Talk:Domination (poker)

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as High-importance).

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Comments

AJ vs 87 is not an example of domination.

This article probably should be merged with Dominating hand.--Toms2866 18:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You saw where I was going with this. There are ton of cases to resolve. The article seems trivial because you cut all the more specific content that I had started writing. Give it (me) some time. For example in Limit hold'em domination by in large is a preflop problem. Conversely in limit stud it doesn't occur into later streets. jbolden1517 ^Talk 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not being clear. I'm not suggesting that we not expand the article. Just the opposite - it's a rich subject that deserves more treatment. It just that we shouldn't have two different articles: "Dominating hand" and "Domination (poker)". They both are basically about the same thing. Assuming this is the article that gets expanded, then the other article becomes a trivial entry and should be merged into this one. That way, in other articles, we have a single, obvious place to wikilink to whenever mentioning "dominated" hands or players. What do you think?--Toms2866 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. No I don't have any problems with that kind of a merge. Sorry, that one was my fault. I would like to suggest we build this up before the merge. That way the other article is extraneous jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article edits

I don't mind using your post as an intro but you are removing a lot of information about different types of domination, and how they alter probabilities. I'm not making this thing complicated for fun, its complicated because there are a lot of cases to discuss. Its gets worse after the flop where various reverse dominations and false outs come into play. Moreover domination occurs in a bunch of different games (like Omaha) where its even more complicated.

Sorry it can't be that clean and simple if we want to do more than be a dictionary. jbolden1517 ^Talk 12:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is much deeper than what's in the article at the moment. I only rewrote the article because the existing content is was in a rough draft or work-in-progress form. I couldn't tell where some of the material was going or how it specifically related to domination, so I removed it. I recommend you prepare a polished edit before posting; otherwise, another editor (like myself) may stumble upon the article and think "this is rough, better rewrite it." There's some interesting content in Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) on dominated hands you might want to reference. I encourage you to expand the article.--Toms2866 13:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more thoughts. The original version is here if you want to get at some of the original content. Also, try to include a Refrences section (see Pot odds for an example). Thanks for contributing! --Toms2866 13:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the layout for the table! jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]