Talk:Glossary of poker terms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
 Archives |
|---|
|
[edit] Backraise term
An editor questioned the meaning of backraise, so here and here and here and here are definitions that state what it means. 2005 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kangaroo Straight
Any thoughts on adding this as stating it is a false rule? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.40.60 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Card shark
There has been some dispute about the Card shark article. It was suggested that it be merged into Card sharp, but after an AfD discussion, consensus was against that move. While removing the merge tag I noticed that the article had a couple of issues which may be resolved by moving it into this article. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's not accurate, actually. The merge already took place (and remains in place at Card sharp). What was at issue at the AfD was whether to delete the POV fork presently at Card shark. After the merge, Card shark was (of course) a redirect to Card sharp, but was reverted back into an unsourced and conflicting stub by a pushy opponent of the merge who came this >.< close to getting blocked for personal attacks and other transgressions during the merge debate. It's hard to understand the AfD results - I cannot think of a single other case in which a POV fork was kept, without sources, when the article it conflicts with is well sourced. But oh well.
- What's happening now is further discussion at Talk:Card shark about turning it back into a redir to Card sharp, which adequately addresses both spellings and both meanings (with sources).
- All that said, of course this glossary should document in quick form both spellings and meanings and link to the main article (or articles if the shark stub somehow survives much longer, which is doubtful). Unless there is already a more general glossary of card game terms; if there is, the poker one should not be clogged with redundant entries, and card sharp/shark should be entries in the general one instead, both showing both meanings unless and until reliable sources can actually document a notable distinction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Side pot
side pot A separate pot created to deal with the situation of one player going "all in". See table stakes.
This is not really useful... why going to see table stakes page ?? this is nothing about side pot there. I was expecting finding something about side pot, like how to make same, what s the rules about them, there... not something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.135.148.124 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Table stakes rules are in Betting (poker). You're right, though, that this is not organized very well. I, too, would expect a link to more details to actually contain those details. --LDC (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] See
A lot of entries on this list are of the form "foo: see [[foo]]", and I don't think they're much helpful. I've put brief bits on a few of them that I hope are enough to let some readers know what a term means without having to go to an entry that gives them more information than they want or need. I'll go on as time allows; let me know if you think this effort is misguided. PhGustaf (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes that idea is misguided. The way is has been is very useful since it links to where the content is. Additionally you should never make content forks, that is, one article says something while another article says something else. Listing only a link to the main article is normally the best way to go, but if ever a one sentence line is added in addition to the link to the main article, then that line should be FROM the main article. Something like checkraising should only be explained ONE way, ideally in one place. More to the point, the terms with longer entries have longer entries for a reason, and making bastardized summaries of those longer articles will seldom serve users. if they did, then the longer article likely could be done away with. 2005 (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Raise - Call - Reraise?
Suppose we have a raise, followed by a call. Now when there's another raise following immediately, what is the proper nomenclature? Is it raise - since it's basically a 'fresh raise' not following immediately another raise. Or is it reraise - since there was a raise before, but this one is not following the preceding raise immediately. I hope my statement is somewhat understandable. Polemon (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] suck out
Runner-runner links to "suck out" on the same page, but there is no "suck out". Bubba73 (talk), 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
