Bryan Leung

Zynga Poker: Hand Clarity

Players thought they had won hands they lost. I redesigned how the table shows who won and why.

Employer
Zynga
Role
Principal UX Designer
Team
1 product manager, 1 engineer
Scope
Visual exploration, asset creation, implementation
Year
2019
Recording of a winning hand being revealed at the Zynga Poker table.

Summary

Problem
Players believed they had won and still lost. They asked for refunds and left 1-star reviews calling the game rigged.
Hypothesis
The table showed who won, but not why. Showing why would make a correct result look correct.
Solution
A kicker card in the banner explains ties. Winning cards glow, the rest dim, and a stronger banner names the hand.
Result
Shipped to all players at once, alongside other changes. Its effect wasn't measured on its own.

The problem

Players called the game rigged in 1-star reviews and asked customer service for refunds. Lower ratings mean fewer new installs, so the product team was asked to look into it. I don't have the call count.

The causes came from the team's experience with the game, and mine from years on it, rather than a formal study.

  • Too fast. The pause between rounds was too short to confirm who had won.
  • Side pots. Side pots and their payouts are hard to understand and hard to show clearly.
  • Hand rankings. Some players didn't know what decides the winner when two players hold the same hand.

The hypothesis

The table showed who won, but never why. When two players held the same hand, nothing on screen explained the result, so a correct result could look rigged. If the table showed why a hand won, players would have less reason to doubt it.

I proposed five changes that were simple and quick to build.

  • Lengthen the pause between hands.
  • Reposition the winner's hole cards so they are easier to see.
  • Show side pot payouts clearly.
  • Dim the community cards that aren't part of the winning hand.
  • Add stronger visual indicators to the winning hand.

I wanted the longer pause, but the engineers judged it too complex, so it was dropped. The visual changes were quick to release.

Table exploration with the winning hand labeled. Table exploration with raised winning cards. Table exploration with dimmed losing cards. Table exploration with a banner under the cards. Table exploration with the hand name on the table.
Explorations at the table.

Adjusting each part on its own still wasn't clear enough, so I pushed the banner further.

Grid of winning banner layout variations.
Banner layouts.

The final design

The kicker card

The biggest single change. When two players hold the same hand, the next-highest card decides the winner. Before, nothing showed that card, so it wasn't clear why one hand beat the other. Showing it in the banner explains the result and teaches the rule.

Final table design with the winning banner and kicker card.
The final design, with the kicker card in the banner.

Supporting changes

The rest make the winning hand easier to see at a glance. Each player who receives a side pot also gets a labeled tag underneath.

Before: tilted hole cards above the winner label. After: straightened hole cards with a glow on the winning card.
Hole cards are straightened, the winning card glows, and the irrelevant card is dimmed.
Before: community cards all shown equally. After: winning community cards glow and the rest are dimmed.
Community cards dim when they aren't part of the hand, and the winning cards glow.
Before: a plain Two Pair banner. After: a brighter Two Pair banner with the kicker card.
The winning banner is more decorated and stands out from the table.

Outcome

  • Shipped to all players at once.
  • Other features changed at the same time and there was no holdout group, so this update's effect on ratings and refund calls wasn't measured.

Reflection

  • I would size the problem with support and review data before designing, instead of relying on our sense of it.
  • A holdout group on the old table would have separated this change from the others.
  • The pause between hands is the one cause we couldn't address directly.