Talk:List of slang names for poker hands/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note

I added the following note to the article: "This list is for jargon that is in common usage. Do not add terms used in your home game or that you personally think are clever. If you add a term, please add a reference supporting its inclusion here in the edit summary or this article's discussion page. Additions that are unreferenced will be removed." Maybe some folks will think that is too strong, but I think it addresses both issues here: removing entries people don't bother to explain, and getting some source evidence to prevent this from being a hopeless pile of "original research". 2005 23:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the requirements are too strong at all. Wiesenberg's dictionary [1] is a great, authoritative reference - just what this article needed. I agree, if a term isn't in the reference, a pretty strong case needs to be made to justify inclusion. --Toms2866 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies?

Common usage!!!! Just because someone in your dorm used the term once, doesn't make it common. I just ripped out a bunch of the Texas Hold 'em slang. I may have removed some legitimate ones (if you can call slang legitimate), but I was really trying to get the junk out. I figure any legit ones I removed will find their way back in. I (a little) research to back up my decisions for what remains - I found a couple really comprehensive glossaries (that didn't look like wiki-ripoffs) and used those as my benchmark for common usage. Wasn't in there or I hadn't already heard it, gone. Dirty job, but someone had to do it.--Toms2866 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good. A couple of common ones got knocked out that could get back in but getting rid of the trivial stuff is great. (It really does make you wonder about what some people think is "clever".) 2005 05:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed a bunch, but we probably should eliminate a few more. I'm no authority at the slang terms, but it's not my first time to the rodeo either. I propose removing the following unless their common usage can be confirmed or vouched for.

• AQ: Catch of the Day, Doyle Brunson (I think most people think 10-2), The Phil Ivey
• AJ: Asia
• AT: Johnny Moss, Corners
• A4: Reflex (Reflex A4 paper size)
• A3: Newspaper (paper size of a newspaper page)
• A2: The Kids Game
• T5: Woolworth (deprecated, play on five and dime)
• K4: Country Ruler (what's a King for?) cute but common?
• K2: Steep Climb (K2 is a well-known mountain) cute but common?
• Q9: The Tonic
• J8: Dahmer (Jeffery Dahmer ate Jack) cute but common?
• TT: Rin Tin Tin
• 99: Barbara Feldon (Agent 99 on Get Smart)
• 93: Jack Benny
• 77: Walking Sticks (I usually hear candy canes or hockey sticks)
• 66: Pocket Buddies, England (Football World Cup winners in 1966)
• 43: George W. Bush (43rd president)
• 42: Bill Clinton (42nd president)
• 33: Larry Bird
• 32: Michael Jordan

The following I've heard or seen, but would benefit from an explanation:

• K8: Kokomo
• K7: Columbia River
• QJ: Maverick
• J6: Railroad Hand
• 62: Ainsworth
• 42: Lumberman's Hand
• 32: Can of Corn

--Toms2866 15:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove every one of these except T5/Woolworths which is extremely common. Likewise extremely common terms like T4/Broderick Crawford and 92/Montana Babana deserve mention, but the rest are just vanity junk. 2005 20:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed more terms. Kept Woolworths, restored Broderick Crawford and Montana Banana. Can you explain Broderick Crawford or Montana Banana? Or any of the others needing explanation?--Toms2866 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I added as a reference a link to the Dictionary of Poker by Michael Weisenberg which is far and away the most genuine refence on this. Broderick Crawford said "Ten-four" on a TV show; Montana Banana is simply something in common usage for 20 years (it is in Weisenberg's book). 2005 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

in super system 2 doyle brunson writes that AQ is named after him (especially in texas) because he dislikes this hand very much, i think this is as much verification as possible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.129.215.170 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I just changed the entry for JT and added one for J9 of clubs. In Positivley Fifth Street by James McManus it states that the JT is sometimes incorrectly called a T.J. Cloutier because of his name but the J9 of clubs is the real T.J. Cloutier because he made three straight flushes with it in a year.

What about references?

