lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pot (poker)

message: It says in the article: »It is likely that the word "pot" is related to or derived from the word "jackpot".« Perhaps it's so, but pot (spelling: pott) in old Swedish means "pool/pond" so I guess the word can have a different etymological origin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.198.151 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with that; to just say "It is likely yadda yadda" shouldn't belong in a Wiki article. My opinion of this article is that it shouldn't exist at all as it's completely redundant. I'd like to hear other Wiki-goers opinions on whether this article should simply be deleted. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology
Talk:Shining Force Neo

message: Is the massive information dump in regards to the characters involved truly necessary for this game?  I'm hesitant to remove them, but they need cleaned up at the very best, and I feel the majority of these characters do not add anything on the whole. Sethimothy 10:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove them.  Replace ewach of them with a short sentence or two of general bio info, like the other shining force pages.  The stats, especially the "unknowns" shouldn't take up room here.--Az 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2006 
Talk:Protection (poker)

message: Is this right? I'm not sure that protecting is about "encouraging" opponents to fold drawing hands. Rather, it's about making sure they pay for the cards. If your odds of winning are 4:1, I'm very happy for you to stay in the pot with pot odds of 3:1. I just don't want you to stay in the pot with odds of 5:1. Stevage 06:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  You want them to pay the wrong price in calling, and prevent them from getting the right price on the call. You want to make it unprofitable to call with a drawing hand, so you don't mind if they do.  2005 08:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: :The importance of protection increases when there are multiple opponents.  For example, if a hand is presently the best, but each of four opponents has a 1-in-6 chance of drawing an out, the four opponents combined become the favorite to win, even though each one is individually an underdog.  With a protection bet, some or all of them may fold, leaving fewer opponents and a better chance of winning.
This is not necessarily true. For example, two opponents on the same flush draw do not decrease the made hand's equity, since they're drawing towards the same outs (and one of them is drawing dead). PokitJaxx (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple opponents in the pot
Talk:Roll-your-own cigarette

message: I'm proposing to merge the article on rolling tobacco with this article. Mainly I don't think there's need for a separate article on the process/product of rolling your own cigarettes, and the tobacco that's commonly used to do it, especially as both the pages themselves are quite short and the resulting page would definitely be a more complete reseource on roll-your-own cigarettes. The tobacco itself really only has one use so they aren't discrete, for example there isn't a separate article on snuff and the taking of snuff. Hunter's Tryst (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Shag (tobacco)]] with [[Roll-your-own cigarette]] 

message: What about the more general sense of the phrase? Where does it come from? Seahen 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First time ive heard it too (and ive smoked roll-ups for years), must be another yankee slang term that found its way onto this. I would suggest Rolling Tobacco or something ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Even without a filter, wouldnt the lack of added chemicals help somewhat?
It seems like a filter is kinda pointless when smoking-a-bit-less would have the same effect, right?
Many who roll their own, including myself, do, in fact, insert a filter. Several companies sell loose filters for this purpose (I use rizzla).Now is relative 21:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: The talk of lack of additives is untrue. By way of citation I'm providing the ingredients list supplied by Gallagher Group, for their various tobacco products, including RYO tobacco . Rolling tobacco, while not containing ingredients such as Potassium Nitrate to ensure continual burning, it will usually contain flavouring additives in addition to preservatives necessitated by the water content of the product. The list of distinct additives in the Gallagher list is in-fact longer for rolling tobacco than its pre-rolled products. It is on this basis that I have removed the reference to rolling tobaccos lack of additives. JamJar (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additives 

message: Should there be a section for the kinds of people who smoke them, bohemian culture, hipsters,1920s detective movies(the detective always rolls his own cigs)? I always think of them as having a cooler image or classier--67.86.119.65 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture
Talk:Showdown (poker)

