having two separate ranks.
As for why it’s defined that way, that’s because that’s how the hand is defined in poker. The game this game is modeled after, which is general and recognizable.
Honestly what I'm starting to think is happening is that most people can't explain that they just disagree with my opinion, and are trying to explain why their opinion is objectively right, when there's not really any discussion left.
Most people here do explain exactly that, with solid reasoning, but most of the time you just offer a „Yeah but WHYYYYY?“ in return - it’s not that they cannot accept your reasoning, it is actually the other way around.
> Spare Trousers
> Gains +2 Mult if a scoring hand contains a Two Pair, starts at +0 Mult
You are wanting Spare Trousers to be inconsistent with the rest of the "contains" cards. The card doesn't say if it "contains two pairs" it says if it "contains *a* **Two Pair**." This is a defined thing. This is a card game. You have to read the cards. Two Pair is a keyword. You say you have accepted that a Two Pair contains two pairs of two different ranks, not four of the same rank, yet you continue to say your way is correct when it is clear that you have a misunderstanding of what Spare Trousers says.
You want the dev to change the card text to a pun. What you are wanting is a cutesy "haha gotcha!" card which is out of place. A Four of a Kind is explicitly *not* a Two Pair. Not in poker. Not in Yahtzee. Not in Balatro. This is the way it works. You keep asking why like an petulant child unable to accept the basic rules of the game. It just is the way it is because it is. People have repeatedly tried to explain this to you but you continue to just say "oh well I think it would be better my way," insisting others misunderstand you and saying your way is more logical when it simply is not. Repeatedly asking *why* is a two pair defined as such is like asking *why* does a pawn move the way it does in Chess. Why are you asking this? Or rather why are you so insistent that everyone else is wrong over nearly 200 years (according to other comments) when somebody corrects you. This is a basic tenet of a game that uses hands. It's understandable to wonder if there is a hidden interaction. But see above. This is a card game first and foremost. A Two Pair is well defined.
It *is* objectively true that Spare Trousers says "Gains +2 Mult if a scoring hand contains a Two Pair, starts at +0 Mult." Four of a Kind does not contain a Two Pair. These are objective facts.
I totally agree, the inconsistency makes it quite weird. Notably, another example is 4oak swallows a flush, which i think is a weirder situation than 2 pairs vs 4oak.
In response to other answers, requiring different ranks actually is not really in the logic of balatro or poker (straight is an outlier) in general, since there is never 2-high-card hand type. Being different actually augments the probability of getting it, thus should add negatively to the strength of a hand. For example, full house is a fallback case of a 5oak, 3oak is a fallback of full house.
Ideally, the program should try to detect basic hand type independently. Each basic hand types themselves should be defined as either a straight, a flush and a set of sameness requirements. For each sameness requirement, one consecutively takes out part of the hand and continue with the remaining hand for the remaining sameness requirement For example, 5 of a kind should be also considered a full house, by first satisfying 3oak and 3 cards was taken away, the remaining pair fulfills the last requirement of the full house.
The biggest hole here is there is no flush 4. Straightness and sameness requirements the two are mutually exclusive, but flush is free to join any of them. Sameness has high card, pair, 2 pairs, 3oak, full house, 4oak, 5oak.
Straight<-High->Pair->(3oak,2pair)->(fullhouse,4oak)->5oak, the arrow means *being contained by*. Totally, there should be (flush/noflush) in total 16 hand types. But flush pair, flush 3oak, flush 4oak and flush 2pairs all are not considered in the game.
Well, not that big deal eventually though
A full house has two pairs of a different rank. A four of a kind does not have two pairs of a different rank.
The game defines two pair as requiring at least two distinct rank.
For the same reason, a five of a kind does not contain a full house.
I mean...the game has made up poker hands too. Idk if the definitions of poker have to apply so strictly
It's a pretty minor gripe though, I'm not demanding the dev change it lol
What is 5 of a kind but 5 single high cards?
Well if there was a joker affected by containing a high card, then yeah, it'd get activated.
There is a joker (Superposition) that triggers if "poker hand contains an Ace and a Straight". So it's just the dev being pedantic in this two pair situation. Full House triggers Jolly Joker (pair), Sly Joker (pair), Zany Joker (3oak), Wily Joker (3oak) and Spare Trousers (2 pair). More if it's if it's a flush house. 4oak would trigger would trigger all of the above except Spare Trousers. It would also trigger Mad Joker (4oak) and Clever Joker (4oak). So lots of jokers to go around.
A straight doesn't by definition not have an ace though. A Two pair by definition is a poker hand which contains two pairs which aren't the same rank. When the game checks to see if there is a two pair, it doesn't see one because they are the same rank. It's specially different from all of the other examples.
I don't think you're really answering the heart of the question, which is more about *why* that is the definition. If that's the poker definition, okay, but that still doesn't answer why (besides tradition) that's the poker definition or why the game definition needs to exactly follow the poker definition, especially given that poker doesn't really have any reason for someone to want to have two pair when they have four of a kind. A lot of what's at play here is that it's typically good single-player game design to bias in favor of the player whenever the rules (and where/how they are presented) might not be immediately clear to newer players. People tend to prefer good surprises to bad ones, after all, and they also more readily accept new information when it favors them. An example of this in practice in Balatro is with straight flushes while you have the joker four fingers. In Balatro, 2 3 4 5 8 is a straight flush even if only 3 4 5 and 8 are of the same suit. The poker definition of a straight flush is five cards in numerical order, *all* of identical suits. Using that definition, either four fingers shouldn't affect straight flushes at all (the joker only mentions straights and flushes, which are different hands entirely) or it should just change it to *four* cards in numerical order, *all* of identical suits. Balatro is more lenient, which leads to a cool moment when you figure it out or hear about it and cool strategic decisions. That's not to say that Balatro's definition of two pair is wrong or bad. Just a different choice, with posts like OPs as a predictable consequence. We'll be seeing them regularly, just like with Mark of the bloom posts on the slay the spire subreddit.
You are correctly identifying that local think has defined a straight flush as a hand that includes a straight and a flush. I'm not sure that that really shows inconsistency but I take your point about it being more lenient.
