Talk:Negative freeroll

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

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

Low

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

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

This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

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

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

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The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.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

Example

I reinserted the example... although there is no background to work from, assuming both players are competent I disagree that checking here to induce a bluff is a valid option. An all in bet offers the opponent 5-1 odds; there's not enough money for a credible bluff. (Note Harrington on Hold'em Vol III's Negative Freeroll example, Harman vs. Zeidman, uses exactly the same pot/stack ratio's.) If there were more money remaining, I agree that checking to induce a bluff might be a defensible play.

Also it has been my experience that many individuals need an example to fully comprehend negative freeroll. It's not an intuitive concept for many players. I fully agree that the example could use some work, however I also feel it serves a useful purpose and shouldn't be excised without some sort of replacement. Macboots 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The example doesn't make sense, how is the player holding the first hand losing to anything but the Qx ? He has a full house...

A straight flush is possible. 2005 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The example is good, but perhaps if you used names for hypothetical players instead of terms like "this player", "betting player", etc. it would help to clarify who is doing what. Cryptography discussions use a common cast of characters for just this purpose. RandyKaelber (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]