Talk:List of poker hands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of poker hands is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

January 1, 2008

Featured list candidate

Promoted

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.

[edit] Six of a kind?

Is that even possible? Vandalism? --WildKard84 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this, but I can't edit?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.224.180 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed now; thanks for pointing it out. Because of lots of little bits like this, the page is "semiprotected". This means that you can't edit it from an anonymous IP address, and you can't edit it from an account less than four days old. Note that posting from a named account actually gives you more privacy than posting from an IP address. PhGustaf (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using "T" for ten

Is it going to be too confusing to ask that we use "T" instead of "10"? It's pretty standard notation (if anyone goes from here and reads anything else in a magazine or book, it will be "T", not "10"), and it makes it so that all ranks use one character. Revolver 08:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know that "10 is more obvious to people", but I think we also owe an obligation to inform people of the most common conventions, so they will recognize them and not be confused later. Revolver

It might be helpful to clarify the rules about straights involving Aces. You can have Ace high straights(AKQJT) and some games allow Ace low straights(5432A) but you are never allowed to "turn the corner" (32AKQ).

Actually some use "turn-the-corner" straights in home games, but this is pretty uncommon. QKA23 is considered three high straight in this case. --Raketooy 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suit symbols

Is there a reason spades is "♠" in one place, but just an "S" in another?

Also, why is char reference:

&#9824;

used instead of:

&spades; ?

I think the later is clearer when editing.

Test: ♠ ♠

If there are no objections I will change this sometime soon.

(PS -sorry for multiple edits, I'm new!)

WikianJim 18:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've ran the article through a quick Perl script.

[edit] Suit seniority

When two competing hands are identical, except for suit, which one wins? Ie: does a spades royal flush beat a hearts royal flush? I guess i'm asking about suit seniority. --Commander Keane 12:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My non-authoratative answer: whenever I play, that's called a tie, and the pot is split. Suit only matters for flushes. --P3d0 14:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Someone has added the answer to the article, thanks.

Personally I'd like to see a link to some type of source to where the person got "Imperial Flush" from--for one, I've never heard of anything like this, and, not a screen down the article and it says that suits do not matter whatsoever. --Keamos 21:50, Oct 08, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon

"This is an attempt at good players not having fish suck out on them as much."

Would anyone care to either rewrite the above in English, or (if this expression is explained somewhere else on Wikipedia) to add a link to the explanation?

In my understanding of the phrase: Fish= newbies, green players or anyone who generally doesn't know what they're doing

Suck out= varies a little, but refers to hitting a card on the flop, turn or river that makes a losing hand into a winning hand. Subjectively applied, and usually indicative that the person had no business betting/calling a bet with the particular hand they called/bet with. For example, calling a bet for all one's chips, with 7-2 against opponents A-A and having the turn and river come up 7 and 2 (making two pair and "cracking" (beating) the opponent's A-A)Dkmoorhead 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Over Pair beating Trips

I have never heard any respectable player claim that this should be an exception to 3-of-Kind beating Two Pair. The only reference that I have found is this google cached discussion at fullcontactpoker.com. Like those who responded to the original poster, I could give various reasons why this exception is ridiculous.

Aside from how ridiculous the exception would be, I have yet to find any evidence that "most educated poker scholars" believe this. Please name some "educated poker scholars" and reference where they have stated their belief in this idea before reposting this section.

[edit] Identical full houses never occur.

For example, when comparing identical full houses, there are no "kickers".

I'm not sure if there is valid logic behind this sentence. I always thought no two players can have identical Full Houses in one hand, as a full house consists of a 3-of-a-kind and a pair, and no two players can have 3-of-a-kind of the same card value in one hand. So no two compared full houses houses will ever be found to be identical. Example of identical full houses: 888-JJ vs 888-JJ. Clearly this could never occur as it would require six cards of value 8 in the deck.

My suggestion is to change this to: For example, when comparing identical straights, there are no "kickers".

You can have identical full houses when wild cards (such as jokers) are used. Not very common but it is possible. I do like your suggested example better as it is more likely to happen, tho. --Ektar 02:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm the original poster of this section (didn't add signature back then, didn't know how). In Texas Hold'em identical full houses can occur too, when the board pairs up (I forgot about that when starting this conversation), but the point remains that the example used in the text can be substituted for one that is more common. The example as it is now can never occur in 5 card draw games, but my suggested example can and still brings the point across. Theroachman 02:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It is possible for identical full houses to occur.