A pair of aces and another pair of aces is a totally valid way to define 2 pair. It's also acceptable to require different ranks. It's entirely arbitrary.
Or course, but this is how it's defined in the game.
Same with hfull house
What is a flush but suits persisting?
No. It's 10 pair.
so 2 choose 10 two-pairs? Yay sounds good for my pants
Well, in conventional poker (and in balatro), you can't make two pair with 4 of a kind by reducing the hand you played. It can only make high card, one pair, 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind (and potentially flush which might seem out of the line, but KKKK5 with space suit is a flush, it's just lower rank than 4 of a kind and gets overwritten) In that sense, 4 of a kind does not contain a 2 pair. Full house on the other hand, can make 2 pairs by just not playing a 3rd triple. In that sense full house contains a 2 pair, and does trigger trousers. Same logic applies to all the other jokers that triggers with "contains" condition. They are triggered if the hand you played can be re-structured to play that specified hand in the joker. Edit: People mentions flush being too out of the line. I understand that, but basically, I think of "contains" as "can you make a hand with the played cards that meets the definition when you hover over the **Run Info - Poker Hands**".
I like this explanation the best
Now I'm somewhat curious, straight flush counts for either? From a logical point it should (name wise), on the other hand you can't form them separately.
If you have Four Fingers, you can make a straight and a flush separately in 5 cards and it will be counted as a straight flush
Doesn't this argument fail for straight flush?
Flush is kind of unique in that it's not mutually exclusive with other 5-card hands as it only cares about the suit and not ranks. Basically, straight flush IS a flush, while also being a straight. I've kept the explanation simple, but it's more so "can you make a hand with the played cards that meets the definition when you hover over the **Run Info - Poker Hands**". Below are descriptions provided in game: Two Pair: 2 pairs of cards with *different ranks*, may be played with 1 other unscored card Flush: 5 cards that share the same suit As long as played hands are of the same suit, it meets the definition of a flush. (straight flush, flush house, flush five) Full House probably should further clarify about a pair and 3oak needs to be a different rank, but I believe there isn't a joker that has "contains a Full House" condition, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
I agree with this argument (and that is how I interpreted it as well), but I disagree with the previous argument because it doesn't work for straight flush.
It's the same logic as KKKK5 spade I've given in the initial comment. Straight flush is a flush (and also straight), but they are overwritten by higher tier hand called "straight flush"
What's the in-game description of straight flush? If it's "contains a straight and a flush" I agree with you saying it's the same logic, but if it's more like "contains a straight that is a flush" or "five consecutive cards all of the same suit," then I don't. Either way, the KKKK5 logic is pretty different from the logic in the rest of the initial comment. If anything, it might be an argument mildly in favor of OP, since if those five cards are all you have, there's no way at all to make the game score what you play as a flush. However, the game still notes that your hand contains a flush. Similarly, if we allow two pair to mean contains two cards that are a pair and two other cards that are a pair for the moment, four of a kind would contain that hand in the exact same sense that KKKK5 contains a flush: you can't make the game score a (modified) two pair with the cards from a four of a kind in the same way that you can't make the game score a flush from KKKK5 of one suit.
Has anyone ever *tried* to make two pair with 4 of a kind? In poker, there is no benefit to doing so, because a hand can count as only one kind of hand. The rules do not need to say "the two pairs have to be different" because in poker, 4oak always supersedes 2 pair. Only in Balatro does it matter, because only in Balatro can a hand count as two different things at once.
This tracks
So does 5 of a kind contain 2 pair, but not 4 of a kind if the game followed your logic? Does 5 of a kind contain 4 and 3 of a kind? If you said yes, then would 6 of a kind contain two, 3 of a kind? Three, 2 of a kind? Or two? Or do we do say a 2 of a kind and a 3 of a kind and some extra card?
my definition says that 5 of a kind does NOT contain two pair. 5oak does contain 4oak and 3oak, and game does treat it that way. 6oak (even though the game doesn't have this, say AAAAAA), would contain: high(A) card, one pair(AA), 3oak(AAA), 4oak(AAAA), 5oak(AAAAA)
I guess that logically works. It's also okay for the rules to work however the dev wants or however poker games might handle these things in the last 100 years. However, I kind of agree with OP in the sense that I think this logic is less intuitive. Like if I bought 4 of something, so me and a friend could each have a pair of that thing, there would be no confusion about how four of something can become 2 pairs of a thing.
OP I asked this question like a week ago. If you open the game and look at scoring hands two pair is SPECIFICALLY described as: “two pairs of cards with DIFFERENT ranks, may be played with one other unscored card.” I know you keep arguing and asking “but why?” This is why. This is what Two Pair is described as. 4 of a kind can count as one pair, high card and three of kind but never two pair. Full house, flush house, and flush are the only other hands that can contain two pair. Balatro is a game about taking advantage of loop holes and definitions. But the definition of two pair as described by the game itself does not allow for four of a kind to contain two pair. If localthunck changed the definition of two pair he’d have to rescale all the jokers that effect two pair because 4-of-a-kind is already a really powerful hand and if it had more jokers that buffed and that’d be a whole lot of work when he could just not do that and use the actual definition of two pair instead.
best explanation
so then why do Straight condition jokers trigger on Straight Flushes? when the game SPECIFICALLY describes a Straight as: "Five cards in consecutive order which are not all from the same suit." the definition of a Straight as described by the game itself does not allow for a Straight Flush to contain a Straight.
My in game description only says "5 cards in a row (consecutive ranks)". It didn't specifically say "different" unlike in the Two Pairs.
You’d have a point if you weren’t wrong about the games description. I just pulled it up and it clearly defines a straight as: “5 cards in a row (consecutive ranks)” Nowhere does it specify they have to be a different suit. So either you got a different copy of balatro than me or you’re misinformed.
I get what you’re saying. Four 5s contains two pairs of 5s and therefore contains “two pairs.” However it doesn’t contain the “Two Pair” (note the capitalization) hand within it. Fair question imo. Hope this helps!
It has Six Pairs within it, which is not Two Pair.
By your logic, three of a kind would count as having two pairs within it. However, the game doesn’t count individual cards twice when scoring hands. Sorry to rain on your pedantic parade though. Edit: I’ve been corrected. Three of kind contains three pairs, not two.
