Talk:Poker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article Poker is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 3, 2004.
This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page.

Contents

[edit] History section

The ISBN is wrong for Doyle's Super System (1979): the correct ISBN is 1580420818. The current text incorrectly suggests that Sklansky and Caro both wrote their books in the 1970's. Sklansky's Theory of Poker wasn't written until 1987. I don't have a copy of Mike Caro's Book of Tells, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't written in the 1970's either, and possibly as late as the 1990s. I haven't changed the article yet - do I have my facts straight?--Toms2866 13:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: the Library of Congress suggests Caro's book first published 1984. [1] --Toms2866 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the references section lists the publication date of Caro's book as 1978, I'm not going to override it (yet). Can someone please pull a copy off the shelf and look at the copyrights? However, I did fix the Super System ISBN and reworded text to indicate that Sklansky's book wasn't published in the 1970s.--Toms2866 04:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

History > pochen

Please note that the German word 'pochen' also means 'to brag'. The same word is found in Dutch, meaning 'to brag'. So it is more likely that the translation 'to brag' is the one that should be used in the history of poker, rather than 'to knock'. 82.170.120.233 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How About Some General Rules of Play?

It seems to me that an article which purports to inform people about any game ought to contain --Hpesoj00 22:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)a section on how that game is played. I noticed a link to a page dealing specifically with the ranks of poker hands, but why should this be separate from the main article? If you went looking for information on, say, Australian rules football, and found information about the history of the game, and what kind of outfits the referees wear, but had to link to a separate page for information on the game's rules and scoring structure, would that not seem a bit odd to you--not to mention inconvenient? And yes, I'm well aware that there are hundreds of variant games with the word "poker" in their names, but something that practically all of them have in common is the ranking of hands. This information, at the very least, ought to appear on the main page, along with a brief explanation regarding exceptions such as lowball, hi-lo, Omaha-8, and so forth. That way, if each game gets a link of its own, the reader can click to the game he or she wants to know more about with at least some idea of what they all share in common. Otherwise, a person who knew nothing about poker might be forgiven for thinking that what links all these games is the fact that they're played with chips, and that it's rude to "splash the pot." Frankly, it's hard to believe that this was ever a "Featured Article," as it currently stands. I'll leave it as it is for a few days, but after that I'm changing it if nobody can give me a good reason why I shouldn't. Buck 19:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many other articles linked from this article. Please don't either duplicate them here, nor try to make this article absurdly long by including content that should be sub-articled. Games like Omaha and Stud have their own articles and should not have content duplicated here. 2005 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Linked sub-articles are quite appropriate to hypertext: we're not necessarily trying to male all articles easily printable, mailable, etc. Breaking the topic up into manageable pieces makes it easier to read in this medium, which was my goal when I created the initial structure and content here. Having the most important sub-articles all linked from the second paragraph seems like a reasonable compromise to me. --LDC 05:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I wasn't recommending that we duplicate entire articles concerning specific variants like Omaha and Stud. What I was, and am, saying is that an article about a game ought to include some information about fundamentals of game play. On that we can all agree, I'm sure. Now, whenever I've had people who've never played before at my home game, the first thing they want to know is the ranking of hands--and this doesn't change from game to game (with a couple of exceptions, which I mentioned in my last post, above). Why not supply that information for curious readers of the Wikipedia in the body of the main article? And don't say the article is verging on being "absurdly long," because it's far from that. Go have a look at the articles on any other game in this encyclopedia and you'll find information in the main body of each one detailing game-play. So far, I'm not hearing any compelling arguments for keeping the article in its currently fragmented state. Anyone else feel like weighing-in on this subject? Buck 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We have a poker hands article. It should not be duplicated here. 2005 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I moved the game play section to the top, integrated the early paragraphs with it, and clarified the links to the subtopics. --LDC 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. The article certainly reads much more clearly and fluidly than it did, prior to your edits, LDC, so thanks very much. Buck 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is poker a sport?

