is a Royal Flush a hand ranking? (2 Viewers)

1597157862883.png

https://images.app.goo.gl/QNATTRDLPwTM5WHj6
 
Wow way too much over thinking---The royal flush is the best hand possible and needs to have it's place at the top of the list period! wild cards are a whole different topic not to be mixed in with pure poker!
 
This was the closest I've come to being converted lol. I think you're mostly on the money with all of this, and I'm totally cool with the idea of people calling it a royal flush and whatnot I just think it's philosophically misleading to call it it's own "ranking." There's a substantive difference between a perfect game and no-hitter, in that a perfect game is 27 up/27 down while a no-hitter is just that, 0 hits on the board. There's no such thing as a "more perfect" perfect game--it's a binary, either you pitched a perfect game or you didn't pitch a perfect game.

With hand rankings though, that gets a lot more screwy in my head. For example, a 4-8 straight flush is just as much of a straight flush as a 2-6 straight flush, but because of how poker works, we recognize that the 4-8 SF beats the 2-6 SF. The way I see it all, a "royal flush" is the same as a "Broadway" straight. Broadway is the best possible straight one can make, but nobody would call it its own ranking because it's ultimately just a straight. I've heard an argument that RF deserves a separate hand because it's so statistically improbable, but again, the odds of a royal flush are the same as any particular straight flush in the deck--meaning, your T-A SF is as likely as a 2-6 SF.

I will die on the hill that the "royal flush as a separate ranking" only exists because the Playing Card Mafia decided they needed an even number of hands in their handranking charts.
With all the baseball analogies and confusion among posters, this forum is reminiscent of Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First” comedy routine!

Whereas, your post above [#54, specifically; but also other similar posts by you], is the most philosophical and correct – especially due to your usage of the words “substantive” and “binary”.
*confers symbolic gold star*

Essentially, you’re establishing that the same rule that forms any and every (other) Straight-Flush also applies equally to the (“nicknamed”) Royal Flush: 5 suited cards in sequence. That’s why it IRKS me to see it as a separate “category” on hand-ranking charts!
*opens window…yells out profanities*

I concur, however, that @Gobbs can almost “convert” you (and me) with his plausible arguments!

His most insightful conclusion was: “When something is considered so special, it can have it's own category and still be in another category, too.” I appreciate and admire his subjective/objective duality there – which practically would have otherwise resolved all debating on this forum…except…that he didn’t thereafter state in what context to set up these 2 distinct categories.

So, I’m going to take it upon myself to conclude the context on his behalf….


YouTube, TikTok, (etc.): YES [such as…’Funny Cat/Dog’ videos are indexed/sought];

Hand-ranking charts: NO.


I hope that this proposed solution satisfies everyone here.
I also sincerely thank everyone who posted – whether I agree or disagree with them – since this is one of the most thought-provoking forums on this site!
 
The first word of the question is essential for the discussion. IS a royal a hand ranking... not SHOULD a royal be a hand ranking

Good luck finding a hand ranking for poker hands that doesn’t have a royal flush up top. The same is NOT true for Broadway, which is more just a special name for a special hand. A royal flush is clearly enumerated so uniquitiously that its absolutely a hand ranking.
I actually saw one of these just yesterday and thought it was a bit weird. It was on the "rules for texas hold'em" inside a crappy pack of bicycle playing cards.
 
A Royal Flush is a nickname for a poker hand. It is just the best possible variation of that hand. Similar to "Pocket Rockets" being the best possible variation of a pocket pair.

TL/DR: It's a nickname, nothing more.

Damn. Didn't see @RudysNYC reponse from 3 years ago. Also didn't notice this thread was old as shit.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom