Talk:Texas hold 'em

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Texas hold 'em has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Kzollman (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Talk:Texas hold 'em/1

[edit] Problem with references for this article

This article, as appears to be common with many of the gambling articles on wikipedia, uses some references which are not remotely reliable sources. Pokertips.org, for example. From looking through the poker articles, I'm seeing this situation all over the place. It appears that there are lots of gambling websites, and especially poker websites, which exist for the purpose of getting people to click on their commercial links. These websites have a bunch of articles and definitions to get people to visit the website, but this does not make them reliable sources and wikipedia articles should not be using them as such. --Xyzzyplugh 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I also see an ezine article listed as a source. Ezine is about as authoritative as random blogs or myspace pages. --Xyzzyplugh 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The Ezine your referring to is published by Two Plus Two Publishing one of the most reputable sources for poker strategy guides. The ezine is edited by Mason Malmuth one of the owners of said publishing companies. While Ezines as a whole are bad sources, this one is an exception. I agree with you about the other citations, they are shitty sources, but they're being used for very "low impact" things, namely rules for other poker variants. One of the problems of researching on the web (especially for things I already know), is that its a giant pain in the ass to find good sources (amidst all the crap). Even more difficult is finding a book that lists all of these poker variants since some of them have been invented rather recently. I will attempt to track down better sources for the rules for these games.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the ezine refernce was to... xhttp://ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Texas-Holdem&id=112171 I removed that, since it was an unreliable refence to a legend! Even though the articles aren't signed, pokertips pretty clearly meets the criteria as a reliable source since the site is referenced all over the place. 2005 00:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In a burst of remarkable good timing, the texas state legislature officially recognized Robstown, Texas as the birthplace of texas hold'em yesterday. I have added that fact along with a citation to the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
They must have read this thread... 2005 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1970s-2000

Okay, the FAC people pointed out a (rather obvious) oversight in this article. The history section goes until 1970 and the explosion section begins at 1999. Something relevant to THE must have happened in the intervening decades. Don't worry about citations on the talk page, let's just try to come up with the relevant ideas that are worth tracking down. My two suggestions are a brief mention of the increased interest in the WSOP main event and publication of Super/System. Any other suggestions? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 09:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Most important development in that time, by far, is flop games coming to California in the 1980s, and then to a lesser degree coming to the East Coast, but that isn't nearly as important since stud was still the dominant game until after 2000. 2005 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion, I have added it to the article. The history is really interesting, and the generally accepted story is wrong. The legality of draw had nothing to do with it being a game of skill, nor did the decision legalizing hold'em have anything to do with that either. That was the story I had always been told. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table