Should this be in [[Category:Sports]]? Not according to the wikipedia or dictionary.com definitions, it shouldn't. -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

  • No -- Netoholic 03:36, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • no Jakken 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Sports require some degree of agility, dexterity, and/or hand-eye coordination and poker does not. Some people claim that reaction-time card games (like Spit, Slapjack, or Egyptian ratscrew) qualify as sports, but that's another debate ofr another page... Morganfitzp 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but. The definition of sport has changed quite a bit since the word was first used. At one time, the definition did not limit sports to athletic competitions. In fact, hunting and fishing and gambling all were included and there wasn't much going on that we would call sports. I never much understood this "debate." People become indignant as if being called a sport were some kind of cosmic honor. Will in New Haven 14:02, 6 Jan 2007

[edit] Discussion

  • I'm not sure how it doesn't fall under those definitions, but we certainly don't use them as the final word. Poker is considered a sport by many, so it should be in the category. anthony (see warning)
    • Largely, it doesn't fit the notion of "physical activity" or "physical skill" - poker is a mental activity. Otherwise, any skilled activity where there is competition between people - two people seeing who can complete a crossword first, Jeopardy!, pub quizzes, etc. - would also have to be called sports. It's not important enough to get into an edit war over, but I strongly feel it shouldn't be in that category.-- ALargeElk | Talk 15:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • There is a lot of physical skill in poker. Much more than those other games you mention. The mental aspect is only part of it. Bluffing and otherwise not giving away your hand takes physical skill. anthony (see warning)
        • There's some truth in that. OK, let it stay (I'm up to my personal limit of two reverts anyway) but I won't be upset if someone takes it out again. -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's fun to read this little article - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lovinger/040614 - (from ESPN which shows poker in the States). Obviously "is poker a sport", like "is chess a sport", is one of those periennal questions with no truly correct answer to satisfy everyone. Unfortunately with categories it is an either/or choice. Despite being a keen poker player, I would say not to include the category unless Anthony really can't bear it that way. Pcb21| Pete 15:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • First of all, the edit war is stupid. Now then, the article is already in a sub-category of Category:Games, which covers sports and games. Almost all games involve some physical movement, but sports requires exertion, so that's a silly argument for inclusion in the sports category. -- Netoholic 03:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. The edit war is stupid. Poker is widely regarded as a sport, so it belongs in the sports category. anthony (see warning)