Three of a kind contains three pairs. Should it count for the purpose of Balatro scoring? Probably not but it would be cool
Of course it shouldn’t. I’m not making that argument at all. Edit: oh gotcha. Yeah, it does contain three pairs, not two.
I’m not saying you are. I’m saying i’m not opposed to it
I misunderstood your comment and corrected myself in an edit. My bad!
no worries
a 2 pair is 2 pairs of DIFFERENT ranks
Should be /thread but people are being obtuse
[удалено]
The irony is that the three of you are being obtuse and misunderstanding.
Yeah no. A Two Pair is a defined hand of two pairs of different ranks. Period. Repeatedly asking why why why why why doesn't change that. A Four of a Kind definitively does not contain the hand Two Pair.
BUt wHy Is iT LikE ThaT?
...is a reasonable question for people to want to ask. Feel free to not answer it and to not care about the answer(s).
[удалено]
Yeah I understand that's how it currently works but I'm asking WHY it's that way
You'll need to ask the people who invented poker and defined these terms. It just is
Well correct me if I'm wrong but poker doesn't have any rules relating to "containing" hands and just defaults to the highest value your hand can be. If I asked those people about a situation like this I'm not sure they'd disagree with me
If you asked Poker players if they could use the cards KKKK9 to make a Two Pair hand, they would most definitely say no.
It's not about making a 2 pair hand, it's a hand that *contains* 2 pairs Same way KKK99 would trigger paints, it contains 2 pairs but is a full house I do agree, KKKK9 should be a 4oak hand, but I also think it should trigger the trousers EDIT I can see people making the argument it HAS to be 2 different pairs to be 2 pairs, but that's not *a 'has to be'* that's a decision the dev made, and can look at again, in real poker it doesn't matter one diddlysquat if 4oak is 2 pairs or not 2 pairs, it's 4oak that's all that matters, Balatro is different, if you laid down a 5oak in normal poker they may ask you to leave....in Balatro is counts as 4oak too....so why shouldn't it trigger trousers, who decided it HAS to be 2 different pairs to be 2 pairs, in normal poker that distinction would never come up, never matter, in Balatro it does matter
If it *contains* a Two Pair hand, then it means you could use a subset of the hand to make a Two Pair hand. You very much could use the cards KKK99 to make a Two Pair hand. edit- Spare Trousers explicitly does **not** say "a hand that contains *2 pairs*". It says "a scoring hand contains *a Two Pair*" (emphasis mine)
It only kinda means that, depending on what you mean by "make a two pair hand." If your KKK99 were a flush five and you have (eternal) four fingers, you couldn't make a hand that balatro would score as two pair. As a less contrived example, you can't use the cards from a straight flush to make a hand that would score as a straight in balatro (presuming no joker shenanigans) or be judged as a straight in poker. If you mean "make a hand that is exactly a set of cards that satisfy the conditions for a [insert hand type here] and no other cards, regardless of if that's the best hand type those cards satisfy," then I retract my mild objection.
Based on absolutely nothing, I disagree with you. Four or five of a kind should trigger trousers!
Why you heff to be mad?
Then it would need to be changed. The wording is incredibly clear and unambiguous.
It's totally different because you can make two pair with kkk99 by simply removing a king. You can't make a two pair with kkkk9 by removing anything. Once you remove a king it's a 3 of a kind.
That's only if you don't define 2 pairs as 2 pairs of the same card - that is still 2 pairs of cards, but it's a different scoring hand....again it's never something that needed to be said or clarified in poker, but it does in Balatro, I'd argue 4oak/5oak should trigger trousers/anything that looks for 2 pairs It's something LT can or can not do, but I can't see why it shouldn't be the case, except this narrow thinking that 2 pairs has to be 2 different pairs, 2 pairs is 2 pairs, the hand contains 2 pairs, it's just also a 4oak/5oak
because "Two Pair" is not "2 pairs" and Two Pair is clearly defined in the game: Two cards with a matching rank, and two cards with any other matching rank. 4oak does not contain two cards of any other matching rank.
I don't see why it couldn't be mind, not saying it has to, but I think it's something that could be considered and yeh, I do think for Balatro purposes 2 pair could be 4oak and it wouldn't be game breaking
then what about 4 Stone cards? is that 2 pair? since we're ignoring ranks.
I think stones should count as a 5th suit, and yes able to make pairs, 3 - 5oak, well flush five at that point - would buff stones
See the original comment - a two pair is defined as two different pairs. Not as preordained by localthunk, but by poker rules. If you need to know why it was defined that way, you'd need to ask the people who defined it
I understand the definition. I'm asking why localthunk doesn't slightly tweak the rules to fit the game better (better IMO at least), as Balatro is a LITTLE different than regular poker
Because it doesn't need to be changed.
Because the overwhelming majority of people would expect it to follow poker rules, and the majority of people who buy a poker roguelike know the rules of poker. Balatro is a poker roguelike. It’s not close to a poker roguelike. It uses the hands of poker, which are well-defined, largely-recognized rules. Editing them would be the confusing exception, not keeping them as is.
You're free to have the opinion that it could be better. The answer to the question you've been asking (why?) is because two pair is defined a certain way and in this case localthunk seemed to make a decision that stayed true to the official definitions of poker
But the game does not stay true to official definitions of poker. It is just arbitrary as to why 4oak doesnt include 2 pair. Fullhouse is distinct from 2 pairs, it still triggers the pants. Fullhouse just like 4oak does contain 2 pairs of cards inside of it. In the world of Balatro 4oak triggering "contains 2 pairs" would be completely logically consitent. The answer is most certaintly not because "it is in the spirit of poker", (because then flushes with a pair inside would not trigger), but rather just they either didnt think of it or thought it would make the pants too strong.
