A worked example is useful only if its cards, explanation and stated rules agree. Check those three things separately. A confident caption cannot repair an impossible hand, a misread suit or a missing rank. The method below produces a specific correction request rather than a guess about what the author intended.
Fix the assumptions before inspecting the cards
This exercise uses one standard pack without jokers or extra cards. John McLeod's Teen Patti description on Pagat supplies three narrow reference points: a 52-card pack, consecutive ranks for runs, and matching suits for the colour category. It is an authored description of the traditional game, not proof of the rules or fairness of any particular app.
If an example expressly uses wild cards, multiple packs or a named variant, this worksheet cannot settle it without those additional rules. Record that difference at the start. Do not use the ordinary-pack assumption to declare a variant's illustration wrong.
Test one: can all three physical cards coexist?
Invented example A reads: seven of hearts, seven of clubs, seven of hearts. Copy both rank and suit for each position. The first and third entries identify the same card, so this is not a valid three-card example from the single pack assumed here.
The problem disappears from view if you shorten the record to “seven, seven, seven”. Three matching ranks can use different suits; that is different from repeating the identical card. The useful question is not whether the hand looks strong, but whether the illustration obeys its own pack assumption.
Do not silently replace the final heart with a diamond. Write that as a proposed editorial correction, if relevant, while preserving what the original illustration actually shows. Where a symbol is illegible, the result is “cannot check”, not “duplicate confirmed”.
Test two: are the suits equal, or only the ink colours?
Invented example B reads: king of hearts, eight of diamonds, four of hearts. All three symbols may be printed red, but the suit line is “hearts, diamonds, hearts”. Those are not three matching suits. Calling that example same-suit because it is red would confuse appearance with card identity.
Compare it with king of hearts, eight of hearts, four of hearts. Only the middle suit changes, making the difference easy to isolate. Write suit names in full when explaining the correction; a black-and-white copy should not destroy the distinction.
A same-suit test is still not a complete hand classification. Rank relationships must also be read. This comparison deliberately holds the ranks fixed and uses gaps between them so the reader can examine one issue at a time.
Test three: does ascending order hide a gap?
Invented example C reads: ten, jack, king. Place it against the segment nine, ten, jack, queen, king. Ten to jack is adjacent; jack to king skips queen. The list is ascending but not consecutive. Sorting it again cannot supply the missing rank.
Now compare ten, jack, queen: both neighbouring steps are adjacent. This does not establish which full hand wins, because suits and applicable rules are separate questions. Ace cases are deliberately excluded; do not extend this example into an ace-order rule.
Send a correction that someone can reproduce
A completed fictional note for C could read: “On the rank example headed 'Sequence', the displayed cards are ten, jack and king. The explanation says they are consecutive, but queen lies between jack and king. Please check whether the king image or the category label needs correction. I have not assumed which you intended.”
Include the affected page address and the example's heading. Keep any proposed replacement separate from the transcription. For A, identify both duplicated positions; for B, identify the diamond among the hearts. These details let an editor find and test the issue without receiving private account information.
An incorrect illustration does not demonstrate cheating, a faulty random generator or a particular player's result. It demonstrates that this teaching example needs clarification. Conversely, a correct illustration does not validate the rest of a website. Use only examples you can verify, and leave unresolved cases unresolved. This is a reading and editing exercise, not betting advice or an outcome prediction.
Responsible entertainment note: This article is for screen reading and risk awareness only. It does not provide betting advice, account service, payment handling, outcome prediction or any guaranteed result.