Talk:Glossary of poker terms/Archive 1

Big Slick Redirection

When you search for Big Slick off the main page, it redirects here, but there is no entry for Big Slick here. Can it be added? Jamesfett 07:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a g;lossary term. It can be found via the Wiktionary link at the top of the page. 2005 07:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just got caught by this one, too. If it can't be added, please remove the redirection or redirect to the relevant entry of wiktionary. A redirection that doesn't give me the relevant information is imho just stupid. Avbidder 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename proposal

This should really be the Glossary of poker terms. Glossaries get names like that, instead of "List of..." names. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This change needs to be made, and in doing so all the trivial junk needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. We've left this unwieldy page violate policy for too long. It is entirely inapproriate to have an entry saying 'tight" means a full house in newfoundland or wherever. The article should be a glossary of the common, normal terms that we would use in writing articles, both those with longer articles, and those with explainations only here. Slang should be in the wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. When we write articles, we should use standard terms, and we should explain them here. That's the end of it. When the NOT page says we are not a slang or idiom guide, I take that to mean we are not a slang or idiom guide. 2005 06:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, making the name change now▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 07:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

the lead of this article states: This page contains brief definitions of the most common terms you may encounter in text or at play. The list has been trimmed to primarily those poker-specific terms one might find in poker texts or in common use in casinos. At the same time, this article has been up for Afd in part because individuals seek to make it a slang guide. This is prohibited by policy. The article needs a cleanup and more vigorous protection from slang and vanity entries. The terms included should be common usage ones that an encyclopedia user would encounter in the normal course of reading articles here. Words like wheel will occur in articles, and could reference this page via wikilink to explain them. Words like Broomcorn's Uncle are extremely obscure slang that would never be used in an article. Editors should feel free to clean those out. If you would not use it without an explaination in an article, take it out. Finally, if you think not having a slang list is dumb, that really doesn't matter. It is the policy of the encyclopedia. 2005 09:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article size

Wiki style guidelines suggest articles be less than 32K. See WP:SIZE. This one is currently 132K. I see a choice of three evils:

1. Keep current huge article. Current status quo, will continue if we do nothing.
2. Split into multiple articles. Awkward: readers prefer a single article to refer to. Wreaks havoc with the bookmark links (lot of work to fix).
3. Reduce the size of the article. Deleting entries can be controversial. Also a lot of work (researching/deciding which to keep/toss).

What should we do?--Toms2866 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First, remove all sections that have articles of their own. Leave link to the main article. It doesn't make sense to duplicate these anyway. After that, take a look at largest definitions and consider new articles for them. The, reevaluate after this is done. 2005 05:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I delete three entries under "a" that were defined elsewhere, and left three words saying to click the above link. Those words could be taken out or replaced with something better. Have a look. 2005 05:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Avoids defining things twice. Now down to 112K. There's probably a bunch more def's that could be "exported" to related articles. For example, "outside straight" is defined in Draw (poker) article. We could simply link it there. We already do that with Betting (poker)#Raise and such. Flat call could go into Slow play (poker). Probably a bunch other defs could likewise be pushed out to related articles (where they probably belong anyway). If you have any second thoughts about the new look, now's the time to revert it.--Toms2866 08:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Style suggestions

To avoid confusion, I'm re-editing my prior Talk comment (instead of putting a new one in). This article would benefit from some minimal standards. I propose that entries use the following basic sequence:

jargon term

Definition of term. Discussion of term, if needed. Sample sentence illustrating usage. Also "synonym". Compare to "antonym", "similar term", "related term". See other article.

For example:

flat call

A call, in a situation where one might be expected to raise. Normally I raise with jacks, but with three limpers ahead of me I decided to flat call. Also "smooth call". Compare to "cold call", "overcall". See Slow play (poker).

The article makes use of "bookmarks". Bookmarks enable editors to create links to specific entries. If you edit the article, you'll notice that many entries look like:

<span id="jargon term">

; jargon term

: Definition of jargon term. Compare to "[[#other jargon term|other jargon term]]".

</span>

Please don't remove the bookmark tags because it will break the links. Other articles can link to a specific jargon term using a link that looks like:

[[Poker jargon#jargon term|jargon term]]

Another convention used is to put links to other jargon terms inside "quotation marks". Links to other articles are not inside the quotation marks. Following this convention helps readers know what will happen when the click on a link (jump within the Poker jargon article or jump to a whole new article).

--Toms2866 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jargon vs. Slang

Slang names for poker hands are listed in the List of slang names for poker hands article. "Slang" refers to alternate phrases for common terms, whereas "Jargon" refers to standard terms specific to a narrow area of expertise (in this case, poker). I've started moving the slang names (e.g., Big Slick) out of this article over to the slang article. There are a number of slang names or terms that probably also should be removed (e.g., Broadway, wheel, rainbow) because they are already in the List of slang names article, but I haven't got to those yet. One of the key purposes of this article is to define standard poker terms that may be used in other articles on poker. Given that the other poker articles should adhere to an encyclopedic tone, it is unlikely they will be using slang phrases such as "San Francisco Busboy" in their discussions of pot odds or poker tournaments.--Toms2866 15:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your general purpose, but I think you are making mistake about somethings. Rainbow is jargon, not slang, more important though it doesn't fit in with that awful slang article. Common terms that are not hands should be kept here. This article should be seen as "poker terms", and should fit in with your final comment... terms that will be used encyclopedically in other articles. Wheel will be for sure, while the Busboy one won't. 2005 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree with rainbow, and I can see the case for wheel given its unique status in high-low games. I've started to clean up the "awful" slang article to make it slightly less awful.--Toms2866 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "poker glossary"

I think this should be renamed "poker glossary", because "jargon" is somewhat subjective term. Also, terms like "deck", "hand", "suit", "bet", etc. should be included here, and they are not really "jargon", in that their meaning is known (albeit possibly in a non-precise fashion) by many people. Revolver 14:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Obvious terms"

I think "obvious" terms should definitely be included, for 3 reasons.

1. What is "obvious" to one person is not "obvious" to another. YOU may know what a deck, suit, hand, or rank is, but you can't assume everyone does. We should assume everyone knows NOTHING.
2. Even for very "obvious" terms, these are the terms where people often have the most misconceptions, in other words, there are often slight misconceptions about "obvious" terms simply because they are obvious and everyone assumes they know what they mean. Better to be precise. For example, many holdem players still fail to recognize that a "hand" consists of precisely 5 cards.
3. Many "obvious" terms have multiple meanings. Everyone knows that "check" means to decline to bet when there has been no bet. But how many people know that it also means "chip", as in "get me a 100 white checks?" Revolver 14:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also think the names of different games (holdem, stud, draw, etc.) should be here. These terms are certainly as important as many of the arguably obscure terms listed. Revolver 14:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright material?

This text is almost identical to http://www.answers.com/topic/poker-jargon I've listed this page on Copyright_Problems JayBuffington 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (CST)

90% of the poker material here is still my original work; it has been copied elsewhere. LDC 03:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror. They copied the article from this site, not the other way around. Rhobite 05:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a collection of terms should be considered copyrighted material as every single term has it's own copyright then. Therefore let this page excist. dmace 11:16, Feb 28, 2006 (CET)

Local terms

A lot of poker terms are local to a small area, or even to a single casino, and those probably don't belong here either. I assume this is one of those:

minchin

In Texas Hold 'em, to be dealt the first 2 cards of a Royal Flush with the opening hand (hole cards), then gaining the remaining 3 cards to complete the Royal Flush with the first 3 community cards (the flop). As soon as Sean was dealt the hole he seemed confident of pulling a minchin.

I've certainly never heard the term in my 25+ years of play, and since it's a common last name, I assume it's just a local term named after someone who did it once (and since the odds are 19600:1, it's not something likely to happen to the average player very often. LDC 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I replaced a recently expanded definition of "rags" with a much simpler, but more accurate one. The term was in use long before community card games took over. LDC 00:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Going South

Going South MAY BE PROHIBITED in the poker room where you play but it is NOT UNIVERSIALLY ILLEGAL. Many sites on the internet will confirm this: http://www.pokertips.org/glossarydefs/463.php. Also, Gabe Kaplan discusses "going south" at length on High Stakes Poker from a few weeks ago when Freddy Deeb was accused of going south. YES it is a bad thing to do, YES you may get scolded for it, NO it is not illegal. Stop fighting the edits to the definition. - Abscissa 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For an article about going south or ratholing see http://www.pokermagazine.com/Poker-Rules/poker_chips_etiquette.html -- again, confirms that some poker rooms prohibit it, and it's a bad thing to do. -Abscissa 05:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Going south is part of "table stakes". It is as universally prohibited as taking chips off an opponents stack is. http://www.pokernews.com/pokerterms/ratholing.html The pokertips definition is not ratholing, and is neither illegal or poor etiquette. http://pokerworks.com/poker-dictionary/ratholing.html http://www.readybetgo.com/poker/rules/poker-table-stakes-rules-421.html The last link is from Bob Ciaffone, the leading expert on poker rules in the world, author of "Robert's Rules of Poker." Please do not revert to a non-standard definition of a common rule. Gioing outh is taking chips off a table in play, not cashing out and cashing back in. The former for example is impossible online, while the latter is not. The former is illegal in casino cardrooms, the latter normally requires a waiting period of thirty minutes or more before you can rejoin a game. 2005 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Further links explaining ratholing http://en.mimi.hu/poker/ratholing.html http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=13566 (same Ciaffone article in Cardplayer Magazine, the industries premier information source), http://pokerexchange.com/poker-news/article572.html http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/glossary.php http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/poker-glossary/r.html http://www.poker-bonus-code.com/glossary.php etc. 2005 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do know what "going south" refers to. Thanks. Second, your sources are duplicates. Just like "answers.com" is a worthless ripoff of Wikipedia. Next, one of your own soruces describes the behaviour as "unethical." Finally, what the fuck does "illegal" mean? -- are you going to be arrested in a card room? The cops will come in when you start pocketing chips? Buddy -- have you noticed that we agree on the fact that it is PROHIBITED in most card rooms? ... most card rooms, however, don't care, it's just when someone calls the floor. Consider the following definition of theft: "Theft is in illegal act which..." vs. "Theft is an act which... ... Theft is illegal in most _______..." There is nothing a priori illegal about theft (or going south). Based on what I see on your talk page, your ignorance is not worth fighting. And you might want to look at your own, most recent, edits to the Ring game page (a page which I have never touched), where your definition of "going south" is the same as mine. - Abscissa 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I softened definition from "illegal" to "normally prohibited". At least for me, "illegal" connotes police, lawyers and judges, etc. I think prohibited is more the applicable. I put "normally" in because I can't state authoritatively that every single public card room in the world prohibits the practice. --Toms2866 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Poker hand nicknames

I deleted "Brokeback Mountain" (defined as a pair of kings) because I don't know this to be an established nickname for a pair of kings. Additionally, this article should not be a repository for every cutesy hand nickname that Joe Poker and buddies can come up with.

• I deleted "The Luke Carter Hand" from both the "T" and "U" section (someone posted it twice), it appears to be a vanity entry as I could find no reference to it anywhere during a Google search, and in my 14 years of playing I've never heard of it. Wtbe7560 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

open and closed sets

2005 - Take a look at the definitions. Open and closed set are the types of sets. As you should know they play differently. Many people use the word "set" solely to mean closed set (Lee Jones is an example), Brunson is inconsistent on this point using set (unqualified) for closed set and always qualifying open set. Harman uses the terms open set in many interviews I'm going to revert back from the comments I don't think you looked carefully. If you did then I'd like a little more detail on why we want less information and less clarity in a reference book. jbolden1517^Talk 03:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Open and closed are not types of poker sets. This isn't a place to invent terms or place false definitions. One in the hand and two on the board is not a set. That is why set is defined. It refers specifically only to two in the hand one on the board. And this is why the encyclopedia needs to be clear and authoritative. Set means one thing. Trips means another. Three of a kind covers both. 2005 03:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

http://conjelco.com/pokglossary.html http://www.seriouspoker.com/dictionary.html#set http://www.playwinningpoker.com/poker/terms/set.html http://www.pokernews.com/pokerterms/set.html etc. 2005 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were arguing the other side. This position is just dead wrong. The terms are author specific:

1. Brunson in "how to play connected cards" from super system referring to a board of 772 opposite a 76 hand "I've released lots of sets in that position".
2. Sherer in "when the board pairs" from No Fold-em Hold'em "Of course the holder of big cards [example is AJ he's not uses "big pairs" for hands like AA] also cringes when the board pairs unless it makes him a set"
3. Caro (this one is online [1])
4. Brier uses the word trips for any 3 of a kind (so a set is a type of trips).

I could go on and on. I never disagreed on the set/trips dichotomy and how that is used; but you'll notice I didn't define those terms. And cite some real sources not anonymous websites. If you want a good cite for your position Ed Miller not pokernews (Steve Badger). I'm going to revert and I think you have an obligation to argue your point. Otherwise its its pretty clear cut WP:3RR since your first talk post was after 2 reverts and you reverted with discussion outstanding. jbolden1517^Talk 04:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought about a compromise offer. In the definitions for open and closed sets I'm prepared to say "usually referred to as trips" and "usually referred to simply as a set" or words to that effect thus validating the more common dichotomy. jbolden1517^Talk 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll weigh in. I understand the distinction between "open" and "closed sets", and agree that it is an important distinction. "Trips" and "Set" don't have a precise meaning. Many readers use the terms interchangeably and are not aware of the convention that "Set" often means a pair in the hole and "Trips" often means a pair on the board. So, on that point, I concede that common usage may preclude using "Set" to precisely mean a pair in the hole, similarly for "Trips". Personally, I like the terms "Open set" and "Closed set". Their meaning is clear from their names. My concern is that they may not meet the common usage requirement. I personally haven't heard/seen them before. For example They aren't found in Wiesenberg's glossary (super extensive). Wikipedia has a prohibition against original research; content should only describe existing, verifiable knowledge in an unbiased and objective point of view. Providing verifiable references showing the terms being used (links to specific webpages, books/pg nbrs) is useful to persuade consensus opinion.--Toms2866 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally your source defined set as any 3 so for that source SET=TRIPS, so yet another example of my point that the definition is author specific. As for open set being used just google you will find lots of links the first 3 I got were: [2] [3] [4]. My personal experience is usage in CA tables, though I've heard it in AC as well. But I will certainly agree they are minority terms. But then again I've never heard: alligator blood, drag light, hop the fence.... Heck every-time I play with costa ricans I learn new english poker terms :-) Anyway, generally the standards for a jargon file are usage and that's it. Definitions then are a matter of authority. jbolden1517^Talk 05:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not add this original research again Wikipedia:No_original_research. There is no doubt many people use trips and sets incorrectly or sloppily, however that has nothing to do with you adding vanity terms to the encyclopedia, both in violation of the no original research directive, and common sense. The definitions of trips and set can be changed to reflect common misusage of the terms but "closed set" is not poker jargon. Not in any way, shape or form, not in any usage or reference. Please stop adding something you know very well is inappropriate. I'll rewrite the definition of the real jargon definitions, and you can rewrite them if you want, but please stop with the language creation. 2005 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding comment by User:Toms2866, I added a note to this article similar to the slang one to head off incidents like this in the future. I cited four of the most authoritative refernces on the Internet, and could have also cited Weisenberg and others (although Weisenberg's definitions basically aknowledge lots of people couldn't care less about the distinction). In contrast there are zero resources that cite these fictitous terms, even if they make sense. This is not the place for original research, even if it makes sense. These language articles get vanity junk added to them all the time, and it is easy to cite sources to show they don't exist, but it is even more appropriate to revert vanity entries that don't offer sources (because no sources exist). Hopefully a very good thing out of the discussion for these two articles will be that editors will more readily keep the articles clean by reverting anything that isn't sourced. 2005 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, and just for completism... jbolden1517, I understand you are relatively new to Wikipedia, but (1) no original research is official policy, (2) the "three" sources you site include two duplicates of the same comment, and both things you cite are forum posts which hardly qualify as authority, whereas I cited the two of the three (Weisenberg the other) most authoritative poker terms sites on the Internet, Dan Kimberg's Dictionary and Lee Jones' glossary, both of whom write for Card Player, plus two of the largest general poker sites on the Internet. Then also, I searched for '"closed set" poker' and found exactly zero usages (other than stuff like "closed set" meaning a closed TV sound stage). Open set had a couple forum posts. We can't add every bit of jargon that people thinks makes sense (even if it does), or is used a couple times on some forum somewhere. If you want to expand on the set and trips definitions to contrast them like a closed set and open one, that would be fine and descriptive, but please don't add entries for terms that are not in common usage. 2005 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

2005, you:

1. again reverted with discussion outstanding which was a violation of WP:3RR, and this revert was as well. "It is strongly reccomended that you revert any particular change once and only once... Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. " We work by consensus here not starting revert wars.
2. lied about common usage, "One in the hand and two on the board is not a set"
3. had your sources overturned by superior source people like Doyle Brunson, Mike Caro more authoritative then. Which I cited, so pretend I'm simply citing forum posts is a bold faced lie.

I'm going to leave this off. As I mentioned those forum posts are the first 3 links they are simply random and prove usage. I got well over 100 usages when I did a simple search. With someone who had good intentions I have no problem engaging in discussion, you don't, as trying to rephrase my statement to make me look foolish proves. I see clear evidence from your post above of deliberate bad faith. I can see by Rray's comment your rephrasing was successful in misrepresenting what I wrote. Congratulations a job well done! You have now successfully misled people over the internet and as a result you'll get your way on your jargon file. You should be very proud of yourself.