This page is tagged for not having references. How does one reference a table of slang? A list of external links at the bottom to Internet poker glossaries is not particularly appealing (potential for spam abuse). Even then, there's no easy way of knowing which slang terms have a reference and which do not. Putting footnotes after each term would clutter the content and would make spam watching even tougher. Any ideas or opinions on how (or even whether) to "reference" the slang terms?--Toms2866 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think footnotes would be the best way. While they may add some clutter, the current unreferenced article isn't at all reliable. Also, many things get added then reverted which might be valid slang terms, and a reference could prevent this.--Trystan 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

References for slang? That doesn't make sense conceptually. The only real reference is general usage: some number/volume of uses on the Internet. If something isn't used 1000 times on the Internet, it isn't a slang name worth noting. The key problem of course is this useless aricle is a vandalism magnet and would be a spam magnet if it was referenced too much. I don't think there should be footnotes under any circumstances, then any bit of nonsense could be added with a spam link to some page that lists the vanity "slang". The best thing would be to leave this article deliberately unreferenced. Next best would be two or three at most external references, BUT no such resources exist online (search for something that doesn't just steal this article). Make an article, label it as slang (meaning unreferenced), have no external links, revert all the anon nonsense, and then let the thing just sit here doing as little damage to the other articles as possible. 2005 20:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Determining whether slang is commonly used based on an internet search would be conducting original research; we should be looking to existing secondary sources such as lists of slang on-line or in print. I know that several well-respected poker books, such as Doyle Brunson's Super System, include some hand nicknames.

This would very likely result in cutting the list down considerably, which would be a good thing if it meant what was left was real and reliable. Uncited "vanity" additions can be reverted, as can additions which cite a website which doesn't look reliable.

I don't consider leaving the article in a "useless", inaccurate state to perpetually act as a sort of trash magnet a desirable option.--Trystan 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the point of original research, as the searches in question are quite clearly not original research but exactly what the article encourages: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." In this case, vetting slang requires collecting and organizing the primary and secondary source information. In other words, is this a real slang term? An internet search is vital to PREVENT the inclusion of original research, which is a charitable way to term to the vanity entries that get put in here.

Cutting the article drastically is fine by me. Having two or three extensive references (by that I mean not just a list of a few hand names) would be okay, but such refernces mostly don't exist, and then also any in book form are instantly outdated. That's the nature of slang. 2005 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

An article on slang will naturally be outdated, in order to be verifiable. Verifiability is the standard for inclusion of information, not truth. If other websites containing slang terms are reliable primary or secondary sources, then they can be cited. A survey of current usage from individually unreliable sources, however, I think would qualify as creating a primary source.--Trystan 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting

I reformatted the page into tables. original version I think the tables make the page look a little less haphazard. I've also moved a fair number of terms from the Poker jargon page (and removed them from that page!).--Toms2866 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Split into Talk:List of slang names for poker hands and Talk:Dead man's hand

Upon the creation of Dead man's hand as an article, rather than a redirect to this talk page's article, Talk:Dead man's hand was "given custody of" the history of the talk page that had been built up under the title Talk:List of slang names for poker hands (since 2 of the 3 talk edits): that is to say, Talk:List of slang names for poker hands was renamed Talk:Dead man's hand.

At that time, the section #Made-up stuff was removed from Talk:Dead man's hand and added below (since it concerns what stayed on List of slang names for poker hands. [Belated sig: --Jerzy(t) 03:20, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)]

Made-up stuff

There's too much made-up stuff here. I removed the more obvious items, but I imagine there's still others. - Furrykef 02:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) [Cut & pasted from Talk:Dead man's hand as discussed above. --Jerzy(t) 03:22, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)]

Two part answer. Yes, there's always some ass who thinks his cutsie name should get display. As a higher-ranking amateur (would be pro if I had the bankroll ;( ), I can probably call myself an authority when it comes to real names and cutsie names. (And by cutsie, I am, in general, speaking of names of a derogatory/racist nature. D.valued 05:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Consistant formatting

Look, there's too many hands put out-of-sequence. The list, as it currently stands, is largecard-smallcard. E.g. 6-9 is 9-6. T-J is J-T. The reason for this is because it's easier to locate the hand in question in this order, especially because ace-x almost always has a name tied to it, and 2-x rarely does. D.valued 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

I suggest this article be merged with Texas Hold'em Hands. Both contain the same info, save that the other article includes more math and more focus on the better-known hands. D.valued 05:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

What's real?

