Let a large felt have larger seats, and the type that goes with them

The felt grows with the window and the pucks did not: 96px was the only
ceiling there was. Nine-handed, the seats covered 19% of the felt on a phone,
11% on a 1280px desktop and 8% at 1440px and beyond — and the stack figure a
dealer reads sat at 10px on a 2560px monitor, the same 10px as on a 360px
phone, well under every published floor for text meant to be read.

Two things stop this costing more than it buys.

Every candidate width is a forced layout. Simply raising the ceiling took the
layout pass from 24ms to 73ms twelve-handed on a desktop, so a screen that
cannot use the wider widths must not measure them: the extra pass is offered
only when the arithmetic already says the seats have room to spare, and a phone
measures exactly the ten widths, in the same order, that it measured before.
Timed with the order alternated so neither carries the warm-up: 10.7ms against
10.4ms on a phone, and +3 to +6ms where the widths are actually used.

And a wide puck on a narrow felt is worse than a small one. The first version
of this let phones through, and a 144px puck on an iPhone's 278px ring is half
the width of the table: six-handed, all six seats sat over the rail by 15px
against 5px before, reading as a stack of cards rather than a table with people
around it. So the ceiling is a fifth of the felt's shorter span, capped at 144.
Five is measured rather than chosen — the shorter span is 233-303px on every
phone in the sweep including sideways and 617-714px on tablets and desktops, so
any divisor between 3.2 and 6.4 separates them — and the test pins both ends.

Above the ordinary ceiling the puck takes the larger type as well, which is the
point of the extra width. Nine-handed: an iPad goes 96px/12px to 134px/15px, a
1440px desktop 96px/12px to 140px/15px, and the seats go from 8% of the felt to
12%. Every phone, at every seat count, is untouched.

The sweep is byte-identical to before this change: same six configurations,
same 63 offenders, empty diff.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015bnp7xKUPFFSpwkYNFaPgb

tests/holdem/README.md

@@ -442,6 +442,73 @@ is what makes it a test. Four faults were injected in total; the other three (dr
 two flags, letting the count into the key instead of a boolean, and counting only hand
 bets so a table playing antes is missed) fail 3, 2 and 1 of the eight.
 
+## Room the felt had and the type never got
+
+The felt grows with the window and the pucks did not — 96px was the only ceiling there
+was. Nine-handed, the seats covered 19% of the felt on a phone, 11% on a 1280px desktop
+and **8% at 1440px and beyond**, with the stack figure a dealer reads at **10px on a
+2560px monitor**, the same 10px as on a 360px phone.
+
+Two things stop the fix costing more than it buys, and `seatWidthSearch.test.js` checks
+both:
+
+- **Every candidate width is a forced layout.** Raising the ceiling for everybody took
+  the layout pass from 24ms to 73ms twelve-handed on a desktop. A screen that cannot use
+  the wider widths must not measure them, so a phone is checked to measure *exactly* the
+  ten widths it measured before — same list, same order — and the measured cost on a
+  phone is unchanged (10.7ms against 10.4ms, which is noise).
+- **A wide puck on a narrow felt is worse than a small one.** The first version let
+  phones through, and a 144px puck on an iPhone's 278px ring is half the width of the
+  table: six-handed, all six seats sat over the rail by 15px against 5px before, and it
+  read as a stack of cards rather than a table with people around it.
+
+So the ceiling is a fifth of the felt's **shorter** span, capped at 144. Five is measured,
+not chosen: the shorter span is 233-303px on every phone in the sweep including sideways,
+and 617-714px on tablets and desktops, so any divisor between 3.2 and 6.4 separates them.
+The test pins both ends, so if the felt ever changes shape enough to bring those together
+it says so rather than letting the phones quietly start paying.
+
+Above the ordinary ceiling the puck also takes the larger type — `.seatsRoomy`, two steps
+up the scale for the two numbers read across the table and one for the chair number.
+Steps rather than a `clamp()`, for the same reason the tight set is: the width is a
+continuum and the type is a set of deliberate sizes.
+
+| nine-handed | before | after |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| iPad puck / name | 96px / 12px | **134px / 15px** |
+| desktop 1440 puck / name | 96px / 12px | **140px / 15px** |
+| seats as a share of the felt, 1440 | 8% | **12%** |
+| every phone, every seat count | unchanged | unchanged |
+
+### What the rail check is actually measuring, which is not the rail
+
+Found while checking the above and **not fixed** — written down here because the number is
+worth having and the fix is not a small one.
+
+`#pokerTable` is `border-radius: 50%`. Both the settle pass in `render.js` and
+`seatsOnTheTable()` in the audit compare a puck against the four edges of the table's
+**bounding box**, which is a different and much slacker question than the one the message
+"hangs Npx past the rail" claims to answer: at the top and bottom of the ring the oval
+curves away from its own box, so a puck can be comfortably inside the box and visibly
+outside the felt.
+
+Measured against the ellipse instead — a point is outside when `(dx/a)² + (dy/b)² > 1`,
+and the ray from the centre crosses the boundary at `1/√t` of the way out — across 35
+configurations the check is seeing **303px of overhang as zero**, including **46px on a
+phone held sideways** that has been there for as long as the check has.
+
+Settling against the ellipse was tried and reverted, because it is not the local fix it
+looks like. Pulling the ring in far enough to clear the oval crowds the seats, and on a
+twelve-handed phone with everybody all-in it put seat 3's centre inside seat 4 — the one
+trade the width search explicitly refuses to make, since a dealer can see a puck over the
+rail but cannot see a tap answering for the wrong player. Guarding against that instead
+leaves the ring out and the overhang worse: the sweep went from 6 failing configurations
+to 77, with 355 rail reports.
+
+Which is the finding. On a crowded table **keeping the seats off the rail and keeping them
+off each other are in genuine conflict**, and resolving it needs the two settled together
+rather than one bolted onto the other.
+
 ## Why the hand evaluator is tested the way it is
 
 `handRank.js` is the only module here that can pay the wrong person without anybody