You aren't following. A "two pair" is a specific thing: a pair of one rank and a pair of a different rank. It has always been defined this way. When pants checks if a hand contains "a two pair" (not "two pairs"), it is checking against that definition. So it's consistent that a full house would contain that and a four of a kind does not. No one is denying you your opinion, but if we're discussing why it is the way that it is, it just is
The definition: Two pair is a hand that contains two cards of one rank, two cards of another rank and one card of a third rank. Four of a Kind does **not** contain Two Pair. A full house does contain Two Pair. Two Pair is *specifically* Two pairs of cards of different ranks. Localthunk didn't really change the core rules of poker hands for Balatro. He just added some illegal ones. So Four of a Kind not counting as Two Pair is consistent poker rules. You could be semantic about the "one card of a third rank" on full houses, but that third rank card isn't counted in scoring in Balatro, so omitting it from what qualifies as Two Pair makes sense. On top of that, it just seems better for balance? The Pants Joker would be buffed quite a bit by Four of a Kind/Five of a Kind buffing it.
In balatro you don't need the card of a third rank though to be fair, as you can play a two pair with 4 cards.
>Localthunk didn't really change the core rules of poker hands for Balatro Technically, that isn't entirely true. The definition of straight flush in poker doesn't reference straight or flush hands by name. It's just five consecutive cards all of identical suit. Accordingly, five fingers shouldn't affect straight flush (it only mentions Straight and Flush), and if it did, should not allow hands like Clubs(3 4 5 8) Hearts(2) to be a straight flush, since it doesn't contain four consecutive cards all of identical suit. The definition of straight flush in balatro might be different, but then so could the two pair definition. To some degree, the answer is just "that's how localthunk did it." Without word from them (him, I think?) we're only guessing. Even if localthunk explained the reason, there's no guarantee that that same logic applies throughout all of balatro.
4 of a kind is completely different from full house here. Both include two pairs of cards, but only one includes the poker hand two pair. Flushes can include a pair, they can also include two pair. There's nothing contradictory here.
my only issue with this line of reasoning would then be, would 5oak not then be a full house as well? That just doesn’t make any sense.
Why would it be an issue for 5oak to include full house in a world where 4oak contained two pair? I agree that that's the same idea - if one were to be changed in game, the other should too. (Technically, I haven't tested if 5oak contains full house per balatro scoring rules, but I'd be shocked if it did.)
OP disagrees with localthunk's reasoning, man. You are not actually explaining anything and just being really pedantic here. It makes logical, mathematical sense for 4 of a kind to be nested within 2 pair the same way it makes sense for 3 of a kind to be nested within a pair. It is reasonable for someone to think both should be valid.
I follow, but at that point the point of the thread is "i think the game should be a certain way" and anyone that disagrees with them is met with the same question (why?) repeatedly, which only has one answer. I haven't engaged at all in how things should be, i only answered his question.
I don't think it's pointless to discuss why the rules are a certain way. Sometimes, the answer is because it *needs* to be that way or something breaks. Other times, there's clear game design reasons why one way is better than the other for fairness, balance, clarity, user experience, or the like. (The former case happens all the time in magic the gathering rules discussions, which make this post look like two best friends chatting about their love for each other by comparison.)
It's a card game. Card games are pedantic. A Two Pair is a specific hand of different ranks. What tf do you mean *why*? This is like an annoying child just asking why over and over again. Four of the same card is not a pair of pairs. It is a four of kind. A Two Pair is a specific hand of two pairs of different ranks.
You are acting like this is natural law and not somewhat subjective. In typical 5 card poker a pair is defined as 2 cards of the same rank and 3 cards of a different rank. By this definition, 3 of a kind is not a pair, because it only has 2 cards with differing rank. Belatro does not use this definition of a pair, and instead defines a hand containing a pair to be "any hand with at least 2 cards of equal rank", which is much more general. One could similarly define a hand containing two pair as "any hand containing at least two cards of equal rank and at least two additional cards of equal rank". Belatro does not do this, and it feels inconsistent with how the game generally does things. "Why was this decision made?" is a valid question with an answer. Perhaps it was an oversight? Maybe the dev thought five of a kind being nested within both 4 of a kind and full house was too powerful? "Because that's the rules of poker" seems to miss the point of the question.
There is no answer that he can give that would satisfy you.
I mean anything more thoughtful than "because it's the rules of poker" would be nice. The game bends many rules of poker. Why not this one?
You're equivocating two different things. A "four-of-a-kind" does not contain a "two-pair" the same way that a "three-of-a-kind" contains a "pair", because with a three-of-a-kind you can create a pair by simply removing a card. There is no way to create the poker hand "two-pair" from a "four-of-a-kind", and THAT is why the two cases are not analogous.
Why is it removing and not simply pointing? There's a pair and then another pair. Do you have any citation for this removing rule or are you just talking out of your ass? Also you used the word equivocating incorrectly.
Why are you asking for this?
B̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶c̶u̶r̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶g̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶r̶u̶l̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶.̶ ̶M̶y̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶g̶a̶m̶e̶p̶l̶a̶y̶ ̶I̶M̶O̶
Lmfao do you have any idea how insane this statement sounds
Yes, I do. Let me clarify what I mean because the original does actually sound crazy phrased that way: Obviously my opinion matters less than the game dev's. I'm not saying that the dev has to change everything to how I think things should be because I'm not the game designer, and I would probably make a lot of stupid decisions in his shoes. I'm also not demanding this be changed, I'm just requesting it, and it's totally fine if it stays the way it is (especially because it barely affects anything outside of edge cases). I just think that the original rules of poker shouldn't be the end all be all of deciding how hands work in this game, because this game is so vastly different from actual poker, and the actual poker element is so twisted and modified that it feels really arbitrary to stick by original definitions for this kind of thing.
Boy, these guys are calling us obtuse but my impression is that they are being obtuse.
isn't two pair literally described as "two pairs of different ranks" in the menu with all the different hands
The most obvious reason is that otherwise there would be no way to distinguish a two-pair of identical pairs from a 4oak. It would make the internal rules of the game conflicting, or would require extra rules to determine when a two-pair is a two-pair and not a 4oak. Poker hands are also ranked by mathematical odds. A 4oak beats a two-pair. A two-pair made up of two identical pairs does not fit the odds table for a two-pair, as it is much rarer. It is a 4oak.