2005 is correct. "No original research" terms should not be added. I agree that they should be reverted, and I'll revert them if they're added again. Rray 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Trips" just means three of a kind, period. It was in use long before Texas Holdem even existed, and is not specific to that game or to any situation. It is true that some authors now use the term more specifically when writing about holdem, but that's just an author's convention, not general use. "Set" was not in common use until holdem, and generally is only used in its specific case of a pair in the hand. LDC 02:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is the right way to put it. Trips is the same as three of a kind, and just should link to that. While set refers to the specific two face down with one in the hand circumstance (even if a lot of people do use it imprecisely). 2005 02:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rabitt hunting

I took the liberty of removing several entries. The list is very long, and as written in the introduction, we should only include standard, widely used terms. This means, no "home game hands" or non-standard hands, and no obselete terms. These terms are either no longer used much, or not used in non-home games. There could be a separate glossary for home game hands. Also, rabbithunting is unethical and if not forbidden, usually frowned upon. The reason is that it gives away information about a player or players' hand, sometimes to the point of (in effect) revealing a player's cards. I know it is done by many dealers, esp. in home games, but it should stop. Revolver 22:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Dead man's hand" is pretty universal and well-known even in casinos. I think you may be confused about what "rabbit hunting" is, because your opinion about it seems unique and illogical. It is prohibited in casinos because it tends to slow down the game and start arguments, not because anyone thinks it's unethical. To rabbit hunt is to reveal a future community card (or possibly a potential draw card in a draw game)--the only way it could reveal any information about any player's hole cards is by observation of that player's reaction to seeing it, and that's open to interpretation and easily faked. LDC 04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Player A is representing pair of aces. 2 aces on the flop. Wins hand uncalled. Mucks. Rabbit hand reveals another ace. Reveals a fair bit about their hand, don't you think? Stevage 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Beadle?"

beadle

describes hole cards which combine relative strength with relative weakness (for example A 7) - see shorthanded

What on earth? I have never heard of this - is it legit? SmartGuy 20:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. If you see junk like this just remove it. 2005 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cooler?

Will someone please define this term? It is widely used to refer to bad beats, or perhaps other interesting hands. Does it refer to a hand that one might talk about around the water cooler? A hand that cools a hot streak? Gnixon 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe a cooler refers to a bad beat that is statistically improbable to the point that it seems the deck was rigged by a person secretly inserting cards into the deck of cards in use. Since these cards would not be near the warmth of the dealer's hand as long as the other cards, they would be cooler.

Yes, it's short for "cold deck", already defined. I added the reference. --LDC 10:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Eight or Better

A common qualifier, using the A-5 ranking, to what hands are eligible for the low portion of the pot in a High-Low game. States that the hand's highest card cannot be higher than an eight.

This would be useful since someone new to poker, especially High-Low games, would probably not understand this

Picasso

I've heard the term "Picasso" used fairly frequently to describe an all-face card flop. Someone keeps adding it and then others revert it (I have neither added nor reverted it). SmartGuy 21:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There are virtually no mentions of it found via Google, other than Van Patten's book of the title, but regardless of that it would be "slang" not "jargon". It has no place in this particular article. If it goes anywhere it would go in the slang one. 2005 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike Sexton has used the term "Picasso flop" on WPT. Likewise, a Google search for "Picasso flop" turns up many results. Pros also use the term in colloquial speech. Your argument of "slang" vs "jargon" is ineffective, since there is a fine line between the two, and you would have to remove other entries that don't fit the bill. See "belly buster", "here kitty kitty", "hop the fence", "river rat", and "throwing a party" for a few examples.

2005, if you don't know something, ask before you delete entries by other informed poker players. You seem to be doing much of that lately, and I admonish you to change this behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudreaver (talk • contribs)

I'll leave you to fight your own battles here, but please remember WP:CIVIL. Essexmutant 07:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cloudreaver, you might have more luck if you can provide some type of reference to support your position regarding the use of the phrase. Wikipedia isn't a place for original research, so just because you have heard the phrase in use doesn't make it verifiable or notable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I'd suggest reading WP:Civil as well; this is not a place for you to "admonish" people. Rray 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It was very easy for me to find Google references that were not related to the Van Patten book, including other glossaries; it is also used by commentators, as correctly pointed out. I can't imagine what more one might want in the way of references. --LDC 22:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How about exactly ONE such reference. C'mon, you know better than this. Assertions that they have heard people use it is both original research and basic silliness. One refernce that refers to "picasso flop" as poker jargon is hardly asking for anything, so if such exists, what is the problem providing at least one?... and just to help, there is exactly ONE english refernce to "picasso flop" in Google that doesn't refer to van patten's book. Suggesting this is jargon is nonsense. The one reference could put it on the slang page. Stuff that isn't sourced should be removed here. Thinking we should include stuff with one single source available on Google is pretty silly, but it is not too much to ask to cite that when adding terms. One decent source saying something is poker jargon is not enough in my mind, but it should be the bare minimum criteria to be listed here. 2005 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you want to reopen the above discussion about slang versus jargon, then do so, but at this point: "'Slang' refers to alternate phrases for common terms, whereas 'Jargon' refers to standard terms specific to a narrow area of expertise (in this case, poker)" is the operative discussion concerning the difference, so obviously anything about picasso should be in the slang article not here. "Paint" is the standard, picasso and rembrandt and da vinci are slang takes on paint. If you want to combine everything into one article, then say so, but a term like this should only be in one article. 2005 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lee, saying that you found a lot of references to the term on Google doesn't count; it should be referenced and footnoted appropriately. Not all references prove notability, and not all references on the Internet are reliable either. I hope that's helpful. :) Rray 23:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's more slang than jargon, but let's get real here. This is a non-academic subject, and there really aren't any legitimate sources to reference for something like jargon and slang--least of all internet sources which are all self-published and of dubious scholarship (almost all of them quote the wrong "median hand" etymology of "computer hand", for example). Standards of scholarship applicable to academic subjects just don't apply here where there isn't an "established literature". Failing that, references to a term in various places should at least satisfy doubts that the term is vanity of local. If placing it in the article with slang makes more sense, then by all means do so--my reference to hits on the net is only in response to accusations that the term was a "vanity" entry. BTW, amend your Google search with "-patten" to trim those references. --LDC 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Having it in the slang article is reasonable based on a weaker criteria for slang than established jargon. I'd just as soon combine the two articles here, with a slang section below a jargon one, but as long as there are two articles we shouldn't just duplicate everything on both. Picasso is certainly more slang, so I'll remove it here and leave it in slang, which should satisfy everyone editing in good faith... 2005 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the distinction between slang and jargon is so narrowly debated, why not go ahead and combine these two articles? In the meantime, I say leave "picasso flop" as a reference to the "paint" (which strangely appears in BOTH articles), with a link to the slang page. My main concern is for Joe Blow Poker Player, who comes to Poker Jargon to look up the meaning of "Picasso Flop" which he heard on TV, and he can't find it anywhere on this page! So the link is added for the benefit of the community. More information is better than no information. - Cloudreaver 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly content to combine the two articles, with the slang section below the jargon section, since everything would be in one place and duplications would be prevented. Picasso flop in the jargon article should be removed since it makes no sense to list every bit of slang on the jargon page and saying "see slang". 2005 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging the articles would make sense, as the line between slang and jargon is often very fine. However, I think that some of the terms will have to be duplicated: 1. because you can't remove a term from table of slang names as the list would become incomplete, and 2. because some of the slang names are so commonly used that they should be included in the list of jargon. For example, 'quads' is probably used more than 'four of a kind', and so should be included in both lists. The same goes for 'trips', 'royal flush', 'gunshot straight draw' and 'deuce' ('big slick' and 'four-flush' are probably questionable imo).--Hpesoj00 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. I would suggest that we would make wiki links on other articles to go to the jargon listing for any duplicated words. 2005 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, presumably the slang names will be kept in the tabulated format, so that would make the most sense.--Hpesoj00 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move (no objection, simple move). -- tariqabjotu 03:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Support. Consistency with other lists. --Sivius ^T-C 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dry pot

