Talk:Glossary of poker terms

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What I just did

I just speedily merged rakeback pro to here to save it from speedy deletion. I'm not sure if this was the right thing to do. Mercilessly edit it, and mercifully critique me on my talk page. --I dream of horses (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

donkament

What does donkament mean. it redirects here but not is not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.70.224 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a definition, although I don't think it fits in here, since it's a slang term. Anyway, Wikipedia editors, do what you want with it, but please don't leave the redirect if you decide to delete it. 93.136.99.83 (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Floorman in other table games

don't floorman appear in blackjack and other table games, or does it automatically rise to a pit boss? --166.205.9.113 (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Coin Flip"

The "race" section says, "See also 'coin flip'", but coin flip is not defined. Is it the same thing? Sue D. Nymme (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes - someone else fixed it already. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard "race" used to mean that, though. Just in the coloring-up races. PhGustaf (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Turbo definition needed

A turbo definition is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. 2005 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Binker

I know this is a less common term, but I think it should be added. Refers to a strong turn bet oop after original in position raiser cbet flop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxandhalo2 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cashing??

In the definition of 'chip dumping' the term 'cashing' is used, but not explained. I can't find an explanation using Google, but guessing that it means finishing a tournament close enough to the top to be rewarded with cash payouts at the end of the tournament. I've only played cash tables. Never played a tournament. Will someone who knows poker better than I do please add the definition of 'cashing'? Thanks. 99.147.132.254 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What is slang and what is not?

many of these terms are slang, flat call, dirty stack, coin flip, .... but why user:2005 consider rainbow and double rainbow (chips) slang and removed it? What is slang and what is not? Sha2b705 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If something is slang it should be removed. This is a glossary of standard terms to refer to something. Flat call is the term to refer to the action. Double rainbow is not standard. Likwise, "Ace King" is standard whereas "big slick" is slang. People should come to this page only when they encounter a term in an article that they don't understand. There is no reason to ever say "double rainbow" in an article. That is your guide... would the phrase be the best possible one to use in an encyclopedia article or not? 2005 (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw this term in Gus Hansen's book (p. 67). never heard of it before. and this may happen for everyone who read the book. i think while it is used in poker literature, it has to mention here. But i see what you mean, it does not define anything in poker itself. Thanks.Sha2b705 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to steer clear of editing this page due to its tricky nature... as much as I apreciate 2005's explanation and will remember it, there are still some terms that appear close to slang to me. As much as I doubt it's a good idea, I can't help but think that a list of poker slang would help; the use of special vocabulary is part of what makes poker interesting, after all. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the core principles of the Wikipedia, that it is not a dictionary or slang guide. Whether that is a good idea or not, that is the policy. Wiktionary is the place to go to add slang or colorful definitions. There are some gray areas of course, but in terms of this page, if a concept can be said with a standard, easy to understand way, then other ways to say it shouldn't be included here. For example, "re-pop" or "hit it again" would be a different ways to say reraise, but they should not be included here as "reraise" or "raised again" should be what is included in article writing. There are tens of thousands of common/slangy ways of saying poker things. We can't possibly include everything here, even if the policy allowed us to. 2005 (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

big slick?

redirects here, but isn't defined here. --Dan|^(talk) 18:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It should go to List of playing card nicknames. I'll update it. 2005 (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great glossary

Guys, well done. Have you thought of working it up to a FL nom? And the Glossary of association football terms people have some good ideas, too. Pics? Tony (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Add "Bubble Double?"

Have just seen the term "bubble double" be used on the Pokerstars UK and Ireland Tour, whereby a situation arises, usually in hand-for-hand play, where two players are all-in on different tables, and there is a chance of two players going out on the bubble. Is this worthy of a mention in the article? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No reason to ever write that in an article. Two players eliminated in the same hand or two players eliminated on the bubble even would be better article text. 2005 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Under every rule i know of if two or more players are eliminated in the same hand during hand for hand the player with least amount of chips will be the bubble if they happen to have the exact same amount of chips (which is rare) they split the prize money for that place, I don't think "bubble double" isn't so much a real poker term because in theory many more players could be eliminated on the bubble if say on just one of the tables players 1-8 all go all-in, then player nine who has all of them covered calls and wins, that player will eliminates the other eight, would that be called an "Octuple bubble"? it could go on from there if it were to happen on more then one table.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 08:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