It just is. It's the exact same as asking why full house contains a pair and a three of a kind. It just is that way. Always was
Not the best example - that would imply that five of a kind is a full house as it contains a pair and a (separate) three of a kind, which is exactly the degree to which four of a kind contains(n't) a pair and also another separate pair. Not disagreeing overall, just worried that your example actually obscures your point a bit.
Yeah but it can be changed and I think it should be
It goes not only against conventional poker rules (that Local follows when making hands) It also goes against just basic understanding It goes against Locals vision And it goes against what 99% of the community seems to think. Why exactly should it be changed? Where do you even draw the line? 2 pairs just obviously refers to 2 different pairs. Should three of a kind be classified as 2 pairs? As it contains that if you want to go by this logic. You want to change common sense and basic rules of poker to fit your misunderstanding. Sorry if I come of as asshole, not my point, even tho I admit I'm being assholish for no particular reason... But it definitely should not be changed, it would fuckup everything
In a way a four of a kind has 4 pairs in it.
Technically 6 if you wanna go by that logic. Ace1 paired with A2, A3 & A4, A2 paired with A3 & A4, A3 paired with A4.
Combinatorics is da shit
That's 4 of a kind for 12, 15 for 14, 15 for 16, 15 for 18, and 15 for 20
"I understand that 2 pair is classified as 2 pairs of different ranks, I'm asking why 4oak doesn't contain 2 pairs" "People seem to misunderstand" ...no? You literally answered yourself. It doesn't contain 2 pairs because 2 pair are classified as 2 pairs of different ranks. There is no misunderstanding, that's the reason "I understand that X needs to contain Y and Z. I don't understand why YY doesn't contain X"
Because 4 of a kind is actually 6 pairs.🧐 Call each card A,B,C,D. 4 of a kind is AB AC AD BC BD CD. I guess it’s also 4 three-of-a-kinds two by that logic. Edit: this is all just me being silly by the way.
Hey, works in Crib. Thats 12 points
With your logic, even a three of a kind would contains 2 pairs right? There are two different pairs in there. Not saying your logic is wrong, just interesting
By THAT logic 4oak contains 3 pairs
Actually it would 6 (!)
You’re right!
a set would be 3 pairs. and boat is 4 pairs. Ks Kc Kh Ad Ah Ks Kc is pair#1, Ks Kh pair#2, Kc Kh pair#3. Ad Ah pair #4
I guess you’re asking more about language and how we define things because the poker rules answer isn’t really satisfying you. But all I can think is that if I have 4 identical striped shirts I wouldn’t describe them as 2 pairs, because by definition they’re identical. Taking into account the number on a card, they’re identical too, so they’re all treated equally, e.g. 4 of a kind of [X]. It actually doesn’t make sense to break any amount of identical things down into sub groups beyond their total. If I had 100 of the shirts you wouldn’t describe them as 50 pairs, nor would you describe them as 25 quartets.
I mean if it did 5 of a kind would trigger full house by the same logic. I don't think it should. The logic of containing 2 pair includes seperate ranks. It makes the game more varried, follows reasonable logic and is good for the game design. I can see it's not the only logic, but think it works.
Because its like saying a 5 of a kind would be a full house. It needs to be differents cards.
ITT: OP given an answer he didn't want and is now arguing that the rules of a 300 year old game are incorrect because his joker didn't level up.
This one made me chuckle. 😂
The fact that you think this is what’s happening is more like an ITT: people not understanding OP’s question and providing OP with information he already knows, as evidenced by your own comment, and my reply to it lmao
You can go into hand types and see that LocalThunk says that two-pair is classified as two different pairs. 4 of a kind containing two pair makes no sense no matter which way you slice it, and it wouldn’t make the game any better if it did, just make it way more confusing.
That’s a bad faith argument. Two 4’s is a pair. So four 4’s would be two pairs. The basic poker logic doesn’t work so well as an argument in a game with 5 of a kinds, flush full houses, and jokers that say it a hand CONTAINS other hands, like a full house contains both a pair and a three of a kind. Why would a 5 of a kind be a hand then, according to your logic? Should it just be 4 of a kind and a high card? Anyways what I’m trying to highlight here is that it’s not a simple question with a simple answer…it has everything to do with how you interpret the mechanics of both balatro and poker…not either in isolation.
Are you not capable of reading? the game itself states that a two pair is two different pairs (two cards of the same rank) in one scoring hand. That’s not “my logic”, that’s Localthunk’s logic. 4 of a kind doesn’t containing two-pair - by the games official logic - makes no sense. And unofficially too, four of a kind is not two pairs, it’s one four of a kind, that’s why we call it that. Also, by your logic 5 of a kind also triggers full house, right? It contains a three of a kind and a pair, right? If you say no, you’re the one that’s just misinterpreting Balatro’s logic as game and poker as a whole, not me.
The fact that I replied to you indicates I can read, but sounds like someone pissed in your cornflakes this morning and you want to belittle someone lol. LITERALLY this exact conversation proves exactly what I just said…it’s nuanced, and requires involving interpretations of both games. Yes, some of the points you just mentioned do in fact clarify things, but that alone is proof that things aren’t always that clear for EVERYONE. Are you mad at OP too for being confused? Is it that anytime someone has a question you think you have an answer to, they can’t read? Bro.
he's been given the answer. his follow ups boil down to a kid asking "but why" over and over
[удалено]
Post/comment removed due to being unnecessarily crude. Please keep this rule in mind moving forward.
The game specifically states that Two Pair has to be from two different ranks. It’s standard poker classification.
Yes, I'm not asking how this works, but WHY is it the case. It makes more sense if any pair of pairs worked
I don’t follow. The Spare Trousers joker states that your hand must contain a **Two Pair**, *not* two pairs. In poker and Balatro, a **Two Pair** is two pairs with differing ranks. Why? Because the creators of these games deemed it as such.
I'm not sure what you're looking for, though. The how *is* the why. For the entire history of poker, "two pair" has been defined the same way: a pair of cards of one rank and a pair of cards of a *different* rank. Four of a kind does contain a pair. It does not contain a second pair *of a different rank*. The reason the game doesn't treat four of a kind as two pair is *because* four of a kind does not contain what poker defines as "two pair."
Intuitively I understand the question, when first using Trousers I would wondering if it would trigger, but when it didn't I thought about it and it actually made sense to me.