If the flop is dealt as follows Ah 2h 4d 4s 4h

player 1 gets dealt Ad and 5c

player 2 gets dealt Ac and 7d

Then they both have a full house of 2 Aces and 3 4s.Hendo313 09:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Identical *anything* can happen in any community card game with at least 5 community card games, simply by playing the board. Stevage 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three pair

One variant of poker, often called "Canadian Poker", allows three pair as a valid hand. The rest of the game is identical to Texas Hold'em. In this variant, three pair beats two pair, but not a full house. This is an exception to the stated "always five cards in a hand" rule. There are probably other variants with similar rules. 12.106.111.10 21:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exposed cards

The following was inserted recently, and I removed it for two reasons: first, it has nothing to do with ranking poker hands, which is the subject of this article; second, it's totally false in what it does say. It does bring up the point, though, that there is not sufficient coverage of deal irregularities in general here, so I'll make a note of that on the project page. --LDC 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED TEXT

The order in which cards are dealt is unimportant. However, misdeals should be dealt with appropriately.

If a single card is dealt face up accidentally, the person to whom it was dealt should be given the option as to whether they wish to be dealt a new card or they wish to keep the card. If the card is replaced, the exposed card should remain face-up on the table giving so all players can see it, but it remains out of play.

Any further inadvertent face-up deals result in a re-deal of the hand. Often in a home game, the deal also passes.

If the bottom card of the deck is inadvertently shown to a player, the player may choose to keep this information to himself or disclose it to the table and have the deck cut. However, the cut cannot be asked for after any cards are dealt. The risk of bottom-card exposure can be easily mitigated with the use of an opaque plastic 'cut card' that remains as a cover on the bottom card.

The first and most important rule about exposed cards in all poker games in all casinos is of course that the player can never be given the choice of whether to keep or replace the card--this gives an unfair advantage to that player. The card must always be kept or always be replaced, according to rules which vary with the type of game being played. The determination of whether or not a card has been "exposed" must be made by a neutral dealer or floorperson; if a card "catches some air" or is touched by another player, and the player is concered that others may have seen it, he may request that the dealer treat it as exposed, and the dealer may do so only if the dealer is certain that the player himself could not possibly have seen it.

In draw games, an exposed card on the initial deal must be kept, while an exposed card on the draw cannot be kept. In lowball draw, a card exposed on the initial deal must be kept if if is one that can possibly be part of a perfect hand (that is, a wheel card in ace-to-five or a 7,5,4,3,2 in deuce-to-seven), but other cards must be replaced. When a card is exposed and must be replaced, the deal continues with the next player in order getting the next card just as he would have ohterwise, until all cards are dealt; then the exposed card is replaced with the top card of the stub.

In stud games, if one of the initial downcards is accidentally dealt up, the exposed card is simply treated as that player's initial upcard and what normally would have been the upcard is dealt down. If this correction cannot be made (for example, if two cards are exposed) the player's hand is declared dead and his ante refunded. If one of the players' final downcards is dealt up, it must be kept, but special rules apply: if there are three or more active players, other players recieve their final downcards as normal, and the player with the exposed card has the option of being treated as "all-in". He must choose before betting begins on that round; if he chooses to be treated as all in, all further betting goes into a side pot for which he is not eligible. If he chooses not to, he is fully subject to all further bets and raises, and fully eligible to win or lose all such action. If there are only two players, and the first player's final card is dealt face up, the remaining player's final card will be dealt up as well and betting proceed normally. If the first player's card is dealt down and the second player's up, he must choose to continue playing or declare himself all-in as before.

In community card games, a card exposed on the initial deal cannot be kept. The deal is continued as normal with the next player until all players recieve their initial cards. The exposed card in then replaced with the next card in the stub (which would have been the first burn card), and the exposed card is placed on top of the stub face-up, and will be used as the first burn card (so the community cards are not affected). If two or more cards are exposed, or if the first card exposed is one of the first two card dealt, the deal is voided.

There are other rules for other irregularities, but those are the basics.

[edit] Flush beats a Straight

A flush beats a straight, not the other way around. I don't have time to fix this page right now, but if someone else wants to, go right ahead. I'm 100% sure.

Every other website on this subject says a full house beats a flush, and that's what I've always played. What's going on?18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] Duplicating hand (poker)?