I restored the original "possibly unethical" text, because the person removing it is apparently confused about what makes it so: bluffing into a dry pot is collusion when (a) it's the final betting round, and (b) there is no chance that your hand can beat the all-in player. In that case, your bet can serve only to benefit the all-in player, which is collusion. Betting a dry pot on an earlier round in order to build a side pot that one can then bluff at is perfectly OK. It's also OK to bet a dry pot with something like ace-high if there's some small chance you have the all-in player beaten and can bluff out the others who you might not. Finally, the "check-down" play is not the only alternative, because that involves making an agreement over multiple rounds, possibly with a hand that is clearly superior. This latter can be collusion, because the players involved in the check-down may be cheating the all-in player out of the protection he would get from players betting a superior hand straightforwardly; but the check-down is fine so long as the two players aren't doing it out of prior agreement, but only because each individual check is a positive play for each player. But even in that case, if the player in last position on the last round has the nuts, it would be unethical for him to check. In short, it isn't just the betting or checking that makes the play collusive, it also depends on the hands and the situation. --LDC 03:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do see the point, and betting into dry sidepots is definitely one of those stupid issues where everybody seems to want to choke anybody who does it... I think a lot of it has to do with intent though. Bluffing into a dry sidepot with virtually no chance of winning the showdown is stupid, and can likely be collusion... but then we enter into the magical gray areas of intent and more importantly, personal interest. Even without the horribly gray area of staking/backing (remember Hasan Habib and Tuan Le?), it's easy to see where protecting the short stack from busting may be in your best interest: or at least, a situation where somebody could conceivably believe it was to his/her advantage (big stack on the bubble against nits comes to mind.) At that point, we run into that issue that happens so often in tournaments: what's best for ourselves may include benefitting another player, or screwing another one over. Regardless, you (Lee) seem to be reasonable and I'm not really trying to start an argument over what is/isn't collusion, but I think that if we're just trying to explain what a 'dry pot' is, saying that betting into one is 'often unethical' or 'collusion' is unnecessary, vague, and possibly misleading. You're totally right on it being situational: but I don't think this should be mentioned in this specific article. Moreover, I wish I could figure out why I spent this much time on the way one entry was worded on one single Wiki entry :)24.177.126.216 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Collusion is a secret agreement for fraudulent purposes. The (a) and (b) above definitely do not make it collusion since there is no stated agreement. Bluffing into a dry pot is merely stupid, unless there is private agreement bewtween the bettor and the all-in player, in which it is collusion. I'm fixing the text, which goes on into uneeded territory anyway. The article is for explaining what terms mean, not the possible implications of everything. 2005 05:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Collusion is takiing any action that is not solely in the interests of the player acting--agreement isn't strictly necessary, thought that's obviously the more troublesome case. I agree, though, that all this isn't really necessary to have here, so the simple text is fine. --LDC 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Collusion always requires agreement. That is what the word means. 1, 2, 3. Collusion is a secret agreement, normally with a wrong purpose. Betting a dry side pot is not collusion in itself, nor even cheating. It can be, and often is, just a stupid act. So we don't need to go in to all the ramifications of it. Betting a dry pot is just what it is, betting when there is no side pot. 2005 05:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that betting a dry pot is more often just stupid than collusion, but we'll have to just disagree about what collusion is in general--I see it as any "team" play, even without agreement--even without intent. For example, it's common for guys to instinctinvely "check down" hands against women, but not men. Whean head up, it's just stupid, but with others in the pot it's collusion and bad for the game. That may be a departure from the strict dictionary definition of the word, but that's how the word is used in the poker context, and no dictionary is going to cover that correctly. --LDC 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

grimming

grimming IS a well known poker term. stop deleting it.

I can't find any references for the term "grimming", much less "grimstarring". Please provide some, otherwise I expect 2005 will revert your edit again. --Hpesoj00 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding this garbage. One usage in one forum thread does not merit inclusion. 2005 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the term in my 25+ years at the table. I'm not totally opposed to adding neologisms ("donkey", for example, is a relatively recent coinage, but fairly universal now), but I'd certainly expect to hear the term used in real casinos and not just a net forum. --LDC 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ship it/Send it

Both terms refer to each other, none defines what it is, could someone please fix this one? 84.245.215.159 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wicktionary

Not that the idea is a bad one, but who on earth reads Wicktionary? I don't. SmartGuy 13:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Linked terms

I see the trend here is to replace the entire definition with "See X" when X is linked. However, the glossary would be much more useful by itself if a short definition was retained. Then, for example, you could simply print this page for a basic understanding, or go into all the sub links if you want more information. Stevage 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't helpful to have redundant entries. If a term deserves a separate article, it should just be linked to that. This page is far above the norm in terms of size, and adding a bunch of redundant text is not helpful. On the other hand, any terms that have separate articles that are just short definitions should have the articles redirected here to be more convenient. 2005 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems with what you're suggesting:

1. A short definition for a linked term doesn't necessarily take more space than the link. Look at the definition for Ante: "See ante." Surely a definition like "A small forced wager by every player. See ante." would be more helpful.
2. You're suggesting that short articles be reintegrated into this article, while at the same time saying that this article should not grow longer. That effectively prevents long articles being written, unless one person is willing to both split the article off *and* make it long enough to avoid it being reintegrated. The wiki works a lot better when short articles are allowed to survive long enough to be lengthened, instead of being confined to a space where they can't grow.