This entire article seems to suffer from being rather difficult to verify. Without comprehensive external sources, there is no way for a single editor to determine whether an unfamiliar slang term has just been made up, or is simply of a local or regional nature. For that matter, there is no clear criteria to establish what level of usage a term should have before it warrants inclusion. I would assume that something used solely at a single regular game should not be included. As for just how to go about establishing such a consensus, I have no idea.

As a side note, there are several rather obscure connections in the list which could benefit greatly from an explanation. --Trystan 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lobby for a Name (Just for Fun Section)

I won't clutter the actual article, but I always thought Ace-Jack should be called "Action Jackson". Therefore, I lobby for it here. Barkman 15:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is not what one thinks a hand should be called, but whether or not a casual term has become part of the informal language of poker. --69.232.118.14 17:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What about "Slick Willy" for AJ? I hear it used all the time on poker shows and elsewhere. I realize that it's not very old as it comes from the Bill Clinton nickname, but it's very very common nowadays. Livedo 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

3-2

Just seemed funny to me that in the process of cleaning up, you deleted the three names I have actually heard in casinos for this hand (houta hand, can of corn, mississippi slick) and kept one that I've never heard used (michael jordan). But obviously a lot of anonymous posters are putting vanity names on here, and I understand you need some kind of method to filter the entries. But relying on web search apparently exludes some names that are common in use (in my experience) and subject to vanity names that have found themselves onto some other website. BTW I have seen other websites use the name "hooter hand" for 3-2 but this is a corruption of the original name "houta", named for a mississippi dealer. Keep an eye out for houta, I think I saw him dealing at the wsop last year; if you see him then you can "verify" the listing Kymacpherson 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Add terms back in if you think they're in common usage. If you think something is obscure, feel free to remove it. I am by no means an authority on the slang terms.--Toms2866 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting them back. Nice work on the page too, the tables look great. Kymacpherson 05:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sik

I added an entry for The Sik. If you don't believe that this is a real hand, check out http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/lessonBeginnersHoldEm. This hand became so popular on Pokerroom's forums that they once created a promotion designed around it.--Mickeyg13 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Walking Sticks

I added Walking Sticks back in for 77. I hear this quite frequently, and have actually never heard them called "Hockey Sticks." SmartGuy 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that 'Walking sticks' probably belongs on the list. —Kymacpherson 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

77 - Mullets?

Somebody at IP 170.69.248.21 seems hell bent on including "Mullets" as a nickname for 77. I've never heard of this, but enough with this damn edit war already. It's been added and then reverted at least 5 times recently. If the person at 170.69.248.21 can provide some kind of source for this name, please do so here. SmartGuy 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ambiguation

Someone should should create an ambiguation page or something. Pocket Rocket is the name of a toy.--Architect1 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone create an ambiguation page for Big Slick? It's also the name of an upcoming novel by Eric Luper. Thanks! --Tem2 22:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Computer hand

The "computer hand" term predates the many post hoc justifications that have been created for the name; it's origin is simply as stated--the author of a bad simulation once recommended it, suggesting that perhaps it ranked high because it made lots of one-card straights. It was pointed out to him that that's not true and that the sim was clearly bogus, but the name stuck as a joke. It has since been pointed out that it also happens to be pretty close to a 50% equity hand head up, but this too was after-the-fact and not part of the etymology. There is no "real" reason for the name of the hand, other than the early joke--it is just what it appears to be--junk. I'll try to track down references for this, but until I do, please don't change it without a specific reference for your etymological claim. LDC 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to find something definitive in light of the back-and-forth edits. Nothing that I would consider a solid source, but what I could find provided the "median hand" theory. [2] [3] [4] [5] One source mentioned but doubted a "faulty simulation" origin in addition to the "median hand" origin.[6]

I have additional links to support the change to "average starting hand" [[7]] [[8]]. I had originally read it in a poker book (may have been the Cloutier & McEvory book) I'll need to look. This [[9]]contradicts that so maybe it was a faulty computer simulation. Regardless the part about making staights is way off.--Jbgiunta 14:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

--

All of the citations above are secondary sources--online dictionaries and such, and therefore meaningless. The earliest real citation I can find is this 1998-12-18 rec.gambling.poker Usenet post from Margie Heinz, poker room manager of the ElDorado in Reno:

So let's get to the bottom of this Q-7 story. In the late 1960's a group of players were learning to play Hold 'Em, my crazy ex-husband Ron Goll, Laughing Allen, Bobby Brazil, Norm Nixon, Bill Pennington, Sonny Murray as well as others. My Ex was a school administrator, the director of data processing. Remember back in those days, no home computers. Ron was trying to figure the game out and claimed he ran a program. As the story goes, he concluded that of all the two card starting hands that will NOT stretch to a straight, the Q-7 has more possibilities of ultimately making a straight than any two other cards. As I understood it at the time, this was the basis of the "computer hand". Only problem is, as I see it, it can't be true. A Q-7 can only make eight straights. A 10-5 (for example) can make ten. Does any one know where Laughing Allen, Bobby Brazil, Norm Nixon, Bill Pennington or Sonny Murray are? Just Curious, if one of them remembers more to this story. While you are out and about in your poker travels, please ask and let me know. Inquiring minds want to know.

The whole point, in other words, is that the "most straights" theory was of course as ridiculous as the "median hand" theory, but the fact that the computer sim somehow picked that hand gave it the name--specifically to ridicule the programmer of such an obviously broken program. LDC 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that secondary sources should be discounted, particularly when compared to something as unreliable as an equivocal Usenet post. I think the best approach is just to reflect the uncertainty in the article, stating that most sources proposed the "median hand" explanation, while two (your post and [10] mention an unclear or doubted "most straights" theory.--Trystan 22:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cardplayer did a story on this years ago. The mythic junk doesn't relate to anything. "Marge's husband" did a simulation that showed it made the most straights, which of course was nonsense then and now. The Cardplayer article predates their online edition by several years, but if anyone wants to bother finding a copy they can go to their office. For the purpose of this article: it does not matter. The hand is called the computer hand. That is the slang, and that is all that needs to be mentioned. Absent the Cardplayer interview with Marge, just having computer hand in the article is accurate so I'm making the entry just that. Of course if anyone wants to further discuss it we can do that too, but there is no reason this term needs an "explaination". 2005 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but it seems to me wothwhile to include a bit of history somewhere, and to counter the post-hoc "median hand" theory, which many of those sources quote as if it were serious. Brief etymologies are certainly not out of place in definitions, even of slang terms. LDC 07:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think the median hand theory is bogus. It is called computer hand because mathematical simulation has shown that the hand is the statistical 'average' you will be delt. Even the most basic computer poker books should mention this. People seem to think the name preceeds the computers! So it was named computer hand before computers.... riiiight.... Dacium (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It's bogus for two reasons: first, the "median hand" idea simply isn't true no matter how you define it. Second, even if it were, that's not the true etymology of the term, which is well known. I knew Ron Goll (the computer programmer in question) myself, and I read the Card Player article in which the term was popularized. The "median hand" idea is nothing but an afterthought post-hoc justification for a term that was already in common use. --LDC 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

7-2

I have heard "beer hand" and "beer nuts" in use for 7-2 in several places, so I wouldn't call it a vanity entry--I've reinstated it. --LDC 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide a reference to a reputable poker slang dictionary?--Trystan 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Google turns up a dozen online dictionaries with the term, which are fine for judging the popularity of the term if not the etymology. --LDC