Most of the world considers chess to be a sport. I think the definition of "sport" isn't so hard and fast, there are many qualities that they share, but not all sports share every quality. Judging by recent Olympic standards, the criteria of competition, media and spectator involvement, and monetary dividends seem altogether as important as physical exertion. And poker is actually physically exerting -- this has been measured on players while playing, and try playing for 12-14 hours a day, for several days in a row, see if physical stamina doesn't start to enter the picture. Revolver 07:29, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sports requires exertion, so that's a silly argument for inclusion in the sports category.
Well, that's a silly argument for exclusion. The whole issue which people disagree about is how the term "sport" is defined, or rather, whether the current or most widely accepted definition is the best one or the one that should be applied. Most people arguing poker is a sport are doing this by citing evidence that people have other criteria besides physical exertion to determine what is a "sport". In other words, they are contesting the meaning of the word. Simply replying "sports requires exertion" is kind of like arguing that something should be illegal because it is already against the law. (People actually use the logic with the issue of legality of drugs...) Revolver 05:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic, do you consider chess to be a sport? If not, then the vast majority of the world (at least, the world outside the U.S.) disagrees with you. Revolver 05:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No. I think that when a non-strenuous game like chess becomes very popular, the players seek to elevate the status of the game by calling it a "sport". This is probably only done because they seek to distinguish their game from others. This usage is not in line with many trusted sources for the word "sport" (see above, here's another). Chess is a sophisticated, classic, and popular game, just like poker. -- Netoholic 12:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Poker requires much more physical exertion than chess or greyhound racing (and about as much as air racing, auto racing, billiards, bocce, croquet, darts, dogsled racing, golf, ping pong (olympic sport), shooting (olympic sport), or snooker), but I agree with Revolver that the problem is the prescriptivism. Prescriptivism is POV. We should be determining the meaning of the word based on how people use it, not based on what a dictionary says it is. Poker is widely regarded as a sport, so it belongs in the category "Sports". anthony (see warning) 14:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Poker is widely regarded as a sport" - you've said that a couple times now, but have yet to offer an authoritative source which confirms this. Cite your source, because it sounds weasel-y. Now then, here are the results of a poll in which this question was asked of a number of games/activities. The results? When I checked, there were 8,124 votes, and 77.2% said poker is not a sport (the same poll gives chess an 83% total as "not a sport"). This is from a population of sports enthusiasts visiting ESPN.com, I suspect the margin would be even greater if the general population was polled. "Competitive", "high-paying", and "on ESPN" does not a sport make. -- Netoholic 16:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
22.8% in a poll of 8,124 people from around the world qualifies as "widely regarded". I never claimed it was a majority, just a significant minority. By the way, are you saying we should remove darts as well, because 51% of people said it wasn't a sport? Categorization shouldn't be voted on. If a significant minority of people seriously claim that something fits into a category, it should be added. anthony (see warning) 17:15, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have been playing poker for over 5 years now and have heard the discussion before on whether or not poker is a sport. Just about anybody can participate in a sport, but the level of physical activity involved goes a long way in determining how good we are in it. Very active sports like football, ice hockey, and baseball are much more difficult for the average person to participate in. Many more people can play a game like golf, but very few are able to play at a really high level. Which brings me to poker. Like many other activities like darts, pool, or chess, poker is more of a fun and pleasurable way to spend time with friends. However when you start moving into the professional levels of these actives it is a much different set of parameters that goes into playing. Just as the average golfer has little chance of beating a Tiger Woods or Ernie Els, the average poker player does not have much of chance sitting with Phil Helmuth, Johnnie Chan, or any of the top-flight poker players. Last of all I would say there is one aspect of poker that moves into the realm of sport and that is tournament play. Sitting and being mentally sharp for multiple hours can be very taxing. It is a test of not only your skills as a poker player but endurance. GMR May 25, 2005


Talk's been dead around here for a while, but if anyone cares a few weeks ago I started writing about 40-50 new articles on poker players. Since establishing them I've started to go back and add more information as I do more in depth research. You may be interested in User:CryptoDerk/poker where I keep track of the articles, their progress, and miscellaneous information. Also, of course, category:Poker players contains all these people as well. CryptoDerk 00:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Good job adding these folks. I'll take a look at all the people articles when I get a chance. 2005

[edit] References

OK, I've gone through the history with a fine tooth comb and put in the references to the two books that the original author mentioned (doesn't seem to be much added after that, mostly is formatting and removing ridiculous statements like "In the event of an electoral draw, the United States Constitution requires the President to be selected by a single hand of poker." However, I'm still unsure where people are getting their sources of information for the history of poker! Please, can we have the original source material cited so I can put this into the References section? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Barton quote

Er, do we have a reference for this quote? I Googled "'Andrew Barton'" and various parts of his quote, only to discover that the only pages that contained it were actually from this article! =P That's not very reassuring. --Susurrus 10:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The Barton quote should be removed. It's not authoritative obviously, and also isn't even really true. -- 2005
The Barton quote was removed.--Toms2866 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fireplace poker

Ok, the part about fireplace poker is really out of place. It's really nothing more than a dictdef, and plus now someone has put in a sentence at the top of the article that says that there's a sentence at the bottom of the article talking about the instrument. The referring sentence is longer than the sentence giving the dictdef of a poker. Because of all this, if there's no overwhelming objection then I think they should be removed in a week or so. Thoughts? Comments? CryptoDerk 14:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'd say take out the top quote, or at least certainly take out one or the other. -- 2005
  • I'd take out at least the top one, if not both. Are there really so many people who can navigate a wiki & otherwise operate a computer who don't know what a fireplace poker is? Brodo