As a concrete example, I just wrote m-ratio. It's barely more than a definition. However, it could easily be extended with analysis of the strategies arising from each M level (as in the linked article). But for the casual reader, the one line definition that has just been removed from this list is probably sufficient. What has been gained by replacing that with the words "See m-ratio?" Stevage 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is gained, so that isn't much of an argument. The point is content exists, and we should sensibly point people to the one location of the content from everywhere in the encyclopedia.... "That effectively prevents long articles being written..." no it doesn't do anything of the sort. In fact it pretty obviously does the opposite. Anything that can be said in sentence, gets a sentence. Anything deserving an articles gets one. Pretty simple. 2005 07:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

c-bet

I have heard the term c-bet used fairly often, but I do not know what is means. I've been assuming it means the same as value-bet, but I'm not sure. Can anyone clarify this for me, and maybe add it to the article? Thanks. (sorry, forgot to log in before posting this and didn't sign it) Uniqueuponhim 12:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, a continuation bet is a bet fired after a raise in a previous round, irrespective of whether or not the bettor has a made hand at the time. SmartGuy 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Queen 'on the river'.

Search google for it.

Now, what in the heck IS it, plz? 67.176.110.200 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Anything without sources will be removed. - brenneman 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like? That's a pretty general statement, do you want a citation after every sentence? Perhaps we should clog this article up with {{Fact}} tags? I think we need to settle down and just use common sense when editing. Wtbe7560 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, a coment in the edit summary is fine. Most of the vanity junk added here is just something someone thought was funny, and can't be cited anywhere, so the simple criteria makes editing easy. If somebody ads a term without bothering to support it, just get rid of it. This isn't the make up funny terms article. 2005 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Muppet

This is not a vanity term but one that is becoming quite prevalent in online play. It IS relatively recent, which is why some of the older players probably haven't heard it before, but nonetheless, it is also common. If you search for "muppet poker" on Google you'll find the term used on a variety of sites, including an article on Hendon Mob, which is a respected poker website. If terms such as "Hollywood" and "donkey" are in this list then "muppet" deserves to be, too. Natster237 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A Google search reveals the term is NOT used to any meaningful degree. The article is not for listing every little clever term somebody thinks up. Once the term is actually in widespread usage, cite a half dozen uses online or a couple reliable dictionary sources then list it. 2005 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "meaningful degree"? I'd argue that it is considering it's used in the EXACT way I defined it ("An inexperienced, unskilled, or foolish poker player") on numerous sites, including the following:

http://www.pokerology.com/articles/mindcontrol.htm http://poker.ladbrokes.com/Laddies-Poker-One/en/ http://www.punters-paradise.com/forums/archive/index.php/f-8.html http://www.thehendonmob.com/bardaig_parkinson/give_me_the_muppets_anyday.html http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/2005/08/pokerstars-700000-guaranteed-final.html (A player has the name "The Muppet", but it's also used in the way I described) http://www.pokernetwork.com/handdiscussion_reply.cfm?Summary_ID=11008 http://poker.ladbrokes.com/pokerschool/articles/articledetails.php?id=108 http://www3.pokerzone.tv/forum/threadView.aspx?id=43173 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055030326&page=15 http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/ca/calling_station.htm http://www.virgingames.com/poker/blog/2007/02/13/Take+Your+Tilt+Elsewhere.aspx http://www.pokerlabrat.com/poker_tournaments_blog/2006/08/

BTW, the level of disdain present in your comments is unwelcomed. Natster237 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Hollywood" is decades old and common everywhere; "donkey" is recent, but can be heard in casinos now and then and in television coverage often. I've personally never heard "muppet" in a casino or on TV, but that is a pretty good collection of online citations, so I don't think it's inclusion is entirely out of place. I'd prefer to see it used by a noted pro or commentator. As with any such term that becomes fashionable, it can always be removed later if its usage fades with time. --LDC 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Save the disdain for somewhere else please. The links show significant use, even if some are just using muppet in the same way teddy bear might be used, but now that you've done that it does address what I wrote, so add it if if you like. I'd suggest in the future though you spare the disdain and just behave like a responsible editor. Obviously we do need to have some criteria before listing any slang term on this page, and it is the resonsibility of the person adding a term to show its common usage. 2005 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be some criteria, and I understand that it can be difficult to determine at times what is a term that is commonly used vs. one that is simply used among a group of friends, but attempting to emphasize a fact that is clearly wrong ("A Google search reveals the term is NOT used to any meaningful degree. The article is not for listing every little clever term somebody thinks up.") to make another editor look bad seems highly inappropriate. I only say 'clearly' b/c of the fact that the list I put up earlier was garnered from the same Google search you referenced, many of the links being from the first page of the search. Being a new editor to the site, I realize that at times I might make a mistake (in this case, not listing enough sources when I first put up my entry), but I don't expect such negative responses. From your user page I've gathered that you've made an incredible number of contributions to Wikipedia, and I admire that, but try not to scare away well-meaning editors. Natster237 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking you to do what the note at the top of the article says is to not scare you away. Likewise the search I listed does show the term is clearly not in widespread, mainstream, common usage. You took the further step of digging into the search to find adequate quality usage of the term, which is a reasonable expectation for the rest of us to require of you. It's not like you were suggesting "big slick". Another way to put it is the responsibility is on anybody adding something to show why it should be added. Just saying it should be is not good enough. You might want to check out WP:ATT. 2005 05:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Joint

I can't find any references to "joint" as a synonym for "nuts" to justify inclusion here, and it's not a term I've heard in common casino use. Even if we can find references, it certainly doesn't belong in "F". --LDC 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A "joint" doesn't refer to the nuts. A "joint" is a straight made from two non-connecting cards, although I'm not sure if it is dependent on whether the cards are two numbers apart or three (i.e. 86 can create a joint but 85 can't). I'll see what I can find on the internet in regards to this point. Natster237 07:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A "joint" might actually simply refer to a straight, regardless of whether the cards are gappers or not. There's a discussion about the subject here and the term is used again here. It might also be used to refer to the nuts, as the first discussion points out. Natster237 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Span IDs

I notice every definition is in a span with an ID. However this doesn't seem to actually work for redirects. See Rakeback for example. What's the purpose? Stevage 05:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I guess you discovered, it does work. 2005 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nup, not in FireFox 2 for me, anyway. I just get taken to the top of the page when I click that link. Stevage 10:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Works in IE, so that is reason enough to have them. 2005 10:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Stevage 15:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The redirects work with the latest Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.7 --Ollila 13:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Second hand low

I've never heard this as a general poker term--seems more like a specialized term used by some author to describe the strategy in question. --LDC 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant terms

It's pretty pointless to have links from one term to a synonym. For example, at belly buster:

An [inside straight draw]. Also "[gutshot]".