message: I reworked much of this article to make the rule descriptions more precise. [prior version].  Specifically, I didn't like the phrase "All players are obligated to expose their hands immediately" because it contradicts the rest of the paragraph. Several sentences may be verbatim (or close to) from Robert's Rules of Poker. Robert's Rules are public domain (and are listed in references), but are still not adequately attributed. I will circle back on that shortly to clean it up.--Toms2866 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that content from Robert's Rules of Poker are now adequately attributed. I also added links to some interesting Card Player Magazine articles concerning the debate about optimal showdown rules and procedures.--Toms2866 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I am trying to link to this page from my site and I am using joomla CMS it does not allow me to save a URL which containg parenthesis what am I doing wrong? or can the URL be changed?
Timdowd 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, parentheses are necessary. The URL should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_(poker). —Lowellian (reply) 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does the word poker need to be in parenthesis?
Talk:Tom Dooley (editor)

message: This would be an improper use of PROD.   contains "All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references", which doesn't reconcile with the  tag dated April 2009 used as justification in the edit summary.  Also, a previous contested PROD exists (January 2006).  AfD would be the best venue for this. RadioKAOS  –  Talk to me, Billy  22:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested PROD
Template talk:IMDb episode

message: == No italic please ==
Incase you are wondering, episodes of a television series should be enclosed in double quotation marks and not italic.
* From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles): Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works (particularly those that exist as a smaller part of a larger work), should be enclosed in double quotation marks.
There have been at least two attempts to change this template so that they would be italic, but got quickly reverted. If you want to make it italic, you need have the policy change first. --Steinninn 03:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Incase you are wondering, episodes of a television series should be enclosed in double quotation marks and not italic.
* From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles): Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works (particularly those that exist as a smaller part of a larger work), should be enclosed in double quotation marks.
There have been at least two attempts to change this template so that they would be italic, but got quickly reverted. If you want to make it italic, you need have the policy change first. --Steinninn 03:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No italic please 

message: Is there a possibility to use this template without double quotation marks, in the case of untitled episodes with episode numbers (e.g. Episode 4466)? Maybe add a quotes=no option? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 10:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No quotes option?
Talk:Table stakes

message: If I remember right, the book The Official Rules of Card Games has a pretty good example of how the pot is divided among several poker players playing table stakes.
Suppose A has 30 chips, B has 50 chips, C has 100 chips, and D has 200 chips, and suppose C or D bets 100 chips (the highest bet that at least two players can match). And suppose all the players call and are in for the showdown. The pot contains 200 chips from C and D, 50 chips from B, and 30 chips from A, for a total of 280 chips.
The highest hand of the four wins the 30 chips that player A bet and the 90 chips that the other three players bet against him, for a total of 120 chips.
The highest hand among B, C, and D wins the additional 20 chips that B bet and the 40 chips that C and D bet against him, for a total of 60 chips.
The higher hand between C and D wins the remaining 100 chips in the pot.
(D retains 100 unbet chips that no one else could have matched.) 64.179.154.8 (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of table stakes
Talk:Tilt (poker)

message: the "raise" link leads to a mountain. i dont know how to change this. could any 
one do it?
In the list of reasons you might go on tilt, the last one says after an all-in showdown... how does one go on tilt after losing all-in? you would no longer be playing.... is it just me?
:say you were to go all in with 100,000 in chips, and your opponent calls with only 60,000 chips, this is an all in showdown, but you could lose and still remain in the game, tilted or not. 04redsox07 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 2005 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: This term is by the article's own admission not exclusively a poker term. A better name for it, then, would be tilt (games) or some such. CapnZapp (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the term is used very commonly in many varieties of game so there's no real need to be this specific in the article title, especially since the term's origins aren't from poker either. SellymeTalk 11:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilt (games)
Talk:Wild card (cards)

message: As I work on links to the wild card dab page, it seems to me that there needs to be a broader description of wild cards that reflects that their usage is not limited to poker. In the meantime, wild card links in entries for other card games are being directed here. Planetneutral 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild card (card games) 

