Talk:Bad beat

message: This article has potential to be gossipy fluff, but in any case it should not have a POV, or worse, invent a POV as original research.  The article currently states: "There is no concensus among poker players as to what percentage constitutes a bad beat, and often players will disagree about whether a particular hand was a bad beat." That is where it should end. Examples suggesting losing a 3:1 advantage is a bad beat is absurd.  Bad beats are aces full beaten by quads or better.  Minimally the hitting of a two ~outer is a reasonable standard, but that is neither here no there.  Saying a 990-1 loss is a bad beat is certainly reasonable, but putting mundane stuff like AK losing to AQ is certainly not accepted as "bad beat".  No POV please.  Just say what it is, and let people define the threshold itself. 2005 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course "Bad beats are aces full beaten by quads or better" is as much POV as anything else. Otto4711 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that is why examples can't be mentioned.  However, the aces full example is a real world one that is citeable.. like what is the Commerce casino's definition of a bad beat for their jackpot.  We don't need to and should not specify something that is subjective. 2005 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Originally, the article made reference to bad beats usually occurring after the player who goes on to win the hand called a bet that he mathematically should not have.  I think that this should be in the article.  As it is, I think that the article doesn't accurately define what a bad beat is.  Obviously, hands that are ahead end up losing as more cards come.  Each time this happens is not a bad beat.  Based on the definition in the article now, AA losing to anything is a bad beat.  We need to rework the article. Croctotheface 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific that could suggest the AA thing isn't there anymore.  The reader can define 'bad" now. 2005 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure you're getting my point.  Based on the definition in the article (inferior hand goes on to beat superior hand), the AA example WOULD qualify as a bad beat.  We need to either change the definition or do a better job explaining it. I'm working on that now. Croctotheface 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition in the article wasn't "inferior hand goes on to beat superior hand." The definition was a hand that was a significant mathematical favorite loses to a hand that's mathematically significantly inferior. No one would suggest that, say, QQ losing to AK (AK being about 54% to win) is a bad beat. Many poker players, though, would agree that AA losing to an underpair (80%) is a bad beat. That said, I'm hardly married to having concrete examples in the article (although I'm not as adamantly opposed as some seem to be). The article was pretty much crap when I found it, with an example featuring pocket Aces raising 15xBB preflop as if that were a correct play. I think I improved it and if my working on it leads others to improve it too, well isn't that just the Wikipedia spirit right there. Otto4711 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I mean, I wrote the initial definition, or at least reworked it.  I still don't think it's perfect.  I will say that I disagree with some of User:2005's edits, particularly as far as reverting good faith contributions.  For the record, I think that there is nothing harmed by having a concrete example, or even a generalized example.  I see no reason the article suffers from having one in there.  Croctotheface 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to not have specifics is obvious in that the two of you are on polar sides of the thing... one has a 1% example, the other has a 3:1 example.  There is no "right" answer as the article says.  There is no consensus so of course we should not pretend there is one.  Right now the article says "...significant mathematical favorite to win loses...".  Perfect.  The reader can define for themself what "significant" is.  We don't need to, and should not. 2005 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My example was not intended to suggest that 99 to 1 should be the standard we use.  It was to illustrate what "mathematically unsound play" means.  Calling a bet when your odds of winning are 100 to 1 and you're getting even pot odds, then winning, would certainly qualify as a bad beat.  Right now, "mathematically unsound" is not even defined.  Are you suggesting that we invite the readers to define that term for themselves?  How about just saying "bad beat" is a poker term and inviting the readers to reach their own conclusions for that as well?  Would that make for an informative article?  Personally, I question how useful somebody who is unfamiliar with the concept of bad beats would find this article.  I also take issue with the notion that we can provide an "cinematic" example of one type of bad beat, which you happened to provide, and fail to reach a consensus on what type of hand would constitute the other kind of bad beat.  I used an example with 99 to 1 because I figured that it would uncontrovercially illustrate mathematically unsound play.  I'd be open to a wide range of other examples, including an example involving calling when youre getting less than 3:1 pot odds when you're odds of winning are 3:1 against.  The bottom line is that no single editor has a monopoly on wisdom for this topic.  Croctotheface 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Are you suggesting that we invite the readers to define that term for themselves?"  Well obviously since everybody does anyway.  Calling when you are a 2-1 dog getting 3-2 on your money is mathematically unsound, but most people would not consider it a bad beat, although some would.  "bottom line is that no single editor has a monopoly on wisdom for this topic."  Exactly.  No single editor can insert their POV on what a bad beat is.  That is foolish since we all have different thresholds, and every poker player does to.  This is an encyclopedia, not a place to insert your opinion.  The entire concept of a bad beat is subjective, which is the point of having an encyclopedia article.  Put another way, many top poker players insist there is no such thing as a bad beat.  2005 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The story is POV, and it's not necessary to explain the concept.  I didn't remove it, but I agree with those who did.  When it was removed, there was a strong consensus, so I'm going to remove it again. Croctotheface 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The story makes reference to "the hero" and uses colorful language that is appropriate for, say, telling a bad beat story to your friends, but not for a formal publication like an encyclopedia.  It's also arguably WP:OR and, perhaps most importantly, it's not really necessary to explain what a bad beat is. Croctotheface 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic content

message: Re: A newly used term colloquial to Ireland is know as "getting it up the ostrich pipe"  - there are no mentions of this term on Google at all aside from references to this article. Sounds pretty dubious to me. Ben Finn (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I could have sworn I'd removed this before. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ostrich pipe