[edit] External Links

Poker is an enormously broad subject, an almost textbook example of the value of adding links to an article. These links should enhance and further enrich the experience of a user that comes to this page. There some content rich websites out there that do just that, with hundreds of articles, how-tos, profiles and other explaintions. The fact that these sites will virtually always have advertisments is irrelevant to the goal of enrinching the user experience and educating that user on a topic.

At the same time, there are tens of thousands of low quality, copied, reprinted, stolen websites out there that offer no educational value. Their only value, if you could call it that, is in conduiting people to other sites that have value (in this case places where poker can be played, which are wiki-linked elsewhere). It's counterproductive to link to those.

The guiding principal should be in-depth, authoritative, unique content. If a site doesn't have minimally dozens of such unique content pages, it shouldn't be considered. If it does, linking to it is very valuable. Except for the US Playing Cards link which has trivial content, the other current links offer hundreds of thousands of words on the topic, with perspectives that users can benefit from being exposed to.

Let's keep the links focused on in-depth, authoritative, original content. Remove the mere conduits and copiers, and let small sites grow until they have the content to merit a mention. -- 2005

I added the direct links to the valuable, deep content poker sites originally, but given both the heightened spam attacking this and related topics, plus some fine lines that could come into play (is 75 articles enough... what about 37... or 94...?), I'd suggest that ONLY linking to the Usenet poker newsgroup plus two major link directories, which do list all the high quality poker sites, plus some medium quality ones, is the best way to enrich the article, while making it now very easy to rigidly and fairly police the article. If however most others think other external links should be included, obviously these four I deleted would be appropriate to bring back. 2005 02:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have a site that lists home poker games Home Poker Games around the country - I think that it would be a valuable addition, but may be in the wrong section if listed under the very general topic of poker. If listed under Home Poker Games or something along those lines, it may be more relevant. Thoughts?

Thanks for asking, but "where to play" isn't a mission of this article, or an encyclopedia. If it was we could list every poker casino in the world. 2005 23:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think that it could be relevant depending on the content of the site because by linking to google poker and yahoo poker additional sites are being covered. I can see both of your points though UTC and citypokergames.com

[edit] Are there actually people

for which playing poker is the main source of income?

What the hell is a professional poker player?

Yes, there are people who play poker as a main source of income. A professional poker player could be defined as one who does exactly that. Some people make money through poker and then venture out into other areas such as business (starting or owning companies), writing (poker strategy books), etc. See List of poker players for biographies of many notable poker pros. I recommend starting with Doyle Brunson and Amarillo Slim. CryptoDerk 18:06, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a professional player. You don't even have to be of stellar ability to make a decent living playing online. This is because of the volume of hands you can play online (200-400 hands/hr playing multiple tables, compared to 30-60 hands/hr in a casino) and the smaller expenses (no tipping, smaller rake). I agree with this oft-repeated aphorism about playing professional poker though: "It's an easy way to make a hard living." It's pretty lonely, the variance is high in relationship to my winrate, I don't have benefits, and I have to be at peak performance to keep my peak winrate. (Unlike an office job where, if I slack off for an hour, my hourly rate does not drop.) 67.187.98.224 21:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
FWIW I thought the aphorism was usually rendered as, "It's a hard way to make an easy living." Roughly the same meaning, I suppose. - PhilipR 13:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
You are correct. Typo/Thinko/Latent Dyslexia. 67.187.98.224 00:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Negreanu. Jennifer Harman. Chip Reese. Many others. Poker is a beatable game because you play against other players, not impossible mathematics, like craps or roulette. Foodmarket 02:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be wonderful to have stats on the proportion of people who consistently beat the 9% or so rake taken by the online game provider. If we assume a normal distribution for the long term of a player, it would simply be a question of determining the variance. Pcb21| Pete 22:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The cardrooms take less than 5%, $1 for every $20, with a maximum of $3, which means the house take is always under 5%. Commercial statistics programs that track a player's own results commonly show the number of winning players between 30 and 40%, but that data will always skew since the results will almost always be from a winning player (devoted enough to keep personal stats, for example.) I don't think the article can or should tread in this territory since it can vary a lot between cardrooms, types of games (Omaha versus Holdem), etc. 2005 01:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Just out of interest for any pros out there - What levels blinds do you lot play, and how much do you make averagely every month or a year. I am just talking about cash games here not tournaments. Just would like to get some kind of idea.