At gutshot:

An [inside straight draw]. Ted has a gutshot draw. Also "[belly buster]".

The link from one to the other adds nothing exception confusion: the reader thinks there might be more information if he follows the link to "belly buster", but there's nothing more there.

It would be preferable to define the term once and once only:

At belly buster:

(also "gutshot") An [inside straight draw]. Ted lost all his chips chasing belly busters.

At gutshot:

See [belly buster].

That way, all the links funnel towards a single definition. Stevage 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. Wtbe7560 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Stack as a verb

"Stack" can be used as a verb in the same way that "felt" can in regards to a player losing all their chips. If you search for "stacked" on the following pages (here, here, and here) you'll see it used in this way. If you'd like more examples, I'll look for them but figured these should suffice. 2005, if these examples are enough for you, would you mind replacing the content you removed? Thanks for your help. Natster237 03:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this usage is common; both Ciaffone's and Sklansky's no limit books talk about being "stacked", for example. --LDC 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You listed Stack as a verb "To win all of another player's chips." This is not a correct use of the term. One could have a sizable stack of chips without winning "all" of another player's chips. Stacked simply means well endowed in the amount on chips one possess. i.e. several players at a table could be "stacked" or "loaded" without winning all of a particular player's chips. If one player was low in chips and then won all the chips of another player with even less chips, in no way would this winner be considered stacked.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 05:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You listed a definition under 'stack', which was obviously wrong. No one says "John stack all Mary's chips." How common the usage of stacked is is a different discussion, as is the proper usage or misusage of the term. 2005 06:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear the term "stacked" used in this manner quite frequently. The sample sentence provided is a fine example - I slowplayed my boat, and when Jim made his flush I stacked him. SmartGuy 14:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course people say stacked like that all the time, but that isn't the issue here. 2005 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

From Sklansky and Miller, page 36: "But about one one-hundredth of the time you'll both flop a set, and if you don't know he has pocket aces you'll almost certainly get stacked." --LDC 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK the way that the definition is listed now makes no sense. A dictionary would not list the word in the form "stacked" - it would be listed as "stack" with the verb definition included in the list of meanings of the word. Why did someone change it? SmartGuy 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I already fized that once; I'll fix it again and tell Sirex to stop messing with it. --LDC 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it now. Please don't put it in the wrong place again. 2005 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this definition simply be under "stack" and listed as a verb rather than under a new heading of "stacked"? How would a standard dictionary list this term? Natster237 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be under "stack"? As pointed out before, nobody ever says "stack" in this way. They say "stacked". Used as a verb, "John stack all Mary's chips" is wrong. The entry obviously should be under stacked because that is the word, but also because we should not deliberately cause confusion involving the unrelated, correct usage of "stack". 2005 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I don't think that point was as obvious as you try to make it seem. Also, it seems as though you were familiar with this term based on everything you've said. Do you think in the future that reclassifying the term under the appropriate heading is a better idea than simply deleting the whole entry? Natster237 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think any minor, unimportant terms in the article should be removed. The article states "This page contains brief definitions of the most common terms you may encounter in text or at play." By no stretch is stacked one of the "most common" terms. There is a ton of trivial slang used regionally or by a small number of people. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Only terminolgy needed to read articles should be listed here, and as such "stacked" in not wording that would be used in the course of normal articles, so it should not be on this list. The fact the original entry made no sense was reason enough to remove it, but this article really could use a clean up to remove stuff that Wikipedia guidelines say should not be done. 2005 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop breaking this entry!!! Using an inflected form of a verb as a headword makes us look like illiterate idiots. The verb is stack, as in "I'll stack Bob if I catch that queen". The past tense of the verb is stacked, as it is a perfectly ordinary regular verb. But you don't make past tense forms headwords. The entry is fine; it's a common term used in the literature, and unobvious enough to merit entry. --LDC 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a literary expert by any means of the imagination so I'm glad somebody here actually knows the proper way this should be set up. Thank you, LDC. 2005, I'd say that it is a fairly common word, although I don't think discussing that with you will get anywhere so I won't delve into it. The real argument is over what type of words the article should contain. It looks like the article has quite a few terms that would be comparable to "stacked" in regards to how widespread they are. Are you suggesting we should eliminate all of them? Also, in what way did the original entry not make sense? Looks to be almost identical to the current definition. Natster237 06:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 2005 has a point with the guidelines, Why is this being called a common term? maybe some players use it but that doesn't make it a proper term, I was unable to find another poker dictionary or glossary anywhere that list stack(ed) in this way, it seems that if it were common and not just pure slang other dictionaries would list it. I checked for the term without luck after doing a Google search. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