I thought all the stubs, like straight, flush, three of a kind, would be better organized into a single article, which is why I created this page. Afterwards, I noticed that hand (poker) has nearly the same information. Perhaps the two articles ought to be merged. -- MSchmahl 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to move some info from here that would seem fine, but this one should be redirected to the other one. 2005 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I will tag to merge to achieve a consensus. —Twigboy 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An obvious merge is needed, the information is pretty much duplicated in the other article. I will transfer all info to the other article (Hand (poker)) and redirect. --Hpesoj00 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

2005 - I can appreciate the reverting of the changes I made to some of the content (though previous discussion of why you thought the changes were inappropriate would have been appreciated), but I don't understand why you changed the section on Wild Cards to a section on Bugs. Surely both should be included, as both are valid rules (even though bugs may be more common)? Also have you removed the section on poker variants, the section on probability, and the introduction to the Low-poker ranking section for a reason?--Hpesoj00 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I only removed three sentences, which were redundant to a whole large section that was added. Iahve no idea what else you are refering to since I obviously did not remove that in simply reverting your change. If you think more should be added from the old article, then do so. As for wild cards, this article is about standard hands. There is an article about non-standard hands. Your added section included factaully incorrect information. For example, KKKKJoker is four kings with an ace, not five kings. Again, on-standard rules have their place, but this article should deal with standard rankings, meaning five aces is the highest hand when a bug is used, and a royal flush is highest with a standard 52 card deck. 2005 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. I think my confusion arose because I didn't realise this article was strictly about standard play. In that case I can see why you did not include the section on variations. Also my edit was based on an article titled "Hand (poker)", not "Rank of hand (poker)", I thought "Hand (poker)" would encompass all information from both articles. The section on wild cards (which was not my work, to make things clear) contained correct, but non-standard information as far as I can see. My edit involved quite a few additions, but with reconsideration, I think how it is now is probably better given the title. There was no need to add the table of probabilities that I added, I had removed that in the merge after realising that it, and the table for 7-card poker was already included on a separate page. I have replaced the section on probabilities only, as that seems standard enough. Thanks for replying. --Hpesoj00 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five of a kind

I don't believe five of a kind is a "standard hand", but instead, a "non-standard hand". Therefore, I think that should be moved to the Non-standard poker hand article. Not many places as far as I know play with wild cards, and is definitely not played in most official games. Camp3rstrik3r 02:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, there's a whole bunch of stuff in this article about non-standard hands. All of this stuff should be transferred to the non-standard poker hand article. This article should stick to the standard poker hands only to avoid duplication wit the non-standard poker hand article.--Toms2866 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Five-of-a-kind is a standard poker hand in every casino in which I have ever played any game with a joker, which is quite a few. For a long time, the standard game in California was five-card draw with a joker. Games like Pai Gow Poker also include the hand. It should be included in any standard ranking of poker hands. --LDC 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Five-of-a-kind is not a standard hand, as wild cards are not standard. --Hpesoj00 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Five a kind is a standard hand in any game using a joker, which is not normally called a "wild card", but how to decribe a bug isn't that important. Five of a kind is standard in casino draw poker games, even if those seldom exist. It is also standard in home poker draw games. It's description could be disclaimered somewhat like "In game where a bug is used, five of a kind...". 2005 20:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the distiction of "standard" has a different meaning. When a joker/bug/wild card is used, that is the only instance where it is possible to achieve five-of-a-kind. However, some rules of wild-card games stipulate that 5OAK is not a viable hand, because the hand could not otherwise exist. Put it another way, a 5OAK requires some phantom suit in order to be created, so some rules do not recognize it. Those that do allow it must make a special declaration in the rules. Because there is not a standard rule over its inclusion, and it's not possible in a standard game of poker, I believe it must be relegated to a nonstandard hand. —Twigboy 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But there is a standard rule, and is possible in a standard poker game. That's the point. We shouldn't get into non-standard rules, or ignore standard practices decades old. Five a kind is the best hand, in most cases it is not possible because a bug isn't used, but when it is used it is the best hand. This is certainly followed in casinos as a standard rule. 2005 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 5-of-a-kind is the most standard of the non-standard hands. Anyone who has heard of wildcards in poker has heard of 5-of-a-kind. Although I don't agree that it is a 'standard' hand, I don't see why it can't be included in the list so long as it is clearly stated that a wildcard is needed in the deck for it to be possible. 5-of-a-kind logically becomes possible with the use of wildcards, and is the **only** new hand that is made possible by the addition of wildcards. It is not just some weird hand that has been made up by a couple of drunken blokes playing poker in their kitchen (as it would seem is the case with most of the non-standard hands listed here). I vote that it should be included in the list. --Hpesoj00 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Convinced. I added a brief section on the use of wild cards, which describes 5OAK > RF. —Twigboy 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good section. I altered the title to "Use of wild cards and 'five of a kind'" as a substantial part of the section is about five of a kinds. Also it will stop people from adding it again to the top of the main list. --Hpesoj00 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FoaK is definately NOT a "standard hand." Wild cards are not standard, the article should not mention this. Instead there should be a mention in the intro that Wild Cards can change the hand rankings listed, and the mention of FoaK in the Straight Flush sections should be removed. I'm going to do that, but if anyone objects, then simply change it back. MJPerry 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, five of a kind is a standard poker hand in casino draw poker games. The fact that it isn't possible in games without a joker doesn't make it less "standard" although as the article does, it should note the circumstances in games with a bug when five of a kind is a standard possibility. 2005 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Royal Flush a Hand?

