Talk:Position (poker)

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

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

Low

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

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

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The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.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'.

Article rewrite

I boldly rewrote the article. original version. The rewrite was to fix 2nd person ("you", "your") and simplify the writing style for ease of reading. I also removed certain tangential bits of information to make the article read more smoothly.--Toms2866 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite is fine, but I reinstated the example. I think it's being overly pedantic to call it "POV". While it's true that there may be differences of opinion on how to play a particular poker hand, it would be impossible to adequately cover poker strategy or similar topics without using concrete examples. There's nothing wrong with having opinions per se in a Wikipedia article if they really serve to clarify the subject; we just don't want Wikipedia taking a position on contentious subjects. I don't think there's anything contentious here, just an ordinary example of everyday strategy. Also I removed the word "exponential", because that does have a precise mathematical meaning and doesn't apply where it was used. --LDC 15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominating hands

I'm new at this, sorry if my format is wrong - shouldn't pocket queens be listed under the dominating hands, if J-J is in there? Ben

yes they could. but every example doesn't need to be givin, 22,33,44 could be listed but are to much of a coin flip also

QQ and AQ ARE dominating hands to KJ

KhJs vs every QQ

Kh Js vs QsQh 28.04% vs 71.46%
Kh Js vs QsQd 27.89% vs 71.70%
Kh Js vs QsQc 27.89% vs 71.70%
Kh Js vs QhQc 28.62% vs 70.97%
Kh Js vs QhQd 28.62% vs 70.97%
Kh Js vs QcQd 28.46% vs 71.21%

Kh Js vs 4 AQ's

Kh Js vs AsQs 35.25% vs 64.23%
Kh Js vs AsQd 36.72% vs 62.81%
Kh Js vs AhQd 36.71% vs 62.82%
Kh Js vs AhQh 35.36% vs 64.11%

look it up for yourself poker odds-texas holdem

the reason why is simple if KJ doesn't pair (-flush, straights) and neither doesn't AQ the Ace high will win, matter of fact Kh Js will lose to Ac 2h most of the time (56.86% for A2 to 42.64% for KJ) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, QQ are back in, but AQ is clearly not a dominating hand by your own stats--it's not even a 2:1 favorite. See Domination (poker) for the usual usage of that term. --LDC 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not redefine the language here. Dominating has nothing to do with "beats it badly". There are two ways of dominating: overpair versus underpair, larger kicker with common card. That's it. 66 is not a "dominating hand" over A5. 2005 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is also routinely used for the KK vs. K2 case. It is, of course, also used loosely by many to just mean "huge favorite", but this is generally considered a misuse of the term on par with using "set" to mean any old trips. --LDC 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Admit I misunderstood the term and was wrong, I apologize in the face of showing off my inexperience and looking like a donkey, nevertheless I’ll play my pocket Queens over your KJos any day ;-) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget to mention that JJ is dominating KJ aswell, as the kj really has to hit 3 outs in order to win.

I tend to see a dominated hand as having three outs or less to beat the hand that dominates it. A-A and K-K leave no outs that use single cards, hitting either a king or jack is no good on its own. Q-Q, J-J and A-J require gaining a king (3 outs), and A-K and K-Q requires the hand to gain a jack (also 3 outs). Hitting the other card in the certain circumstance is no good, it either also boosts the dominating hand as with K-Q or does not improve it enough as in the case with Q-Q. I have added the hands Q-Q and K-Q as they dominate K-J in the before-mentioned sense. I also agree that A-Q does not dominate K-J, as K-J still has 6 outs which are separate from the A-Q outs, K-J can gain either a king or jack and beat A-Q (hands that dominate K-J would not allow both). --62.30.219.108 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) BTW, I am not logged in although I am registered as GM_matthew.[reply]

Completely wrong

as a poker professional the two blind positions should be counted as late position. This is because ~60% of poker play is pre flop and blinds are last to act pre flop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.2.239 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that you're not playing in professional tournaments and definitely not professional cash games if you're experiencing ~60% of your poker play preflop. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine how small a game could be if it was played mostly before the flop. In poker, the button is "in position". You can't act eight people before the button and possibly also be in position. 2005 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links section

Just saying, the first two links didn't work for me - 3rd one is ok though :) 88.111.134.87 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]