redirects

Definitions of terms should be supplied for every term in the glossary. No "definition" should consist merely of the phrase "see x," sending the reader to another Wikipedia article. The lacunae in the glossary are an example of the redirectitis that afflicts Wikipedia generally, especially in scientific and technical articles. There is no downside to overlapping content. It only makes life easier for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.200.167 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. In fact that is what brought me to this page. There are many entries of the form "XXX See XXX". Notwithstanding other considerations that looks extremely amateurish. (And entries where the 'redirect' is is red look as if they are taking the 'p'). At the every least I would have thought that they should appear as "XXX See main article: XXX". Unless anyone has any objection (or it's a policy I wasn't aware of), I'll change the relevant entries. PRL42 (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever appropriate there should be a "see other article" link. It is Wikipedia style, and common sense, to not have content forks. This is especially important with definitions, especially in poker where so many people use slang-y terms in ways slightly different than the norm. The main articles are where the definition of the term should be explained, and that is where readers should be directed. It's obviously wrong and it should never be the case to have an article to explain something, and then explain it differently elsewhere. If the linked article is a trivial few sentences, then that text could be moved here and that page redirected to the appropriate glossary entry. As for the red links, of course there should be no red links, and text should be here. No doubt the redlink existed because trivial articles were deleted, but whoever deleted them did not bother to move the definition text here. 2005 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Donk and Donk Bet

2005 recently removed two vital poker terms with no explanation. I am doing a bold restore of these two terms please do not remove without discussion. Valoem ^talk 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a glossary, not a slang dictionary. We could have hundreds, thousands of more entries. Donkey and fish are bad entries to start with, but multiple variation of donk is violates WP:NOT. Additionally the definition of donk bet is just plain wrong, which of course is part of the reason we don't have slang. Please don't re-add muliple slang entries, and for sure don't add incorrect definitions. 2005 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All terms on this page is poker slang I guess we should AfD accordly huh? Valoem ^talk 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No they are not, and that was not a helpful comment. "bet" is not slang. "Straight" is not slang. They are the standard words used to describe something within the game. "Full house" is not slang. "Full blouse" is slang. 2005 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a great many terms in this list are effectively slang. Although to determine which are and which are not would require an examination of linguistic philosophy and I doubt you'd ever get an agreed answer. None of this alters the fact that your definition was incorrect. A 'donk' is a really bad player and a 'donk bet' is any bet made by such a player. PRL42 (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As a nice example, I'd argue a "donk bet" to simply be a bad bet, not necessarily a bet made by a donkey. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Donk Bet", referring to a bet made by a player in early position that didn't take the lead pre-flop, is a well-defined term used commonly in poker literature. It should definitely be included in any glossary. Examples of use:

* "Little Gold Book" by Phil Gordon
* "Mathematics of Poker" By Bill Chen.
* Phillip Newall (author of "The Intelligent Poker Player"), for example http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue86/phillip-newall-donk-bluffing-river.php

I often hear this term used in poker rooms. A beginning player certainly will want to know what it means.

With its common use in poker books, magazine articles by prominent players and in poker rooms I feel strongly that this term should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physteacher (talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Title

This article has been moved. Despite the suggestion of 'being bold' this seems a rather high handed action to undertake without prior discussion, particularly for an article that has been extant for a long time with a quite acceptable name. So let's see if there is a consensus for either name: Should the article be entitled ":Glossary of poker" or ":Glossary of poker terms"? PRL42 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Glossary of poker terms": Although 'terms' could be considered redundant it is accurate and descriptive. PRL42 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The person who moved this article moved many other similar named articles, without starting a discussion anywhere about it. "Glossary of poker" sounds like a non-English speaker came up with it. "poker glossary" is how actual humans would say it, and "glossary of poker terms" is more helpful to the average user. Bottom line though, I don't much care to spend more than two minutes on this issue. If someone objects to the move, just move it back, and those who care can have a discussion about it. 2005 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)