Talk:Poker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fritzlein (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 1 May 2005 (Didn't Darse Billings write Poki?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

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)

Straw poll


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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)


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)

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poker&oldid=13755142"