[edit] Author of Copmuter AI Poki

I know Poki comes out of the University of Alberta GAMES group, but isn't Darse Billings the primary author and not Jonathan Schaeffer? I think Darse should at least get equal mention, if not sole mention. --Fritzlein 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This content has been moved to Computer poker players.--Toms2866 15:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship to GameInfo or other topic-specific wikis?

I've been turning around in my head (and with people on 2+2 in the Beginners and Brick & Mortar forums) the idea of an extensive poker-specific wiki. I think it would go outside the bounds of Wikipedia, because I'm envisioning articles with evolving "best practices" for strategy, bankroll management, etc. as well as others tracking current state of casino and most likely online play (Where can I find a $3/6 game in Atlantic City?, for example -- for that matter which games are consensus fishiest?).

So here are the options that I see:

  • Wikipedia - This project is probably out of scope for this site.
  • GameInfo, a games-specific wiki
  • Build up another small wiki that a 2+2 contributor built (don't have the link handy)
  • Build a poker wiki from scratch

It seems like any of these will involve rework or cut-paste. For example, this site already has good high-level strategy and rules; no reason not to use that as a starting point as we drill down.

Any thoughts on this idea? In general, how does Wikipedia relate to other subject-matter specific wikis? (In other words, do people stop building out the Wikipedia entries and move to the specific site, or not, or what?)

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

PhilipR 13:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

-EV 64.207.22.39 15:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Negative EV because of redundancy, or what? -- PhilipR 16:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
As a player, I'd rather not help build a single easy-to-read, accessible source that explains everything I know about poker. I am afraid it would reduce my edge. Sorry about my initial comment, though, I have no rational reason to dissuade you or others from this similiar project and it was needlessly dismissive. 64.207.22.39 21:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PokerWiki now live

This project is now live at http://poker.wikicities.com . Its intention is emphatically NOT to replace the poker content here, but to complement it with deeper, possibly more opinionated, content that's out of scope for WP. Come say hi. :) - PhilipR 22:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussion

This section is an archive of old discussion.


News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Pros raking up as amateurs come to poker table", azcentral.com, October 1, 2004.

This article was the "article of the day" today (deservingly). One gets a different perspective on the article reading it in unlinked plain text. In particular, this sentence stands out:

The basic rules of the game include /Game play, /Hands, and /Betting structure.

When these are linked, the sentence makes sense; when not, it looks confusing and even ungrammatical.

I would propose a rule: An article should be written so that it makes sense whether or not the links are there. A plain text, unlinked version of the article should be entirely helpful and nonpuzzling. Therefore, the expected following of links should not do the work of text; links should be for further information, not for getting essential information to the topic at hand.

