Talk:Texas hold 'em/1

message: Is that probability table really necessary?  What is it measuring, anyway?  If a particular hand is against 9 other random hands, and all hands stick around no matter what until the river?
:It's just the probable value of the hands, regardless of what happens until the river (or if it even comes to the river).
This type of probability has little to do with actual holdem play, and I don't see how its presence really informs a newcomer or gives them a sense of the game; if anything, it's probably misleading them.
Actually, I was the one who wrote the above criticism.  I still see little justification for the table; it has very little to do with actual play...the rank of the hands is only roughly the order of their "value" preflop in a 8-10 handed game...and in other games (loose games, short-handed games, etc.) it's pretty INaccurate...not to mention it takes no account of position, previous betting, etc.
:It can't take into account position or previous betting: it's probability.
For example, in a 10-player game, I would much rather have 65s than 77.  65s isn't a very good hand, but it plays well multi-way, esp. in late position.  77 is really only looking to flop a set, and if it doesn't, it's just garbage against more than 1 or 2 opponents.
And it goes without saying, I'd rather have 32 rather than 72 against a full table any day, ranking 72 above 32 against 9 opponents is just silly.
I ask again, what's the point of this table??? Revolver
SOME INACCURACIES (if you disagree with my reasoning, you can explain why you think I'm wrong...I'm not always right):
High Pairs: Pairs from Aces to Tens are always a good starting hand, you have the chance to improve on them
How? The only way pairs can improve is to catch one of the other 2 ranking cards; anything else improves everyone else, so is no improvement at all. Pairs, depending on the situation, are generally either considered made hands (say, TT/JJ or above) or drawing hands (trying to flop a set, say 99/TT or weaker). In either case, you still only have 2 outs to improve (discounting runner-runner or freak straights/flushes, etc.)
Middle pairs: They have very little strength, and cannot usually win without improvement. If it is not expensive, wait to see the flop and what possible drawing possibilities are there. If opponents are betting aggressively then fold. Possibilities are straight and flush draws.
There's only ONE drawing possibility -- you either flop your set, or you don't. If you don't, get out. One-card straight and flush draws are usually worthless.
High Cards: Two unsuited high cards should usually be played at least to the flop.
This is nonsense. Junk like KTo, QTo, and even ATo should never be played in early position, and thrown away most of the time. Most of the time, you will throw them away, (if you're playing by S&M standards).
The chances are that if you flop a pair you will have the best pair on the table.
But if you play junk like the above, you'll probably have the 2nd best hand and lose a lot of chips.
Suited high cards should be played more often, as a high card flush is now possible.
Can't argue with that.
Bet or call most of your drawing hands, if you have a four card flush or four card straight. Everyone may fold, or you may hit it.
This statement is so general and vague that it's misleading. Whether to bet or call a drawing hand is a complicated decision, based on several factors.
When you hit a flush or straight, be aware of the possibilities of other players having the same hand but higher. If there is heavy betting, it is probable that someone else has hit it as well.
Exactly. Which is why you don't play the junk suggested above.
If you have 2 pair, or 3 of a kind, and after the flop, and there a two suited cards in the flop, bet to knock a player off a flush draw, the same is true for connector cards (possibly making a straight) the goal being to keep players from seeing cards that may help them and not you.
This is often the goal, but you don't always bet to achieve it. Sometimes you bet, sometimes you check-raise, betting may actually keep people in (correctly) when you want to get them out.
Holdem strategy is not simple; it can't be summed up in short suggestions. There are some basic principles, but the application varies. I just don't want us to be giving potentially dangerous advice to people.
Revolver 04:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, are the instructions in italics online instructions, and the normal font the B&M instructions :) ? Pcb21| Pete 18:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Comments

message: It says: the order of betting remains fixed throughout all betting rounds.
I think this is wrong. Before the flop, the big blind acts last, but after the flop the dealer button acts last.
: I think it's fine the way it was: you could consider the blind's "forced actions", and hence they are technically the first positions to act. In any case I think you need to clarify the current text: the "order of betting" is fixed in any variant of poker, no? The key thing about Hold'em, rather than Stud, say, is that the betting order remains the same through all the betting rounds (modulo your quibble about the blinds). Neilc 04:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The big blind does not "act last", he/she posts a forced blind after the small blind, and then has the option to raise when it comes back around. The small blind acts first, just as in all rounds, preflop it is just forced. This should be made very clear in the article, though. To answer Neilc, when someone says "the order of betting is fixed" it's usually assumed that they really mean "fixed from betting round to betting round. In this case, the order is relatively fixed in stud (i.e. there is a fixed way to determine the order) which may change absolutely from round to round, while in holdem, it is absolutely fixed for all rounds. Revolver 21:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the order of betting... 