2005 removed my addition of the skalansky-malmuth hand groups. I thought it was a nice addition that illustrated the claim that individual hands are discussed by strategists. His justification was that it was redundant, which I don't see as a harm. Can we discuss this here? (2005, as a side note, I grow increasingly frustrated with your constant removal of otherwise well intended edits without any discussion on the talk page. Please next time you remove something I added, especially something added only moments before, would you mind providing some justification beyond a few words in the edit summary?) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific with any comments. Generalized nonsense about "constant removal of well intended edits" is both rude and frankly embarrassing to you. I have not removed anything of value, and add notes when I do remove something. In this case you added an entirely redundant TABLE to an article that already has bloat issues. The starting hands section has a main article link, and then THREE paragraphs when there should be at most a couple sentences. Adding a table that is on the main article is patantly absurd. Redirect the other article to this one if you think the information should be here. In the future, first, please do not bloat articles with redundancy, and second, please have a little more courtesy. My edit was plainly appropriate, and explained in notes. And frankly, yours was not. If you think this article NEEDS to state the EXACT SAME THING as another article, then that totally nonstandard way of doing things should be discussed with a lot of justicfication on a talk page first. 2005 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2005, this is exactly the sort of behavior that I find frustrating. Do you honestly think that I thought to myself: "What this article needs is to be worse. How can I achieve that? Perhaps by doing something which obviously makes the article less useful. Brilliant!" ? This is precisely the sort of presumption decried in WP:AGF. I don't mind you removing my edits, I don't mind discussing changes with you. I respect that, just like me, you are attempting to make the article better. I wish that you would give me the same credit I give you.
To discuss this specific table. An editor at the FAC requested adding additional pictures and illustrations. These are bit hard to come by, but in keeping with that request, I thought the S-M groups would illustrate the statement in that section regarding the discussion of individual hand (a point I have already mentioned.) Redundancy is encouraged, not discouraged, by wikipedia policies. For example WP:SS indicates that several paragraphs of summary should be included in parent articles for daughter articles. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"I wish that you would give me the same credit I give you." I did. I added a clear comment on why it was inappropriate. You both ignored that, and then made a very inappropriate comment. You need to take a step back. Your comments were inappropriate. The addition of the table is just a bad idea, but you should discuss that on its own terms if you want. "An editor at the FAC requested adding additional pictures and illustrations." Well, that just silly... but in any case adding a redundant one is not the answer. "Redundancy is encouraged, not discouraged, by wikipedia policies." Patent nonsense. You need to read WP:SIZE. While a table is not something that should be specifically held against an article's size, redundant concepts should be moved out to other articles and you should "you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article." This article is not "too long" now, but it is right at the edge. It could be improved by culling out some of the excesses and have new articles made or expanded. We went over this once before. It's an exaggeration to say it, but it appears you think this article is the only article. It isn't. We have poker, online poker, texas hold'em hands, texas hold'em probability and many other articles. They should be linked to from this article, and they themselves made high quality. All content should not be dumped into this article. Especially since its focus is so broad, we need to be vigilant to keep it a focysed as possible. This article would be 100 times bigger if redundancy was good. It isn't, and the style guideline specifically lays out how things should be done in this circumstance. So, in other words... the table is fine in the starting hands article, it's terrible here. 2005 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I'm not a fan of lots of pictures; generally I feel one per substantial subsection is enough. Do we really need all the pictures in this article? Can we get some kind of ordering by importance and reasons for including each picture? --Ideogram 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They were placed at the request of an editor at FAC and a previous PR. I think they are probably a matter of taste. I actually prefer the article with them included. I find the line length of the screen to large to scan nicely with my eyes, and reducing line length by adding pictures is helpful. It also breaks up the visual monotony of the article. I don't think any of the pictures are irrelevant. Here are my justifications for each picture:
  • Intro picture, b&w: illustrates all important parts of THE. Contains the private cards, the community cards and the action of betting.
  • Blind illustration: shows the relationship of the blinds to the button
  • Hole cards picture: illustrates the presence of private cards and shows that there are only two.
  • Board picture: illustrates the presence of public cards and shows the process of dealing one
  • Example illustration: depicts the order of play for the example hand, needed for people who are not used to reading poker hands.
  • Picture of Doyle: Illustrates strategic thinking and breaks up a long section that would otherwise be unillustrated
  • Tournament picture: Breaks up text
  • Binion's picture: reproduces several of the important characters discusses in the history section as well as a location discussed there as well.
  • Raymer and Haschem: people discussed in that section.
  • Graph of revenue: illustrates the substantial growth of online poker.
If I had to choose one to go it would be the tournament picture. Other than that I really prefer the article contain them all. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My biggest concerns are that there should not be more than one picture per section and a picture should not be longer than its section (messes up the edit links). Having two images so close together that the text is boxed in on both sides is specifically against the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
You need to realize that this article will be rendered on screens of arbitrary resolution and windows of arbitrary size. If you find the lines are too long, you need to set your own font size/window width on your own computer, not change how the page looks to every reader.
I don't think there needs to be a picture for every section, I think that less is more. I don't really see how the picture of Doyle illustrates "strategic thinking".
This isn't really that important to me, but I wanted to make my concerns known. --Ideogram 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern with the article. I don't read the MOS of style the same way you do. I think it prohibits the inclusion of two left/right images directly opposite each other (not staggered). But, I'm happy to reorganize to avoid that. Perhaps we could agree on one image per subsection at the most. I will implement a limited version of that, and see what you think. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
One image per section seems good (two bar sections, not three bar). There were too many pictures yesterday. You could build a casino during the time that page would have taken to load on dial up. It's still quite big so we should be careful not to add too many kbs. I don't have a comment on the size thing other than the obvious that if a picture is made so small that you can't make sense of it then either the picture should be made bigger or deleted. 2005 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I would like to do. I would like to have one image in the lead, two images in "rules" (one illustration, one picture), one image in "example", one image in "strategy", one image in "history", two images in "explosion" (one picture haschem or raymer and the illustration of growth in party profits), and no images in the remaining sections. How is this for a compromise? It reduces the number of images by about 1/4 (11 images before to 7 images after). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
(This still satisfies the FAC request for more images from the previous number which was 6. Following the 1 image per section rule would maintain the previous number.) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Go ahead and do that and let me see how it looks. --Ideogram 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've done it. We could replace the hole cards picture with the board image and similarly replace the haschem image with raymer (if anybody cares). I don't really care about either. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. --Ideogram 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad we could get this worked out. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