What do you think? --LMS

Hmm. I am inclined to agree, though this may be harder in some cases than it first appears, and it may also make the text a bit more awkward than it might be otherwise for those who are reading it in original form. We have, after all, chosen the medium for our project, and a process that facilitates creation for that medium. The fact that the content may not work well in other media should not surprize us, nor should it bother us much. The hypertext concept isn't going away, so our information--and links are information too--will always be useful. Text such as the above can be reworked without much difficulty, but is it really worth the effort? What about articles with animations, or interactive content, or good use of fonts sizes and colors, or other aspects of this medium that can greatly increase understanding? Should we sacrifice those things to make articles mailable? Or should we add fallbacks at the expense of extra effort and possibly making the original uglier? I don't think it's necessarily a slam dunk, but should be left to the judgment of authors. Certainly articles that are primarily text with little need of extras should be written to fall back cleanly--articles on philosophy, history, and so on. But articles on math really need complex symbols to be understandable, and should use them. If that makes them non-mailable, sobeit. Likewise, my "hands" subpage here really needs the suit symbols for clarity. That makes them non-mailable too. I've tried to avoid those symbols on pages that didn't need them, but those that do really do. --LDC

I'm now totally convinced that we shouldn't aim at making all pages mailable. I think I did have a point, but I'm not sure best how to state it. --LMS

It might make sense for "accessibility" (in many forms, including the ability to survive email) to be point of quality, just not necessarily a reqired one. Math is the real toughie--there's just no way to do it without the symbols, and so we need to have specialized methods. But the change you suggest to the one sentence on the poker page does make sense, so I reworded it. It's now a better article, in that it expresses exactly what it did before just as effectively, and now it is also less confusing when read as email or on Lynx or a speech browser, etc. It's the same issue with things like illustrations: if you can make the article make sense without them with little work, why not? But if you can't, don't lose any sleep over it. --LDC

I read the recent update about an electoral draw being decided by a hand of poker, however I have not been able to find this referred to anywhere, particularly not in the US Constitution or in any of the Amendments. I'm new to Wikipedia, should I delete that line if it can't be proven or is wrong?

The game of poker (or at least most of the variants) is considered to be computationally unsolvable.

"Computationally unsolvable" means that it's infeasible to have an algorithm that would play perfect strategy, right? That should be explained. But, what would "perfect strategy" mean in poker, when there are humans involved? How can there be a perfect strategy for bluffing, for example? Axlrosen 15:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think I've more-or-less cleared that up. [[User::Unknown|Unknown]]

I removed the Poker 101 site...there's a lot of questionable advice there, and even most of the unharmful advice is really not very important. For instance, there's one article that basically advocates a "set winning limit", this is straight out of the "silly money management" theory of poker. Even if you have a stop limit for psychological reasons, there's no reason to have a stop winning limit. Most of the stuff is about tournaments, which has almost no relevance to ring play. The stuff about online play is equally bad -- most of it is tells based on time for your opponent to act. First off, this is not a sure thing to go by, you're better just going by basic principles and solid play. Second, many people can fake these tells easily. Third, even if you're against someone who has these tells, if they're using the "act in turn" buttons, they're not very good players, and you can probably beat them without resorting to online tells. Bottom line, there's little basic strategy there, a lot of questionable stuff. Am I the only person here who thinks we shouldn't be giving questionable advice here at wikipedia? (The last time I checked, the Texas hold 'em article had some awful advice, see my comments there. Revolver 01:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would we consider it a good idea to write at the chess article, "It's generally a good idea to get your queen out in the middle of the board early on in the game"??? Okay, so most of the poker advice here isn't THAT bad, but appraoching that. I'm sorry, I know I'm not a poker expert, but there ARE many facts and decisions in poker that are clearly correct, and others that are not correct, and a lot of INcorrect stuff is floating around everywhere. Revolver 01:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph had some stuff that was awkward and unnecessary; the specific reference to "five cards", for example. First, in the place it was found, I was talking about vying games in general, not poker specifically. Second, the idea that a game with other than five cards isn't poker is a matter of opinion that some (including me) would dispute. To me, the essence of poker is the betting procedure, not the hands. So something like Carribean Stud (a table game) is not poker at all, even though it uses the traditional 5-card hands; but 3-card lowball definitely _is_ poker, even though it doesn't use five cards or poker hands. I think the majority of professionals would agree with me on that one. LDC