I have seen 'Royal Flush' referred to as a hand in its own right in many places, not just in this article, which is why I am first discussing my view. Surely 'Royal Flush' is a name for the highest ranking straight-flush? It is included in the List of slang names for poker hands, so why should it be regarded as a a completely new hand, and hands like 'Steel Wheel' (straight-flush A-5) and 'Four Pips' (four aces) not be? Of course it is the highest possible hand in games without wildcards, but I still don't think that is reason enough to regard it as any different than a straight-flush. --Hpesoj00 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd completely agree with you, but as it is often referred to as an distinct hand, I'm not sure should it be done here. In Finland (where I live), by the way, the straight flush is nearly always referred to as the best hand and the royal flush as the highest straight flush.--Raketooy 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Royal flush is only considered a distinct hand by chumps. Stevage 10:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory word aside, the royal flush is a commonly known hand regardless of its official or even unofficial distinctness. Cburnett 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding the Royal Flush to the poker ranking is redundant. The only reason why I could see doing this is to ensure that it's known that the Ace is high. But why stop there? Why not indicate a "Royal Straight" hand or a "Royal Pair" hand? The Ace is already indicated as being the high card in the rule books; there's no need to show a Royal Flush.

The issue was that the Royal Flush was down on this page as a hand and I thought it shouldn't be, not that it isn't included as a unique hand. The issue was resolved some time ago, and hence Royal Flush is no longer included as a unique hand. Hpesoj00 14:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the Poker hands article to mention that a Royal Flush is often counted as a seperate hand. I also added in the odds of being dealt each hand and expanded the sections on flushes and straights. MJPerry 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But it seems I broke some sort of holy Wikipedia rule, 'cos it's been deleted. 82.44.185.5 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the reason a Royal Flush was considered separately was because a Royal Flush beats a Five-of-a-kind. But this page says that Five-of-a-kind beats a Royal Flush, which would mean that there's no difference between a Royal Flush and a Straight Flush. Eh, I like my rules better. Scientivore 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on what game you're playing. In Deuces Wild, a Royal Flush beats a Five-of-a-Kind. You can see proof of this in the Video poker#Deuces Wild article. I did the math, and there are 624 ways to get a Five-of-a-kind in Deuces Wild, and only 484 ways to get a Royal Flush (4 Natural Royals, and 480 Wild Royals). Scientivore 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In regular poker, "royal flush" is just a nickname for the highest possible straight flush. It's not a hand in its own right. --Andrews Palop (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Royal beats five-of-a-kind" is a video poker only thing. In real poker, five-of-a-kind wins--a royal is just an ace-high straight flush. --LDC (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specific links to Headings

FYI, many of the headings in this article are linked to specifically. For instance, all the hands (eg four of a kind), as well as lowball systems, have redirects to the appropriate headings here, so any heading changes should be corrected in the redirects. ENeville 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheels

I find it a bit misleading that there's a section on the "wheel" only under low-ranking poker (and it's linked to from the poker glossary). The term "wheel" is used in normal poker as well, but you wouldn't really know it from a quick glance of this article. Stevage 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full House Location in List Incorrect

I moved the full house section to its correct location in the hand ranking order (between four of a kind and flush). Even though the text of that section correctly said where it lay in the ranking, its improper location was misleading and generated a table of contents with the hands listed in ranked order correctly except for the full house. (I also added "and below full house" to the flush section.) Castien 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The full house section was moved by another user in the edit prior to yours, probably an attempted vandalism, although it could have just been a clueless poker player. Well spotted however! Hpesoj00 16:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Clueless, Australian, or Mexican :-) The common poker games of Australia and Mexico (Manila and Mexican stud, respectively) use a stripped deck, and (correctly) rank flushes above full houses. I'm sure there are many players of those games who wouldn't know otherwise. --LDC 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three of a kind a.k.a. Prile?