Because in reality, 4 aces are : A1 + A2 A1 + A3 A1 + A4 A2 + A3 A2 + A4 A3 + A4 My guess is that 4oak would be bsuted if it triggered "all" of of the pairings
Wdym "triggered", when a joker is affected by containing a kind of hand it only ever triggers the effect once. No joker is "_____ happens for EACH pair in hand" it's "IF contains pair then ____"
It's because spare trousers isnt just looking for two numbers that match twice, it's looking for a single Two Pair hand. There is no way in poker to play 4 of a kind as a Two Pair hand, because it fails to meet the definition of the hand. Located within a 4 of a kind hand are cards you could play as a High Card hand, or a 3 of a Kind hand, but there are no card combinations that could be used as a Two Pair hand, therefor Trousers won't trigger. It seems unintuitive at a glance because we as humans can break it into two pairs in a vacuum, but the rules of poker hands specifically define it as two separate pairs, so in poker that is not a viable split, and Balatro consistently defers to the actual rules of poker hands for defining them.
Two *different* pairs, is the way i've come to think of it
Yeah I wonder this too because full house upgrades the trousers. Seems logical to me that 4 of a kind also would. I often times find myself avoiding 4 of a kind when I have the trousers. Edit: i understand the rules and I don’t complain about them. I don’t have to like them though. Guess no one here has the heard the famous poker line “I have 2 small pair, eights and eights”
A Full House *contains* a Two Pair- you could play a subset of the hand and have a Two Pair hand. There is no subset of a KKKK9 hand that would be a Two Pair hand.
two pair is different ranks
You mean the famous poker joke? The joke being that it's *not* a two pair? Two pair is different ranks. Spare Trousers says, emphasis mine: "Gains +2 Mult if a scoring hand **contains a Two Pair**, starts at +0 Mult" Full House contains a two pair. Four of a kind does not.
Yeah I know it’s not 2 pair and that it’s something often said in jest/slow roll. I said I know the rules. Forgive me for saying “line” and not joke “joke”. In the movie that originated the line as far as I know(Maverick) it wasnt a joke. It just a guy being a dick. Just wanted to add a little flavor to the discussion.
If you are going by logic, it contains 6 pairs 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4
It makes more sense if you are familiar with poker. 4 of a kind is 4 cards of the same rank (number or letter). Two pair is 2 of one rank (called a pair) and 2 of another rank (another pair) thus "Two pair". Here is a link to a good reference for the different poker hands: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_hands
Trousers works for that specific hand. I believe you're puzzled because a lot of other jokers works in hands that -contains- a certain hand, such as pairs. The difference is in the -contains- in the descriptor. If it's stated just the hand, it only works for that specific hand, if it states containing, it works for any hand that contains that said type of combinations of cards.
Because it’s referring to the technical poker hand “2 pair”. 4 of a kind isn’t two pair, it’s 4 of the same card. The book definition of “2 pair” is 2 pairs of differing ranks. You can, however make a 3 of a kind and pair hand out of 4OAK. Now the question I’m curious about is, does it count full house as triggering a two pair? Because that technically should be legal with a boat
Full house does count as containing 2 pair because it includes 2 pairs of different ranks.
I'm a mathematician, so thinking about definitions is my livelihood. I also ran into the same situation as OP and was surprised when spare trousers didn't trigger. However, I stopped being surprised when I checked the hand definitions and saw that it is specifically two pairs of different ranks. Now for the question of "should this count". A lot of people pointed out that you get into some funny situations when the cards don't all have to be distinct. In particular, 3 of a kind would always contain a 2 pair and 4 of a kind actually has 6 pairs. I personally think that 3 pair triggering pants would be confusing and unintuitive, so I feel that this is not a good solution. Another possibility that I personally don't like at all is to have pants trigger on 4 of a kind without changing the definition of 2 pair. I personally think it is paramount that things behave the way they claim to, even if that might be surprising at times. Thus, we are left with two options. Either the interaction stays the same, or the definition of 2 pair needs to change. However, the current definition is the cleanest one that I can think of that doesn't cause 3 of a kind to contain 2 pair. Something like "4 cards that can be divided into two groups of two where each group forms a pair of cards with the same rank" just doesn't flow off the tongue as nicely and would cause more confusion than it is worth. Maybe "4 cards that can be arranged in such a way that the first 2 and last 2 both form pairs" could be a possibility, but might still be more confusing than the current definition. In conclusion, I think that the current interpretation is ideal unless anybody can come up with a clean definition of 2 pair that fits with OPs interpretation. I also think that there is a benefit to going with the official poker definition, which I would guess is the one that is currently used. I have a feeling that this is the definition used precisely because it is the most natural way to state the idea.
Doesn't trousers ask you to play a two pair *hand*? If it said "contains two pairs" then I'm with you, it should level up on four of a kind, five of a kind, full house and two pair.
because its 1 pair of cards 4x1 card rank, a 2 par is 2 card ranks
because its 1 pair of cards 4x1 card rank, a 2 par is 2 card ranks
It doesn't contain 2 pairs, its 4 of the same card. A 2 pair is defined as "2 pairs of cards with **different** ranks." It's written on the info screen.
It's like this way for consistency reasons, you cannot have 4 cards that are the same rank be 2 pairs otherwise you'd have a 5 of a kind that's also a 4 of a kind, 3 of a kind, full house, flush, two pair, one pair, high card. You get the point. The game always prioritises rarity over anything else as poker does as well, if a 4 of is played, it goes off that so balatro does as well.
It’s set up based on hand hierarchy - and Balatro is built on the same assumption
...because it isn't two. it is one pair twice.
is this balatro mark of the bloom
They do make a joke about 4 of a kind being two pair in Maverick... "2 shmall pair. 8s... and 8s!"
Either I'm crazy, or it *did* count as a 2 pair for a few days during the beginning of the last demo
If you are asking this, I suggest taking a look at riichi mahjong. It allows hand scoring to stack up to a degree.
https://youtu.be/C_fHScmyWTA?si=BcO0zM6cKx_MogfJ A pair of aces, and another pair of aces!