I don't know if I consider myself a professional at all, but I agree. Poker is about bets primarily, not cards. Table games only bear superficial resemblance to true poker. Revolver 13:33, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link

I removed a link to pokerworks.com, the summary given said it was a link to poker rules, and although the site may contain that it was not on the page linked to. In addition, the site seems to be primarily a place for referals to online poker sites. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Quotes

Don't the quotes belong in WikiQuotes instead of here? --Randal L. Schwartz 05:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably, yeah, but alot of articles on wikipedia include a few sample quotes while providing a link to a more comprehensive quote collection on wikiquote. That would probably be a good solution here too. Usrnme h8er 12:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] They copied us

This website has taken wiki's material on their site, [2], should they mention wikipedia on their site so that the copy left be accepted. 132.204.227.73 14:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice of them to mention Wikipedia, but since 90% of the stuff they copied is my original text, which I explicitly place in the public domain despite Wikipedia's license, they are under no obligation to give credit. LDC 23:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poker Forums

Poker Forums have become an extremely popular method of both honing skill and meeting other people, albeit in cyberspace. They offer leagues, discussion groups, feedback on both land based and internet poker rooms and all types of related and unrelated items, including commerce.

Presently it could barely be argued that the three most popular forums are Online Poker Tour, Poker Cartel and Poker Analysis. These three forums represent more players between them in a popular online "Forum Challenge" than the other 97 forums represented combined. Their approaches to their niche markets is as different as the people who play on them.

Most players on forums participate in forum games at various site in what are termed "freerolls". This means there is no entry fee charged to enter a tournament, but there is prize money awareded to the top players in some amount that is usually supplied by the poker sites. In this way the poker sites provide some real money that will allow players who have not deposited yet to play at their tables. This prize inducement not only allows players who would normally just play in the "fun" (play money) games, it makes for more players, i.e. more "action" and hopefully will provided incentive for the players to actually deposit and continue to build the sites traffic/business.

Forums provide a service for both their members and their affiliate sites. The larger forums can bring traffic to new and established sites in droves. Poker Cartel recently brought over 1000 of its member to a new site in a months time and Online Poker Forum exceeded that number by 350 according to one poker room manager. Those types of numbers are a big boost to a new poker rooms' business.

Members of forums range from the very involved to the uninvolved. There are those who will spend hours a day communicating with friends/other members "posting" their opinions on various topics displayed on "threads". These "threads" allow for lively discourse, jokes, business connections, poker strategy, new bonus options at different sites and as wide a range of other topics for the membership as the imagination can come up with.

Please feel free to add to this poker forum topic.

Longest spam of the week award. 2005 11:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Players

I question placing the entire section titled "Computer Players" in the main article. While poker certainly is of interest to AI researchers, AI is generally not a subject that most poker players care much about. Why not move this to a separate article and reference it under this article's "See Also" section?

I removed this entire section. The content has been merged into the existing Computer poker players article. --Toms2866 03:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trump Taj Mahal

How about a more neutral pic? Besides, what about the different types of Poker, Carib, Pai...? Ksenon 02:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed it, Be BOLD!70.111.251.203 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Complexity

Anyone know what the game complexity of Poker would be? I don't think it is directly related to the probabilities of winning a certain hand or amount of cards. Help out in the combinatorial game theory sections as well. 70.111.251.203 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info box

What was wrong with the infobox that used to be up? 165.230.46.150 18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean aside from all the info in it being totally wrong? That is plenty. 2005 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computers and Tells

Tells are shown through betting patterns, not simply physically, so to say that computers do not have tells is misleading.