B/C "stacked" has a more well known definition (having a lot of chips) it's hard to find sites simply based on "poker stacked" with the way google tracks sites. I found the examples from my first post (and many more) by searching with a phrase along the lines of "poker 'was stacked' lose" or "poker 'i was stacked'"...have to kind of predict the usage since it's not as prevalent as the other definition. And in regards to it being slang, I'd say that the usage has been around for a long time and is still being used so I think it deserves a place. Natster237 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the nonsensical entry altogether. "I'll stack Bob if I catch a queen" is not a normal term and has no place in the article. This vanity garbage is way out of hand. This is NOT a slang guide, and whatever bit of nonsense YOU think is clever is irrelevant. Please stop adding slang altogether, and most certainly stop adding a term that is not used commonly anywhere. "Stacked" is obscure but used. "Stack" is just plain silly. Enough already. 2005 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about my thinking a term is clever or otherwise. It's about terms that have widespread use in poker today so that this list may be a more complete reference for the subject. If everybody agrees that the article should be only the bare minimum of poker terminology then I think quite a few other entries would have to go, including 'Broomcorn's Uncle', 'coffeehouse', 'deadwood', 'donkey' and all its derivatives, 'English Bet', 'hop the fence' and countless others. Personally I'm for keeping these types of terms, but I'd still classify them in much the same way as "stack(ed)" in terms of not being part of the bare minimum of poker terminology. Also, I believe LDC makes a very good point when he notes that "[stack(ed) is] a common term used in the literature", which should on it's face show that it's a term worthy of being referenced in a text such as this (assuming we believe the words above are worthy of being referenced, as well). Natster237 09:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to read this. Yes, we should be removing all those other terms. What we can have is a glossary for the terms we use in articles. In an article we would say something like "the smallest game in a casino", not "z-game". that sort of chatty slang is not encyclopedic. "Flop" is a term like "carburetor", its the common way to refer to some thing. "Donkey" is not. We would say "poor player" or something like that. The policy is clear, even if any of us may think it is a bad one. Making dictionary lists of slang is NOT appropriate. If a term is not the common, normal, standard way that we would refer to something in an encyclopedia article, it should be removed. 2005 10:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars are not good for Wikipedia so I will not edit this entry again, I think maybe a disinterested third party should decide, I will live by their opinion. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 07:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but I don't think this dialouge is bad. It exposes the need to discuss the bigger issue of what types of content we think the article should have. Seems like Wikipedia at its finest to me. Natster237 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's revisit WP:WINAD

2005's point that glossaries of slang terms not used in the encyclopedic entries themselves violate WP:WINAD is enirely correct. But to me, that just points out that it's time to revisit that rule. There were some good reasons for WP:WINAD, but frankly, there are some bad ones too, and if breaking that particular rule makes Wikipedia a better product, then by all means we should break the rule. Glossaries of commonly used jargon in certain fields, even--indeed especially--slang terms, deserve to be covered by a quality reference work of some kind. If there were individual Wiktionaries for every field of study, that might be a good way to do it, but there aren't. And I don't think it's a good idea to pollute a regular dictionary with every possible sense a word might have in every possible context, because the number of possible contexts is unlimited, and it makes learning and searching them by context difficult or impossible. Paper dictionaries thus have to make editorial decisions about what contexts are sufficiently "important" to merit inclusion under their size limitations--we should never have to make decisions like that. Wikipedia is a very capable and entirely appropriate place to do this--precisely because the people who have the knowledge are here and willing to work and willing to have these kinds of discussions to make the resource better. If we have to change the rule to let them do it, then let's change the rule. I'm not saying this page should be a free-for-all: exactly the opposite. That's why I posted a reference use of the term in Sklansky's book, to show its use. The fact that some people think it means "having a big stack" is precisely why we should have the glossary entry, so that someone who reads the term somewhere (for example, the very book cited, where it is not glossed in the text) will not assume the wrong meaning. --LDC 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What would need to be done to change the policy? Natster237 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What we're doing now: discussion and consensus. I wrote and/or edited most of the policy pages here originally; I can rewrite this one. But nowadays there are enough new admins around that doing so without a thorough discussion would be presumptious. --LDC 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The WINAD policy should be discussed on that talk page, not here. It's also established policy the indivdual wikiprojects cannot ignore or recreate policy for the whole encyclopedia. The Wiktionary exists. All definitions and various slang can go there. This article should be a glossary of necessary terms that are used in Wikipedia articles. There could be an additional link at the top to Wiktionary if people want. However the policy is clear, Wikipedia is not a usage guide. we aren't here to tell people what "dangling tri-flop" means as a slang term. We are here to explain in standard language stuff about poker. I don't want to belabor the stacked point, but that is a term that should never be used in articles. Something like "take all his chips" should be. Additionally it is even a third level term, as "busted" would be the standard slang term for taking all of someone's chips. If someone wants to make a project out of moving z-game, Broomcorn's Uncle, donkey and others to Wiktionary, then go for it. But here we should be taking out everything that is not the standard, normal encyclopedic way to describe something that would be used in an article. 2005 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will move the discussion there if it goes anywhere--but you're missing my central point: (1) A context-specific slang dictionary is a very useful thing for a wiki community to build, and for which their talents are perfectly suited; (2) Wiktionary doesn't work for this purpose either, because it only has a single namespace; and (3) the only thing stopping us from doing it here is a rule created in the early days of the project to discourage articles about single words, not special-purpose lexicons like this. I can see at least two ways to remedy this situation: change the structure of Wiktionary to be more suitable (for example, maybe we could treat jargon contexts as "languages" for organizational purposes), or change the rule here. I think the latter makes more sense. Your contention that we can't change policy is just nonsense--we created it in the first place, and we can change it. Of course, we do have to discuss it with everyone as you point out, not just here among us poker geeks, and it will be a lot harder than it was in the old days when Jimmy and Mav and I just wrote them up first and got comment later, but it can be done. --LDC 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Your contention that we can't change policy is just nonsense"... the idea that we can change the Wiki policy on this page is beyond nonsense. Take it to the appropriate policy article talk page or Village Pump. Discussions on this page should be focusing on dealing with the polciy as it is now, and cleaning up this article. 2005 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Limper?

I see limper used in the example of usage of some terms, but the term itself is not explained. Can someone who knows what a limper is please add it? --Steve Kroon 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Limp" is the fourth entry in the Ls, right where it should be. --LDC 18:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just searched the page for limper and got nothing except examples. Didn't try limp. --Steve Kroon 05:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tight

Since when is the word "tight" slang for a full house? Somebody at an anonymous IP added it, and I was about to revert it but noticed that it is mentioned at least twice in this article, one mention having been here for awhile. I've never heard of this, is it correct? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty common in some places, especially the East coast and Canada. --LDC 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Donkament

"Donkament" already redirects to this page, but I don't see it defined. --193.6.17.56 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It won't be. It's not a standard poker term that would be used in articles. Check out the Wiktionary link at the top of the article for definitions of a wide variety of poker terms and slang names. 2005 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)