message: I've gone ahead and requested a move to Wild card (playing cards) as an effort to incorporate links from the wide variety of non-poker card games that use wild cards. The content of the relocated article would change very little. If you have an opinion about this move, now's the time to voice it. Planetneutral 06:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I kind of disagree with this statement:
"For example, if you have a pair and a wild card, you will always choose three of a kind rather than two pair. This causes three of a kind to be more common than two pair."
Let's say your hand is KKJ2(wild).   The wild card gives you all of the following hands: KKKJ2 (three of a kind), KKJJ2 (2 pair), KK22J (2 pair), KKJ2(kicker) (pair of Kings with any kicker).  Those hands are ALL your option.  If 2 pair were a higher value in your game than 3 of a kind, you'd choose 2 pair.  So it actually doesn't make 3 of a kind a more common hand, it increases the frequency of all hands (since you have 52 options for what your wild card can be), and the player naturally chooses the best option.
-PK9 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you PK9 about what was the creator intention, but I think his deduction is a fallacy, thus I added the "citation needed" tag. I actually DO think that, being ( as the article own words ) "no pair is most common" adding a single wild card to a hand with no pair it would produce a pair. Being a pair fairly more common than before but not as common as the "no pair". Well, this was not the topic disputed but, if we agree in that point, definetly "This causes three of a kind to be more common than two pair" is false, because one would (not counting the wild card) need a pair which is far more uncommon than no pair. Any thoughts ?
Sr.Bernat 11:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaker hands lose frequency? 

message: Article says: “For example, if a player holds a pair and a wild card, they will always choose three of a kind rather than two pair.” 
This is a fundamental misconception by people who don’t understand how poker is played. Every casino, and I can’t imagine a private game that doesn’t go along with this, has the rule: The cards speak for themselves. This means that it doesn’t matter what the player says he has (“chooses”)…his hand is what it is, and it always is the best it can be, wild cards or no. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  no choice
Talk:Eclectica Magazine

message: Shouldn't this also be deleted despite high traffic, longevity, etc? If not, it would seem that if this is notable, then the creating editors (who are  both  up for deletion) shouldn't be deleted either. How can it be split? ChrisLott 10:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A specific subject can be notable enough for a single page, but not 3 separate pages.  If that's the case, they can be merged into one.  Also,  isn't live yet, and pages won't be deleted under it until Feb 4 or later, unless they specific fit other deletion criteria such as WP:CSD.  --Interiot 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think this is notable - it has received the Million Writers Award from storySouth, which is a notable award that apparently made USA Today. D. Harlan Wilson has published stories there , and I think that within the literary community it's somewhat notable. I find little evidence of media coverage, though, which worries me slightly. Wouldn't object to merging, mind. Sam Vimes 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Sylke Otto

message: Not patent, or any other sort, of nonsense. Stub being created now. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1970 World Series of Poker

message: The World Series of Poker is NOT a freeze-out tournament.  In a freeze-out, only one person wins money.  I suppose whoever wrote it means its a freezeout in a sense that the Champion himself is in a way 'frozen out' (as there is only 1 champion) but it's still confusing.
Lolwikiments (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment
Talk:1972 World Series of Poker

message: Tonight, on an episode of I've Got A Secret, from 1972, Amarillo Slim was a guest (his secret was that he'd lost 190k in a poker game). He also mentioned just having won $60,000 by winning first place in the 8-person WSOP (originally there were supposed to be 12 players, but only 8 agreed to goto the finals after playing a lengthly session just prior (he himself played 2 days and nights with 6 horus rest in between). Either way, I suppose he could be mistaken, but I'd think he'd know how much the prize was - though it conflicts with this article's prize of $80k. Hope this helps someone with this article. TheHYPO 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment
Talk:1981 World Series of Poker

message: Someone should make an article on Ken Smith.  He's the only player named here who doesn't have one, and he's certainly notable for both his poker and chess achievements.  I'd do it myself, but I really don't know anything about the guy. 74.182.8.21 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment
Talk:1990 World Series of Poker

message: Why are positions 7-9 listed as not being part of the final table? Is it for any reason other than the TV company started filming when they were 6 handed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:130:400:1660:581F:B1DE:155C:5CF2 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Crown Australian Poker Championship

message: Does any one know what version of Poker is played at this tournament? It would be worth mentioning, I suppose.
There are various versions of poker played throughout the aussie millions. The main event is Texas Holdem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.93.22 (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Version? 