[edit] Quotations

These really don't belong in the article - as a rule, anything more than two of the absolutely most essential quotes is just getting spammy. I've removed them - feel free to pick a good one and put it back. Stevage 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When I created this article, I put the Lou Kreiger quote at the top as an epigraph--that is, a small pithy quote to stimulate interest and add a bit of color to what might otherwise be dull reportage. It has never been a goal of Wikipedia to prevent articles from containing creative or entertaining prose, as long as the encyclopedic content is solid. Alas, various editors have taken it upon themselves to add their favorite quotations to the point where they became significant content--which I agree is inappropriate. I might suggest moving the quotes themselves to Wikiquote, where they can be indexed both by speaker and by subject, and a single link to that subject index can be included here. I also think picking one as an epigraph to leave in the article would be fine, and perhaps the link to the quote list can be put there. --LDC 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
They have all been duplicated in wikiquote for six months or so, and there is a link to them in the main article. They should have been removed from the article before now. While one quote might be appropriate, it seems ulikely we would all agree on it, and very likely every dingaling who thinks he has a clever quote will continue to add them if they see one. The quote box is next to the book references now, which I think calls it out pretty nicely. (I removed the blob of quotes from here since they can be accessed via the article/quote link, and to keep this page from being unwieldy.) 2005 22:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggested link

User:Jamon8888 added the inline comment to the article, I have moved it here for discussion. Personally, I don't think the website is substantial enough to merit inclusion. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think that we have a "special " link that merit inclusion. We try to offer free meetup for poker players so we 'd like to be featured here. Meetup have a 19 $ fee to create a poker group and we think it is unfair. So up to you to include our link. It could help you connect each other in your local communities. xhttp://poker.citycita.org/ Local poker groups and events Local poker groups and events - citycita.org

Useless. Four local groups??? Four members???? It's not even the twentieth best link of this "home game" type. I broke the link to keep the talk page from having a spam precedent. 2005 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[User:Jamon8888] - There is few groups sure - but as i say it is an attempt to provide an online tool for poker gamers to meet up locally without having paying fees. The only way to reach people who want meet other poker players for us is to be linked . so ? wikipedia is a community project like us and without help, it will be hard to find us. Up to you.Thamks jamin
Wikipedia is not here to promote your website. Please do that elsewhere. 2005 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Donkament into Poker

Should the two afformentioned articles be merged?

Um, no. The donkament entry is near vanity and redirected now to the jargon page. 2005 01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addiction?

Shouldn't there be something on "addiction" here as well? Perhaps a link to "Gambling"?

There already is - Compulsive gambling. --Hpesoj00 22:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much aware that I posted this question at Talk:Poker. There seem to be no links from the Poker page to gambling in general or compulsive gambling. A bunch of my friends just started playing Poker online. So I came here wondering about how addictive Poker is. I was surprised to see that there was completely no mention of it here (at the page about Poker).

[edit] Delisted GA

This article was removed from the GA list due to lack of inline citations (WP:WIAGA criteria 2b). Tarret 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture

nobody got a better picture? the current picture sucks in so many ways... it shows only a bunch of people (who could be playing any table game), it´s composition is a mess, and the image quality is also poor.

[edit] Order of bets

Sorry :) was looking for some information and came here and cant find it. I want to know who bets first, and who bet's last. I know the dealer button, and about the blinds. But not sure about the order of play and wether there's any variance.

anyone feel like adding something? or just replying? :)

See Betting (poker). 2005 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's typically defined by the rules and betting structure of the specific game being played, so no single answer suffices. In most non-stud games, there is a "dealer" who acts last on most betting rounds, the player to his left ("age") betting first. Blind bets may alter this order on the first betting round. In stud-type games, betting usually begins with the highest hand showing on most rounds, or with a forced bring-in on the first round. --LDC 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Costa's theory

This might belong somewhere, but certainly not here; the formula looks like gibberish. --LDC 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If one Ace is on the table, then a certain player has also one at least. This theory is proved by the following formula:
- \lambda t_{1/4} = \ln \frac{1}{2} = - \ln{2}, \,
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/k/Talk%7EPoker_c330.html"