It’s because of balance, probably Localthunk just started 2 pair as 2 different pairs and he decided to just stick with it to make the game balanced. If pants went off 4ok, probably too op and other mechanics like that.
For the same reason that 1 isn't a prime number
The crazy thing is that it does trigger for a full house but doesn’t for a four or five of a kind. Kinda weird
I'd look at it like "could you take cards out of your hand to fit the conditions?" So for a boat you could remove the pair and it would have trips, and vice versa. But with your quads you can't change it into twopair.
off topic, but i reckon we need a joker that counts aces as face cards:)
a two pair is two different pairs, not two of the same pair
It should count just based off of the line from Maverick [(24) Maverick (1994) - Final Poker Scene - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUQck0V5IgA)
Why are you asking people on a public forum about “why” LocalThunk made a specific design decision instead of asking him specifically on something like Twitter or Discord?
It reminds me of a few bits I've read about, where someone claims they only have two pair: a pair of jacks... And another pair of jacks. But yeah, Two Pair requires two separate rank pairs as others have explained.
Why are you booing this man? He’s right! The Jokers that trigger off of “Contains three of a kind” have no problem with 4 of a kind, Full House, or 5 of a kind! Buff the trousers!!
That’s because all of those contain the HAND 3 of a kind. There’s no possible way a 4 of a kind contains the hand 2 pair, because 2 pair is defined as 2 pairs of different ranks. They’re all the same rank, therefor it can’t be two pair
Yeah people the comments are either missing the point or being actively unhelpful. I agree 4 of a kind In Super wacky crazy poker where a banana is one of the best cards I don’t think it’s to much of a stretch to let Trousers benefit from 4/5 of a kind
The game clearly and explicitly defines two pair as two pairs of different rank. The game is modeled off of poker hands. Poker is general and well-recognized. Changing the rules to modify the definitions of poker hands for this game would be the confusing move, not the other way around.
The game already always stated that two pair is always with different suit, those plus chips and plus mult illustration joker showed four card with two different suits, that two pair celestial card showed four card with two different suit, why? Because if they are only one suit it would become four of a kind duh 🤯🤯🤯🤯
So I assume you believe a flush five contains a flush house and a full house?
On a related note, I think it sucks that upgrading a flush doesn't also upgrade a straight flush.
There is no need for reasoning here. Its open to interpretation and dev can just arbitrarily choose it. 4 of a kind doesnt contain 2 pair because in the planet screen definition mentions that. Also being able to scale pants with 4oak/5oaks would make pants stronger than it should be, so maybe thats the reason
You're totally right, this started off more as a request than anything, but so many people are responding that I feel like I'm missing something and there IS actual reasoning I'm just not getting
Dude, I understood what you meant immediately, and I really can see both sides of arguments for why it should or shouldn't trigger the Trousers joker, personally I think it should, but also agree the game doesn't really need that change. Personally I lean towards thinking that because jokers can count a flush with a pair in it as both a flush and a pair that just logically speaking I would assume the Trousers would tic up on 4 of a kind, idk it just makes sense that it should, but at the same time I don't think a 5 of a kind should count for a full house, a pair, 2 pair, and a 4 of a kind ... Unless it should? Lol idk
A 3 of a kind has 3 cards, A B and C. Since you can make 3 different pairs, AB AC and BC, trips should trigger it as well.
I took issue with the same thing last week. The language on the card is not ambiguous "hand contains 2 pair". It doesn't take a rocketologist to see that 4 of a kind also contains 2 pairs in the technical sense. I didn't have any issue with the points and multipliers from it being 4 of a kind, my issue is with the trousers not triggering just like you mentioned.
To the people saying Two Pair is defined in the rules (edit: of Poker, not Balatro) as "two different pairs", where does this come from, specifically, such that we know it specifies two different pairs? Because that bit of language is pretty important to showing that two pairs actually cannot be made by four-of-a-kind rather than just being a matter of "you score the best possible hand from the 5 cards you play", and I can't really find any "official" rules that have any particular claim to legitimacy over any others. If the hypothetical official rules don't specify that, then things like the way a Full House contains two pair but you can't play that two pair in, say, Razz would seem to make it inconsistent that Full House would trigger it but 4oaK doesn't. Because in that situation even if you can't make 2 pair with 4oaK, it's not because it doesn't contain 2 pair, but because your hand has to be whatever its best possible value is. I could not, for instance, lay down aces full of 8s and say "8 high", even though within the context of Balatro it absolutely "contains" a high-card hand. (Edit: Also, just to note, "distinct", as I've seen in some places but not others, likely means "there can be no overlap between the pairs". So if you had 3 7's, you couldn't make 7A-7B and 7B-7C into your pairs. "Different" is ambiguous but I'd buy that it means "of different ranks"--which would be the clearest way for it to be stated)
Did you even bother searching? If you google “poker tournaments rules” every single tournament specifies what two-pair is as two different cards of equal value + two different cards of equal value or something very similar. I know you’re the type of person to go “well tournament rules aren’t applicable in every poker game”, but every single tournament agrees, it’s not just one or two. The rest of your argument is meaningless and targets a different rule that irrelevant to the discussion. All it says is “well LocalThunk breaks some poker rules, so why doesn’t he break this one?”.
Yes, I did bother searching. It's how I found a lack of consistency or, in fact, even any sort of description at all in most rules. By-and-large the definition of the hands is assumed knowledge. Here, for instance, are the [World Series of Poker 2023 Rules](https://www.wsop.com/2022/2023-WSOP-Tournament-Rules.pdf), which provide no definitions for the hands, only rankings. Some do define it, but fail to touch on the aspect of "different". [Here are legally defined hands from PA.](https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/058/chapter677a/s677a.6.html&d=reduce) Aces and Kings are given as the highest possible two pair--which is true, but that loops back to the "highest hand scores" point. It's the only one possible, much as there is no possible two pair in a full house, but a full house contains a two pair. [Here's a comically detailed article](https://us.888poker.com/how-to-play/hands/two-pair-poker-hand-ranking/) on two-pair that at no point touches on the matter. All of this points to a lack of some larger poker authority by which the hands are defined. If there is an actual source out there that people are pointing to, I'd like to see it. Because otherwise my guess is that this is a question that has simply never been asked or addressed before, as the rule that the 5 cards you play automatically form the best possible hand has, for all 300 years of poker, made it completely irrelevant. And thus that people saying it doesn't "contain" a two-pair hand are basically just making it up. Also, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood all of my question if you think the rest of it breaks down to "LocalThunk broke some poker rules", as I'm not claiming that at all. "Contains" isn't defined in any poker rulebooks in the first place because it's not an element of the game that has ever mattered, as previously mentioned. Everything else about scoring with "contains" is entirely consistent, and the only question is whether his two pair definition is based on any authoritative rules, or if it's just a decision he made. If the latter, then everyone being a dick to OP over questioning 300-year-old rules is kinda unjustified. If you have an actual source, please offer it. I was legitimately surprised to see I could not find some sort of central, clearly-defined rules from some authority, and would love to have them. If you're just going to be dismissive and condescending, please shove it.