I reverted a removal of image sizes by Ideogram. In particular, the blind illustration must be larger because of the detail it presents. Relying on individual users to set their defaults is not sufficient for two reasons (1) the default applied to all images regardless of detail (thus users must either have some images be too small or others too large) and (2) most readers are not logged in and thus see the default page. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Users that are not logged in have image sizes set according to their screen resolution, which is what you want most of the time. Although some images may indeed need to be larger than average to show more detail, unspecified image sizes should be the default. --Ideogram 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that some users (such as myself) already have the default set to the maximum 300px, but if you want to set this one image to 300px I have no problem with it. --Ideogram 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the only image that I think needs to be set larger, although I generally prefer to set image sizes to make it appear better. I think you default setting may be why you find the presence of all the images so distracting. Log out and look at this version of the page. Tell me what you think. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, you need to allow for user preferences and try to let your article look good under most circumstances. In my case, I have large browser windows (1024x1536) so most users who would have smaller browser windows would actually find the images more distracting. --Ideogram 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kickers are often used to determine the winner?

This statement rings false to my ears, on a number of levels. It's certainly a confusing thing to say in the lead. -- Kendrick7talk 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {{fact}} from there as it is very easily verified and known as fact by any regular players, you could check this in any Texas Hold 'em book - or by watching any televised game or online site long enough, the kickers will decide the winner when the need is there.--Alf melmac 08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
But that is not "often." I play a lot of hold em. Heck, I'm playing as I type. -- Kendrick7talk 08:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
then re-write the sentence to remove that word. We need only cite things that are not easily verfiable or likely to be challenged, this wouldn't be the case if the word "often" were not in operation.--Alf melmac 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It's true that this will occur in games where there are several players who will play any Ax hand and call their hand down to the river if an A hits on the flop. This will occur on games that are either very loose, or short handed, particularly heads-up -- the last two being the kind of game frequently on TV, as you note. But even in shorthanded games, a pro isn't too likely to call down his Ax hand with a weak kicker, IMHO, unless he's got some extra outs (e.g. flopping a four flush). -- Kendrick7talk 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is it more skill or luck? or in what ratio?

what percentage of texas holdem do you think is skill and what percentage is luck? is it 50/50 or more luck than skill or what?--Sonjaaa 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between "skill" and "luck" that is often used isn't really a helpful way to think about the game. In the short term, almost anyone can win money. So in that sense, the game involves a lot of luck. In the long run, it is very hard for most players to win money, so in that sense the game involves a lot of skill. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a good question, and one that a couple of poker authors do address in books - so reliable sources are available, although the answers will be subjective. I'll see what I can find. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Doyle Brunson says that he's received a lot of comments about how lucky he is. He says that's not true, and that no one is consistently lucky. He credits his success to his aggressive playing style. (p420, Super System, Third Edition, Cardoza Publishing, ISBN 1-58042-081-8)
  • Mike Caro says that, after mastering the basic mechanics, the main factor that separates break-even players from players who win consistently is psychology. (p11, Caro's Book Of Poker Tells, Fifth Printing, Cardoza Publishing, ISBN 1-58042-082-6)
  • Jennifer Harman says that limit hold'em is a game requiring a straightforward play style and she stresses the importance of patience and discipline. (p209-212, Super System 2, First Edition, Cardoza Publishing, ISBN 1-58042-136-9)

Eh, I can't find the rest of my books. That will have to do for now. If anyone wants to include any of this, be my guest. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't meaningful as posed: first, you have to ask "over what period of time?". On any one hand of poker, the result is nearly 100% a matter of luck, although a skilled player can manipulate his chances of winning a little, especially at no-limit. Over many hours of play, luck evens out somewhat and good players should expect to do better, but even the best players will have bad days, weeks, or months. Once you get into thousands of hours of play, the best players will consistently win, and the mediocre players will consistently lose. One also has to ask "under what conditions?". The profitability of a game to a good player is influenced by choice of game, betting limits, mix of players, time of day, and many other things. The best players in the world will consistently make money at weak tables, but if the top ten are all playing a game against each other, then their results will be mostly a matter of luck, because their respective skills even out. --LDC 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The nuts

I removed the paragraph about the nuts from the showdown section. I felt like its presence was of limited value and it distracted from the flow of the article. Any concerns? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some feedback