I've found some for "beer hand",[11][12] but I can't locate any for "beer nuts".--Trystan 01:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough--if you want to remove "beer nuts", go ahead, but I think you go too far in assuming that the mere absence of other Internet references makes an entry "vanity". Poker--even Hold'em--predates the Internet by many years, and much tradition and slang just hasn't reached here yet. You can, for example, find long-standing poker commentators like Gabe Kaplan describing hands like "Motel Hand" and "Johnny Unitas" that most old hold'em players know well, but that may not be referenced on the net anywhere. I have used my own personal judgment to decide which to include, and I think that's entirely appropriate, since I have been playing poker in casinos longer than many Wikipedia contributors have been breathing air. I'm all for having some standards, but I think it needs to be more relaxed than "found somewhere else on the net"; indeed, we should strive to be a better source than most of the net sources. --LDC 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Being found on the Internet is a bare minimum. More than 100 references online should be a basic criteria. Just because someone heard or said some slang name doesn't make it notable, or even interesting. We should not strive to add original research to this article, and in fact each contributor should be sure to not do that. Just because someone knows some slang means nothing. If you can't find at least one major source, or multiple minor ones, don't include a term just because you have heard it. The Wiki guidelines on that are awfully clear. There are plenty of terms that are used widely by people, that I have heard literally thousands of times that don't have enough external sources to list. Likewise a hand might be known by a certain name somewhere, and be used by hundreds of people, but it will have zero relevance to anyone else outside that one casino. This article is not for clever or forgotten terms. It should be a list of widely sourced slang. Anything that is not should be freely removed from the article, and if someone tries to put it back in, the burden is on them to add at least one authotitative source to the edit notes or discussion page. 2005 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As 2005 said, being found on the internet is not necessary, nor ideally sufficient, for inclusion in the article. It's merely a feasible place to check when an entry is added without a reference. Citation to a reputable poker author would be ideal, but some sort of reference is required to allow the editors who monitor this article to distinguish genuine, common poker slang from the many made-up entries which are added daily.--Trystan 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think having editors with real casino experience is exactly the point--their experience is more valuable than mere net references. For example, in over 25 years of playing in casinos I have never heard the term "hammer" in reference to the 7-2 hand even once--it seems to be purely an internet thing, with no currency in the real world. But I've heard "Motel Hand" used not only in Vegas, but on TV, in California, and even Atlantic City. To me, the former probably doesn't belong here, but the latter does, and the fact that I can't find explicit references for it isn't that important--I am the reference, and my value as a source should be judged by others with experience in the field. This is neither "original research" or "vanity"--it is simply acknowledging that we are in a non-academic field where much experience just isn't yet published either on paper or on the net. --LDC 02:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having users as references doesn't allow the reader to verify the information in the article. It also makes it impossible to resolve disputes between two contributors who disagree on the inclusion of a term.--Trystan 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is something of a "popular culture" subject, so it's entirely appropriate for sources to be held to a lower standard--that's why things like online glossaries are usable despite the fact that they are almost universally self-published and copied with no concern for scholarship of any kind. The line between "personal experience" and "original research" in a popular culture subject like this is a difficult distinction to make. I think having talk-page discussions like this, where all authors clearly identify themselves and make their case, is a good way to make articles on subjects where there simply aren't any reliable sources. --LDC 05:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

beside 7-2 offsuit is not the worst hand, though 3-2 offsuit despite its better straight chances in texas hold'em is the worst hand

It's not really meaningful to speak of "worst hand" in all contexts in Texas Hold'em. 7-2 got its reputation because it generally comes out on the bottom of simulations of 10-handed limit holdem, but you'd get a different answer if you simulated short-handed games or tournament games or no-limit. --17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuts

I removed the statement about "nuts" in the Hold'em section. The term was common poker slang long before Texas Hold'em came along, and is properly found in the general poker glossary. Indeed I suspect, but cannot find a good reference to back me up, that the term predates its use in poker. --LDC 05:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Slang Glossary policy discussion underway

Slang glossaries violate the following policy:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
3. A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

---

Due to the many AfDs which are initiated to enforce this policy and due to the resistance to such deletion by defenders of the glossaries, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to rewrite the policy in order to solve this problem and to readdress this question: should slang glossaries by allowed on Wikipedia? --List Expert 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Q♠J♦ - Pinochle

The pinochle hand should absolutely be in there. Anybody who has played pinochle recognizes that card combination as the pinochle when it is dealt to them in a poker game.

Are you dense? Do you not realize that there is nothing "vanity" about the pinochle hand?

Krablar

K3 is also known as krablar (or king krablar if suited), and it should definitely be added to the list.

Q♥J♥ - Lovers

I heard that also in TV, but I'll try to find some backing, if someone has proof for that please link here.

"Doyle Brunson"

Yes, both 10-2 and A-Q are called "Doyle Brunson". The former because of his winning the WSOP with it, the latter because he is famous for saying that he hates the hand and never plays it in no-limit hold'em. --LDC 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have Google?

Added Q8 "Kuwait". It's common. Leave it up. I offer this source at Pokerheaven.com[13] as a reference.