message: In the 2013 Aussie Millions Main Event, the chip leader at the end of Day 2 was James Obst with 1,061,000 in chips. The chip leader at the end of Day  was Ray Ellis with 1,044,000 in chips. It's a shame I can't find a source that states it outright, but I cannot recall there ever being the top chip count being lower than on a previous day in major tournament history. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has this ever happened in major tournament history? 
Talk:Poker Night Live

message: I put the pAfD on this, looks to me to be merely an advert for the site and not meeting wikipedia:notability (web) guidelines. Maybe I should have looked around to see if it could be merged into something else, but think it's best for someone who knows more about the catorgory to do this. Raerth 17:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT - I have noted my actions in the WikiProject:Poker and Usertalk:EssexMutant, not trying to be sneaky with this when it's a popular pastime. Raerth 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: Repeat shows are no longer aired.  --The Four Deuces (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeat shows
Talk:Poker Royale

message: Ideally, the results of each show should be published on the page, as is common with other articles throughout WikiProject Poker.
===Comedians vs Pros===
Adding known results below. If anyone can help it would be appeciated. Essexmutant 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: Adding known results below. If anyone can help it would be appeciated. Essexmutant 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comedians vs Pros

message: If anyone can help complete this, I'd appreciate it. Essexmutant 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrities vs Pros

message: I don't understand this sentence: "Also different from other series were that three tables were active during the early episodes, and was later lowered to the top ten players at the main table in center stage."  Does the second clause mean simply that, as players were eliminated, the three tables were consolidated into one? JamesMLane t c 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed
Talk:Ultimate Poker Challenge

message: This article is highly inaccurate. There were only two seasons, beginning in the fall of 2004, and late in the second (c. 1 February 2006) the format was changed completely. The show became a cash game and was retitled UPC Cash Poker. Chad Brown then became more interested in playing than announcing and this eventually led to Brian Mollica being brought in. When the second season would have been over in late March, new episodes continued to be aired, with the last new segments coming out that August (although most telecasts that summer were Cash repeats from the spring). Reruns of UPC Cash Poker have been available in weekly syndication ever since, but after the 2007-2008 season, many smaller-market stations dropped the program (it disappeared from Waco-Temple, Texas, at that point but is still being seen in Dallas-Ft. Worth, for one example each way). Where did all the rubbish here come from? And don't try to tell me that this is wrong, as I regularly checked their website hoping to find news of upcoming new shows. Wasn't there. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly inaccurate article
Talk:Chinese poker

message: It appears that Chinese and Russian poker are the same; the Chinese poker page says so, and other pages pagat.com/partition/pusoy.html chinesepokeronline.com make the same claim.  I suggest we consolidate this on the existing Chinese poker page, incorporating the information present on the Russian Poker page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that Russian poker article is about, but it has nothing to do with Chinese Poker.  Chinese Poker is played with 13 cards, that Russian article says that game is played with 5 cards.  The Russian page just looks made up and should be deleted. 2005 (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I dabbed both articles so it is clear two unrelated different games are being discussed.  The Russian Poker article though still seems copied and seems to be created by a single purpose accoutn spamming a website.  2005 (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The game is played for points.  The stakes are determined independently of game play, where a point may be equal to whatever value the players agree to (e.g. $0.50, or €5,000,000, or anything inbetween).  
The details of the terminology may be debatable, but the notion that the game is played for units, where "unit" is a Chinese Poker term of art, is ridiculous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.237.72.36 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The stakes are not "units"
Talk:Don't Move (2004 film)

message: I'll admit the I haven't seen the film, only read the book, but since the book was written by the wife of the director, I would assume that the film is faithful to the book  The spoiler written here glosses over the dark side of the tale including the violence, rape and backstreet abortion.  --JBellis 17:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saccharine spoiler 
Talk:Neumarkt (district)

message: It says: "The destruction of Neumarkt in World War II On 23 February and 11 April 1945, Neumarkt is heavily bombed. The resistance of the SS results in the destruction of the town." This doesn't make sense. An air raid in February 45 at Neumarkt cannot be caused by "resistance" of any infantry troops, as the front had been far away from Neumarkt at this time. In fact, the official British concept of that time had been to bomb civilian housing areas and old town centers with all civilian inhabitants in reach for "moral warfare", as had happened to various towns in France or in Bavaria at Wuerzburg or Rothenburg ob der Tauber. 131.56.12.19 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk)  17:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Neumarkt (district) →  – The correct name is Landkreis Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz. Per Wikipedia naming convention we replace the Landkreis with (district), it's named after the town Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz. Crainsaw (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 August 2023