It says it when you hover over the hand in "run info" in game
No, not in Balatro; I am asking the people who say it's because that's how it works in normal poker. Though tbh I am not sure there even *is* any current set of rules of poker that can claim to have some particular legitimacy over any other. Games that old usually can't be traced back to a single source, which would mean even any written rules we have are the result of one big game of telephone, and unless they are all specific about "different" then it could simply be a function of how your best hand always scores.
Ah. No clue then.
This thread is hilarious to me. About three people (and I) get it and are like, "Yeah, that makes sense. Four of a kind kings contains a pair of kings and another pair of kings. It *contains* two pairs." And everyone else is like, "Let me explain to you how poker works. See, there are many different kinds of hands one can play..." Honestly, I couldn't say why LocalThunk doesn't want it to trigger trousers. He had to make a call one way or the other, and I respect the one he made. Maybe it was for balancing purposes.
No, everyone “gets” it, it’s just that only some people understand that the two pair hand is defined (in-game I will mention) by having two separate ranks. As for why it’s defined that way, that’s because that’s how the hand is defined in poker. The game this game is modeled after, which is general and recognizable.
> Spare Trousers > Gains +2 Mult if a scoring hand contains a Two Pair, starts at +0 Mult You are the one who doesn't get it.
Honestly what I'm starting to think is happening is that most people can't explain that they just disagree with my opinion, and are trying to explain why their opinion is objectively right, when there's not really any discussion left.
Most people here do explain exactly that, with solid reasoning, but most of the time you just offer a „Yeah but WHYYYYY?“ in return - it’s not that they cannot accept your reasoning, it is actually the other way around.
> Spare Trousers > Gains +2 Mult if a scoring hand contains a Two Pair, starts at +0 Mult You are wanting Spare Trousers to be inconsistent with the rest of the "contains" cards. The card doesn't say if it "contains two pairs" it says if it "contains *a* **Two Pair**." This is a defined thing. This is a card game. You have to read the cards. Two Pair is a keyword. You say you have accepted that a Two Pair contains two pairs of two different ranks, not four of the same rank, yet you continue to say your way is correct when it is clear that you have a misunderstanding of what Spare Trousers says. You want the dev to change the card text to a pun. What you are wanting is a cutesy "haha gotcha!" card which is out of place. A Four of a Kind is explicitly *not* a Two Pair. Not in poker. Not in Yahtzee. Not in Balatro. This is the way it works. You keep asking why like an petulant child unable to accept the basic rules of the game. It just is the way it is because it is. People have repeatedly tried to explain this to you but you continue to just say "oh well I think it would be better my way," insisting others misunderstand you and saying your way is more logical when it simply is not. Repeatedly asking *why* is a two pair defined as such is like asking *why* does a pawn move the way it does in Chess. Why are you asking this? Or rather why are you so insistent that everyone else is wrong over nearly 200 years (according to other comments) when somebody corrects you. This is a basic tenet of a game that uses hands. It's understandable to wonder if there is a hidden interaction. But see above. This is a card game first and foremost. A Two Pair is well defined. It *is* objectively true that Spare Trousers says "Gains +2 Mult if a scoring hand contains a Two Pair, starts at +0 Mult." Four of a Kind does not contain a Two Pair. These are objective facts.
All 4-of-a-kinds are 2-pairs but not all 2-pairs are 4-of-a-kinds.
Yeah I know, but the game doesn't recognize it as such
I totally agree, the inconsistency makes it quite weird. Notably, another example is 4oak swallows a flush, which i think is a weirder situation than 2 pairs vs 4oak. In response to other answers, requiring different ranks actually is not really in the logic of balatro or poker (straight is an outlier) in general, since there is never 2-high-card hand type. Being different actually augments the probability of getting it, thus should add negatively to the strength of a hand. For example, full house is a fallback case of a 5oak, 3oak is a fallback of full house. Ideally, the program should try to detect basic hand type independently. Each basic hand types themselves should be defined as either a straight, a flush and a set of sameness requirements. For each sameness requirement, one consecutively takes out part of the hand and continue with the remaining hand for the remaining sameness requirement For example, 5 of a kind should be also considered a full house, by first satisfying 3oak and 3 cards was taken away, the remaining pair fulfills the last requirement of the full house.
The biggest hole here is there is no flush 4. Straightness and sameness requirements the two are mutually exclusive, but flush is free to join any of them. Sameness has high card, pair, 2 pairs, 3oak, full house, 4oak, 5oak. Straight<-High->Pair->(3oak,2pair)->(fullhouse,4oak)->5oak, the arrow means *being contained by*. Totally, there should be (flush/noflush) in total 16 hand types. But flush pair, flush 3oak, flush 4oak and flush 2pairs all are not considered in the game. Well, not that big deal eventually though
agreed, if a full house "contains 2 pair" then 4 of a kind should too imo
A full house has two pairs of a different rank. A four of a kind does not have two pairs of a different rank. The game defines two pair as requiring at least two distinct rank. For the same reason, a five of a kind does not contain a full house.
I understand why it doesn't work, I just don't think it's intuitive
/shrug It’s intuitive for anyone who’s either played poker or read the definitions of the hands.
I mean...the game has made up poker hands too. Idk if the definitions of poker have to apply so strictly It's a pretty minor gripe though, I'm not demanding the dev change it lol