  • I don't see why this material in the "Objectives" subsection (which definately belongs in the article) falls under the "Rules" section, rather than the "Strategy" section (other than it's conceptual importance suggests it go earlier rather than later) I'd look to put it in the lead section, maybe... This bit is awkward: "The objective of winning players is not winning individual pots, but rather making mathematically correct decisions. By making such decisions, winning poker players maximize their expected utility and win more money than they lose in the long run." suggest: "The objective of winning players is not winning individual pots, but rather making decisions which maximize the probability of winning more money than is lost over the long run. Economists call this mathematical process 'maximizing expected utility'." or something like that.
  • "When only two players remain, special 'head-to-head' or 'heads up' rules are enforced and the blinds are posted differently than expected." here, "differently than expected" makes no sense to me, like the process is randomly determined each hand? or does this mean "The blinds are posted differently when only two players remain. Special 'head-to-head' or 'heads up' rules...[description of rules]". The whole "betting structures" subsection needs to begin with an explanation of "why" before launching into the "what". I really don't understand which blind players are competing over. If they're just added together then why this complicated subdividsion? Under what conditions does one win one blind or another. This is the part that needs the most exposition.
  • I had to squint at the Holdem_Table.png then click the link to read it clearly, it could be bigger - losing the margins might help.

Otherwise, it's a bit of a tough slog, but I can't think of how to make the technical exposition easier, the temptation might be to push the drudge from the front to the back of the article. The later sections work really well, but the exposition of the rules is unconnected to why the rules lead to dramatic or strategic tension... If the rules could be written to highlight the cost/benefit, risk prone/averse implications they impose on players, then it would have a greater chance of engaging the intuition. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pete, thanks a lot! (A note to others, I had asked Pete to look over the article for us, so this isn't unsolicited advice.) I'll fix the things you suggest and think about a way to increase the readability of the rules second. There is a saying (apt I think) that all poker games start as a competition for the forced bets (blinds or antes). (Sklansky talks about this in The Theory of Poker I think.) Perhaps adding this and explaining its implication might be worthwhile. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What do folks think about moving the history and explosion sections to the front of the article? It doesn't depend on the rules or strategy sections which proceed it, and presents a more interesting start to the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't logical to talk about the effects of a thing without explaining the thing first. The rules stuff should definitely go first. That is a description of the thing in question. The significance of that thing should come afterwards. 2005 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in the history section presupposes knowledge of anything in the rules section. There is nothing inherently illogical about presenting the article in that order. Monopoly (game) (a featured article) has the history before the rules section. It doesn't make that article any less readable, or otherwise illogical. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's common sense to say what you are talking about before going on about the history of this unknown thing. And it's extra silly here where the history stuff has so much only marginally related material in it. And of course most obviously there is no reason to do things backwards so why would you want to. 2005 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I don't think putting the history section first is doing it "backward" (at least not in the negative way you suggest). We do say what we are talking about, in the lead. I don't see why knowing the details about the blinds, the order of play, or the showdown is needed to understand the history section. Can you say why you think the article would be less readable or useful if we were to reverse the order? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is already chocked full of tangential material. At best the tangential content should be at the end. But that's not even the point. Why don't you want the Texas hold'em article to lead with content on what texas hold'em is? Frankly what you are suggesting is like doing an article on the history of the automobile or the United States without explaining what those things are. It doesn't make any sense. This is an encyclopedia, not a people magazine article. 2005 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The analogy is appropriate, I gave the example of monopoly which does exactly that. I don't think that article is harmed in any way. I want to make the change because many readers of this article will be more interested in the history than the details of blinds, etc. That section is more readable (because it has less technical detail) and would encourage readers to engage the article more. It will also not harm readers who are interested in the rules, since that section will still be there. I take it your objection to moving the history section before the rules section is a general dislike for that section. While I appreciate your attitude, you are certainly in the minority. Those sections have been expanded at the request of many editors on WP:PR, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Given that this section is appropriate for the article, I see no reasn why it can't be first. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, Automobile begins with a history section and United States has the history section very early in the article (4th out of 12). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"I want to make the change because many readers of this article will be more interested in the history than the details of blinds, etc." This again makes no sense whatsoever. What about people more interested in rules and what exactly Hold'em is? Making illogical, random changes to this article for no reason other than you want one type of person to like the beginning over another type of person really is too silly to talk about. Instead you should be considering how to improve the meandering last half of the article to something more relevant and encyclopedic. And certainly if you were to reverse the order, all the tangential material should be removed. This article is about Texas hold'em, not poker in general. Some tangential material could go at the end of the article, but anything like that at the beginning is clearly inappropriate. 2005 00:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I decided to do a little research on how other game related articles are arranged, and what I've seen is it can go both ways, either rules before history or history before rules which includes featured articles in both cases, Here is a list of a few examples:

Rules before history

History before rules

Anyways, I really don't feel strongly either way in this matter so you can take these finding with a grain of salt. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 12:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a good article for learning rules

Just my opinion, but this article is terrible for learning how to play Texas Hold 'Em. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to explain to beginners how to play games, but most other Wikipedia pages about card and casino games are a lot better than this one at explaining the mechanics to beginners. 75.75.110.235 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Same with me. It hardly explains the blinds.Argofan1 13:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The blinds aren't part of the game, so they can't be explained here. Casinos usually spread the game with a two-blind structure, but some have single blinds, three blinds, antes, straddles, or some other structure. Home games may do even stranger things. Betting structures are better covered in the general poker articles, as they have nothing to do with the particular game being played (though certainly some games are better suited to some structures). --LDC 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


I was hoping to see a discussion of VPIP and BB/100. See for example: http://www.absolutepokercheats.com/vpipvbb.jpg which is about the cheating that has been charged against Absolute Poker in mid to late 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.107.136 (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is probably more appropriate for the article on online poker than an article on texas hold 'em. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the section on betting could be written a little more clearly. The sentence that trips me up is: "In no-limit hold 'em, players may bet or raise any amount over the minimum raise up to all of the chips the player has at the table (called an all-in bet)." The problem is that "minimum raise" isn't defined. I think it refers to the minimum bet, which is defined. Can this be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakablogger (talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of game

Why is the relevent and fantastic information below been taken out of the article? 86.150.235.202 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) .

Although little is known about the invention of Texas hold 'em, the Texas State Legislature officially recognizes Robstown, Texas as the game's birthplace, dating the game to the "early 1900s".[1]. However, their is no reliable record, if any at all, to prove this.
Des Wilson, in his 2007 book on the history of Poker, 'Ghosts at the Table: The amazing story of Poker... the world's most popular game..', he delves extensively, moreso than anyone else, into the origin of the Holdem variation of Poker. Of this Wilson writes:
"...exploring poker's past is made difficult because their are virtually no records. If you want to know about baseball, [American] football, golf, the Olympics... there's no end to the facts and statistics; school kids can reel them off. But not poker.
Take the origin of Texas hold'em. This is by far the most popular form of poker, the one adopted for the main event at the World Series of Poker, but no one appears to know when and where it began. I assume my best hope lies with oldtime Texans - Amarillo Slim (79 years old), Doyle Brunson (74), Crandell Addington (68) - but, for all their years in the game, even they don't know.
Doyle thinks it came from Waco, probably in the 1950s.
Crandell says 'The first time I ever saw hold'em was around 1959. My friend's father was playing in the big San Antonio game (one that I played in later on - from about 1963). They didn't call it Texas hold'em at the time, they just called it hold'em. And my friends intorduced it to me and some of the other guys at college who were playing mainly draw poker. I thought then that if it were to catch on, it would become the game. Draw poker, you only bet twice; hold'em, you bet four times. That meant you could play strategically. This was more of a thinking man's game.'
At least Slim recalls exactly when he first saw it.
'It was in 1959 in Brenham, Texas, a little old town between Houston and Austin. At that time one o fthe best poker games in Texas was played above a feed store in downtown Brenham. I remember I liked the game right off because every time a card lands on the board it changes the possible best hand. We all know that two aces are the best hand to start with, but come queen-ten-three - now there's a lot of hands that can beat two aces. Now, that makes a game!"
All three of these veterans were playing poker in the '50s before thy came across Texas hold'em. Could this mean the game was invented in the mid-'50s? This would explain why they all came across it at roughly the same time. I was coming round to this view until I re-read the Don Jenkins book ([1981]) on Johnny Moss. It is hopelessly vague about dates, but, as best I can work out, Jenkins is writing about the late '20s or '30s when he states:
'The Elks Club [in Dallas] offered a ten-handed hold'em game, which was different than any game [Moss] had played before. Each player was dealt two down cards for the first round of betting. Because there were mandatory 'blind' bets, the play was either to call or raise the bet or to fold on the first round. After the first round of betting was equalised, there werethree cards dealt, face up, in the centre of the table. These were called the 'community cards', which' each player used in conjunction with their two down cards. These three cards were also termed 'the flop' ... There was a second round of betting. When that round of betting was equalised, there was a fourth card placed face upin the centre of the table ... this was also a community card to be used by each of the players. A round of betting followed the placement of that card, which was called '4th street'. The last card available was a fifth community card, face-up, in the centre with the other four ... it was the last card of each hand ... When the last round o fbetting was completed, each player used their two down cards and the five up cards to make their best five-card hand.'
This is a surprising revelation, because, without question, the game described is what we know today as Texas hold'em. If this part of the Jenkins-Moss book is true, they were playing it in Dllas in the '30s, well over 20 years before it was 'discovered' by Doyle, Crandell, Slim and others in the late '50's.
The next reference to hold'em in the Jenkins-Moss book comes after an account of how Moss spent two years in the Navy and the Marines during the Second World War. Jenkins writes:
'He returned to Dallas (in 1945) to find one nice surprise ... most of his cronies had added a new game to their repertoire - hold'em. The high action game had spread quickly across the south. Johnny never let on that hold'em was one of the first games he had learnt. He simply asked them how it was played and had a picnic as people all across the south tried to teach him.'
As I've already noted, I think the Jenkins-Moss book is unreliable. It is the Moss story as told to Jenkins and it's careless about dates. But the claim that Moss learnt the game before the Second World War and came back to Texas to find it catching on has a ring of truth... if only because there is no reason why either should make the story up. Moss was known to embellish a story, especially if it strengthened his reputation, but this story made no difference to his reputation one way or the other. But if it is true, why did hold'em not take off and eclipse draw and stud and become the number one poker game until so many years later? How do we explain that Doyle, Crandell, Slim and others didn't see it until the late '50s? Of course, one answer is that these three only appeared on the circuit about then. Anyone playing with Moss in the '30s and '40s is now either dead or nearly 100 years old (Moss was 37 in 1945), and none of them left records.
It could be that hold'em was around in the '30s, but mainly in the South, and according to some initially in the Corpus Christ-Robstown area, and that it only really took off, albeit slowly, in the '40s and '50s, when it was picked up by a generation of players who travelled more widely and took the game with them. We know it hit Las Vegas at the end of the '60s when a number of Texans introduced it at the Golden Nugget. (Corky McCorquodale is usually given sole credit for this, but Crandell Addington and some of theother Texans all claim a part.) By the time it was adopted for the main event at the World Series of Poker', it was being described by Doyle Brunson and others as the 'Cadillac of poker'.
But as for the exact origins of this compelling form of poker... well, I have found no one who really knows. It is another of the secrets that remain with the ghosts at the table. [2] [3]