I cannot find any sources using this term in the context of poker. I can find a few references to it in the game of "Three card brag". Does anyone have an opinion on whether it should be included on this poker page? Hpesoj00 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought it shouldn't, and probably still do, but perhaps it is a common slang term just like "gin" or "pinochle" can be used as poker terms. I'd say take it out, but I don't mind it staying either. 2005 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding Ace-to-six low

In Ace-to-six low, is 10-J-Q-K-A considered a straight? Since the ace is low, I assume not, but this would be good to clarify in the article. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add examples for split pot

Besides the examples on which hands beats which i would also love to see for each poker hand / combination an example which shows a case in which the pot is split between the two players. i would also love to have the explanation in the text. Could someone do that?

to me it also isn't clear whether 8,8,8,A,J defeats 8,8,8,A,2 or whether the two players are to split the pot. can anyone answer on that? (i'm sorry but i don't know how to put my name and the time in here)

Poker hands have five cards. 888AJ defeats 888A2--all five cards play. But no more than five cards play--so if you're playing Texas hold'em, the board is 88AK5, two players with J8 and 83 in their hands tie, because they are both playing the five-card hand 888AK. --LDC

[edit] strange?! or too bad

NOWHERE in this article (and the same remark is true for the Poker article) are mentionned (such as in a description) the words SPADES, HEARTS, CLUBS or DIAMONDS !!!!!! 84.227.29.31 05:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the specific suit names are mentioned in specific examples. I don't think the suits need to be specifically mentioned, as the name of the suits isn't integral to understanding any aspect of poker hand ranking. I also think it is almost a given that people reading this article will be familiar with a standard pack of cards (and even if they aren't, there is a link to the article Suit (cards) in the general rules section). Although, if anyone thinks the suit names need to be mentioned, I doubt it will have a negative effect if they do. Hpesoj00 11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the point is: you do not know what an encyclopedia is! spades etc. HAVE TO be mentionned at the very begining of the article, period 85.0.171.14 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be true for a paper encyclopedia, but we've got hypertext here, and links are better, because they don't clutter the article with stuff that doesn't really need to be there while they still give the reader a way to find background material he might not be familiar with. --LDC 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

There used to be a picture on this page, until C.Fred removed it. I found the picture quite handy and consistent with the text. What is the reason the picture is now gone? I would like to see it back, just my 2c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.215.58 (talk) 12:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

A spoof image replaced the original. It has been restored.mdash;Twigboy 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maths

Regardless of the usefulness of explaining why 47! is used, the maths as it stands is simply wrong. $52! - 5! \ne 47!$ !! Perhaps you're looking for $(52 - 5)!$ or $52! \div 5!$ . Happy‑melon 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Touche. Your edit message was "why make it more complicated?" so I assumed it was correct. You could have just fixed it you know... :) Cburnett (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was wrong until I really thought about it after you re-reverted. I don't really see why changing it is necessary - $52! \div 5!$ is likely to just confuse the issue further. But if you think it's a good idea, feel free to change it. Happy‑melon 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Flush

Where is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's right there under "straight flush". --LDC (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "List" Title

Why was the title changed to "list of..."? It's clearly not just a list article, it's a full explanation and description of a single subject. It should clearly just be "Poker hands". --LDC (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It covers a topic (Poker hands) in such a fashion as to break down into a collection of very distinct, and almost independent, units. Indeed it's not "just a list", but that's not the definition of a "List of..." article on Wikipedia. Regardless, it is sufficiently "list-like" to have been made a featured list, so its status as a list doesn't seem to be in question. Happy‑melon 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "As such it is both a straight and a flush"

Under straight flush the articls says that a straight flush "is both a straight and a flush", but according to the definitions given under straight and flush, that's wrong. Something needs to be fixed. I'd add a "contradict" tag, but the article is semi-protected, so I can't. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; the definitions as they stand are contradictory. My inclination is to patch the straight flush definition, but I want to check out a reference or two first and wait for other comments. Thanks for pointing it out. PhGustaf (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --LDC (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia featured lists