Talk:Ulti

Penalty for losing a bet
"Ulti Bukva Dupla" as the saying goes. Ulti is the only bid that involves an extra penalty if lost. The table showed as if most bids were like that. The table also contained a column called "Losing value" which was not only unneccessary, but utterly wrong (see below). 84.2.72.183 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Combined bets
The article in its previous version said: "It is important to note that if a player calls a combined bet he undertakes to complete all of the objectives, and therefore if he fails to complete any of them, he loses the round."

Oh my god! I played Ulti in many circles using different rules, read a couple of books and never even heard of this. It is so wrong and would take so much away from the beauty of the game. The point is that sometimes you bid a 4-aces 40-100 ulti over a Rebetli knowing you'd fail 4-aces, because even if the defenders double your 4-aces you're still at 0 points instead of losing a sure 10.

Combined bets are evaluated piece by piece and this is absolutely essential in the game. Also, a simple Ulti is 4+1 independent points for a reason, it's the same principle after all.

Also, this is why I removed the Losing value column in the table. There's simply no such thing. You add and subtract components' values depending on if they succeeded or failed (keeping "Ulti Bukva Dupla" in mind) so it's different every time. 84.2.72.183 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Forfeiting a Simple
It is done DOUBLED, not to avoid doubling. I have yet to see anyone who lets a guy forfeit undoubled. The point is to prevent the defenders having a silent ulti/100, which would all be costlier than a doubled simple. It is doubled everywhere. 84.2.72.183 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bids' complete chart
There were at least 4 or 5 possible bids missing and their order was messed up in a couple of places too. Silent scores were simply wrong in a number of instances (like allowing silent 100 in a Durchmars, etc.) so I checked them all. The losing value nonsense was replaced by a component values column. I consulted the Hajdu/Benyovszky/Prorok book while cleaning it up, this is the latest Ulti book that I know about and I find it really good. 84.2.72.183 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the work! Hans Adler 15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions to the article
Thanks User: Teraflopz for a professional work on the article Ulti. The game I first initiated here came from Parlett's considerations over McLeod's description of the game. As time went by, some editors began to disagree and change the text saying that it was all wrong. Later, other users began to do the same over the previous additions. Like this, I am really afraid that your work may be changed by other IPs and established users too. Still, the best way to have your additions kept in place would be referencing them in any way that you see fit ! If there's sth I can do for you, don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best, Krenakarore  TK 16:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

wrong deck?
The deck of Ulti isn´t Piquet, but Hungarian (well in English it´s called German :-) As reference, see the linked Hungarian article... 88.71.85.190 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Éva