The pot wizard printed a figure beside every name under the words "up to". It
was that player's own remaining contribution, which is not what winning pays
them, and the gap was large and in the wrong direction. Three players in for
$250 each: all three rows read "up to $250" while the prompt directly above
them said "$765 is in play" — and $765 is what the winner was handed. A dealer
who trusted the row would have short-paid by two thirds.
With a real side pot it was worse in a more confusing way. The breakdown box at
the top of the same dialog announced "Main pot $765 · all 3", and Bob's row
three lines under it said "up to $250". One dialog, two numbers for the same
money, and the wrong one next to the checkbox the dealer actually ticks.
resolveRound caps the pool at the winner's own remaining contribution and then
takes min(remaining, cap) from every entry, dead money included — so the
ceiling is that sum, and PotCalculator.ceilingFor computes it. Bob's row now
says $765, which is the main pot, which is what the breakdown box three lines
above has been saying all along.
It is also only said where it binds. A ceiling equal to everything on the table
is the prompt's own figure repeated once per row — redundant data-ink, and on a
pot everybody covered that was all it ever was. It now appears on exactly the
rows where picking that winner leaves a side pot still to award, which is the
one time a dealer needs telling. The flat pot's three rows carry a name and
nothing else; the side pot's carries one number, on Bob.
The test that matters is not that the ceiling equals a figure written out by
hand but that it equals what resolveRound pays, so every case checks the label
against the function that moves the chips — across seven shapes of pot, ragged
contributions and cent-sized stakes included.
1082 tests pass; the 418-audit sweep is clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015bnp7xKUPFFSpwkYNFaPgb
jheapsandClaude Opus 5
71c198cf2e