A stated above, after its invention and spread throughout Texas, hold 'em was introduced to Las Vegas in 1967 by a group of Texan gamblers and card players, including Crandell Addington, Doyle Brunson, and Amarillo Slim .[4] The game was later introduced to Europe by bookmakers Terry Rogers and Liam Flood.[5]

This big blob of text is probably above the level of copyvio; it's confusingly written and includes many sentences that aren't remotely relevant to an encyclopedia; it adds 15% more to a long article to make a point that can be made in one paragraph; it's a kind of bizarre way to get to the point of "well, I have found no one who really knows"; and it states one book says another book is unreliable which is certainly not pov that we want to take one position over another. 2005 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Texas State Legislature - House (May 11, 2007). 80(R) HCR 109. House Resolution. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.
  2. ^ Don Jenkins, Johnny Moss (JM Publishing, 1981)
  3. ^ Des Wilson, Ghosts at the Table: The amazing story of Poker... the world's most popular game..' - 2007, Page 119-122
  4. ^ Brunson, Doyle (2005). Doyle Brunson's Super System II. Cardoza. 
  5. ^ McCloskey, Mick (June 22, 2005). Poker in Ireland a Little History. Retrieved on May 19, 2006.

[edit] Userbox (Texas Hold 'em addict - all in with Pocket Aces)

I've created a userbox if anyone would like to use it.

This user is addicted to Texas Hold 'em and is going all-in with pocket aces.




Just add {{User:Xenocidic/Pocket Aces}} to your userpage. =)

May all your hands be live and all your pots be monsters! xenocidic (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of players

There's not yet a section on the number of players a texas hold'em can be played with. I suppose game strategy is heavily influenced by the number of players in the game. A section that describes the most frequent number of players on different occasions, and that mentions an optimal number would be nice. SuperMidget (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no optimal number, other than between 2 and 10, but even then it can be argued 11 or 12 can make decent games. A line that it is normally played with between 2 and 10 players should be included tho. 2005 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)