Unclaimed bets included in pot size - Party / Microgaming "bug"

[luckyjimm]

I hate that these sites include unclaimed bets in the pot size in the hand histories.

If there is $2 in the pot, I bet $10,000,000 and you fold, it was a $2 pot. It was NOT a $10,000,002 pot!

Why don't they fix this stupid bug? Why have these networks chosen to distort hand histories in this way?

[Rainbow Warrior]

Counting uncovered or uncalled makes no sense bets makes zero sense. What's new?

In the early days some sites (Party?, Absolute?) were trying to rake uncalled bets so of course they wanted it all counted as part of the pot.

I agree with you totally. In all-in situations the dealer announces that the big stack who pushed and lost the hand "wins" his change back as a side pot. Very stupid.

[Pokeraddict]

[ QUOTE ]
In the early days some sites (Party?, Absolute?) were trying to rake uncalled bets so of course they wanted it all counted as part of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bug at Absolute did this briefly. Pacific I think is the room you are thinking of and AFAIK it still goes on.

[luckyjimm]

Have Party / Microgaming ever given a reason why they won't fix this? Anyone tried emailing them?

[Pokeraddict]

[ QUOTE ]
Have Party / Microgaming ever given a reason why they won't fix this? Anyone tried emailing them?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that they want the games to look better then they really are.

[luckyjimm]

Would anyone think a game was "better" because the pots appeared larger than they actually are?

[NoonienSoong]

"If there is $2 in the pot, I bet $10,000,000 and you fold, it was a $2 pot. It was NOT a $10,000,002 pot!"

This really bothers me too. I also find it very frustrating that High Stakes Poker does the same thing when announcing the size of pots people have won.