message: I removed this section, not because all of it was completely wrong, but primarily because most of it could be said about any poker game in general, i.e. there was nothing specific about holdem given. Also, the discussion on check-raising was a bit simplistic. Check-raising isn't just about "trapping" opponents for more bets. Often, you check-raise to force opponents out. You might do this with top-pair, top-kicker against a large field, when in early position and you have good reason to suspect a late position player will bet. The purpose here is that you want the players behind you to fold so that you increase your chance of picking up the pot...if they call, well, that's incorrect for them to do, but you'd still prefer them to fold. This is much different than check-raising with the intention of "pumping up the pot". Coming over the top to trap someone is also something you're more likely to see in pot-limit and no-limit than limit play. Also, the part about pot-committal is a bit misleading. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as being "pot-committed"; it is a fictitious concept. So, to say that you're "trapping" your opponents by making them think they're pot-committed is assuming that they're poor enough players that they even believe in the concept of "pot-committal" in the first place, which is a big assumption. Also, I don't know what "they usually know they cannot win because of the money in the pot" is supposed to mean. Strictly speaking, the amount of money (bets) in the pot has nothing to do with your evaluation of whether you have the best hand, a priori. Of course, the more money in the pot, the heavier the betting, the more likely someone has a monster hand. Still, someone who guesses the strength of their hand based on the size of the pot alone is misguided. The advice is doubly misleading, because often as the size of the pot increases, it becomes more correct to call, even if you strongly suspect you do not have the best hand. This is because you do not need to be correct very often. If the pot has $190 and it costs you $10 to call, you only need to have the best hand 5% of the time for the call to break even in the long term...if you have the best hand more than 5% of the time, you would incorrect to fold. This is why "fold as soon as you cannot win" seems likely to cause people problems...unless they are extremely skilled at reading hands, they will often fold too often on the end. Their problem is usually the opposite — namely, calling too often preflop and on the flop, not the river. Revolver 06:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traps 

message: Wikipedia is inconsistent as to whether it should be "hold 'em" or "hold'em" -- with a space or without. For example, in Wikipedia, it's Texas hold 'em, but Omaha hold'em. Perhaps we should make up our minds. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing in the game's name 

message: In the example of a tie that is given on the page, it mentions that the two remaining players are forced to use the Ace of Spades that turned up as the River card in their hand.  However, no where else in the rules listed does it say players are forced to use the River card.  As a matter of fact, in the first example, not all of the players used the 5th card in their hand.
Something should be included in the rules to instruct on when and if players are forced to use the River card.  Otherwise, it's confusing.  It's confusing for me, and I was tying to learn how to play.  Is it an optional rule?  Does it only come into play at certain times?  Etc.
:In Texas hold'em, each player makes the best possible hand from the combination of cards that they hold in the hole or the community cards on the board.  This can be any five cards.  No one is "forced" to use cards from any specific location, everyone uses the best five for their particular hand.  This is always the case.  If this doesn't clear things up, post again, and I'll give specific examples.
:In Omaha, the rules are different, so don't count on this applying in every style hold'em poker game. --Unfocused 03:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Card -- Forced to Use? 

message: I think raising with these big pairs is certainly correct, for the reason 2005 doesn't agree with: you reduce the competition and increase the probability of winning. It wouldn't matter if you were guaranteed lots of action whether you're ahead or not, but the problem is that the pot will typically only become big when you're beat. So as the famous proverb goes, you'll either win a small pot or lose a big one. I think this is especially true if you fail to raise pre-flop... Evercat 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on if it's limit or no-limit. In limit I would think it's only wise heads-up and then only sometimes. In pot-limit or no-limit, it depends, still much better heads-up though, but the limp-reraise in early position is something of a slowplay tactic. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Limping, of course. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Raising with AA, KK etc

message: Proposed move.  I think the spectator sport aspect of hold'em is part of it's popular culture.  Feel free to be bold and just do it if you agree.  Unfocused 15:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I thought about it, the more I thought I should just do it.  Revert if you feel it's necessary.  Unfocused 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move "Hold'em as a spectator sport" to subsection of "Texas hold'em in popular culture"? 

message: I think we need a "See Also" section for this article very badly.  We have articles for virtually every poker style and term in Wikipedia.  We also shouldn't need to link to an external glossary; we probably should set one up internally.  I would set both up and begin to populate them, but don't have time today.  Thought I'd mention this as the most recent edit was a link to an external glossary.  Unfocused 22:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "See also" is sort of spread through the article, but a clear section would be nice. We have a separate hands article so a Poker terms one could make sense... although it will be endlessly trolled by nuts wanting to add their own "clever" terms/slang to it. (There definitely shouldn't be a Holdem terms article though, since most associated terms are general poker terms not focused on this one variant.) 2005 22:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" section needed 

message: How can a real Hold'em bibliography not list Brunson's "Super/System", but list no fewer than four books from "Two Plus Two Publications"?  Phil Gordon, et al, are just trying to sell books here with this "bibliography" as an excuse.  I say scrap the "bibliography" section entirely.
*You write a bibliography to reflect the books you've used as reference.  You don't simply list popular books on the subject.  If you doubt that these books were all used as reference, I'd suggest you ask the ones who added them, then consider removing them if the answers you get aren't satisfactory.  If you think a broader range of publishers should be represented, get a reference book from another publisher to to support something that either exists in the article or is added to the article, then add the reference work as well.  Wikipedia needs more references cited, not less, but false citation isn't helpful either.  Unfocused 17:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography looks rather sales-y 

message: I'm looking around the internet trying to find the origin of the name, "Texas Hold 'em".  My guess is, it's not really from Texas.  Anybody have a finite answer to this?
:I've been trying to find out same thing... no luck yet...
::The true origin of both hold'em and its name are unknown. A lot of people seem to believe it is in fact from Texas, including Johnny Moss, who reportedly said it came to Dallas in 1925 (and implied that it got there from some other place in Texas). Others do believe it wasn't invented in Texas. Either way, it was certainly popularized in Texas, and most of the people who played it well a few decades ago were from Texas. It was also Texans who brought the game to Las Vegas. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name

message: Does it make sense in the sample hand that Ted is folding pocket kings? -Markymarkmagic 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That confused me too at first.  If you look closely you'll see that the sample showdown and sample hand are totally different situations.  Maybe it could be edited to help clarify. Thebogusman 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample hand

message: Castle Hill Hold em is a variation of texas hold 'em invented in Castle Hill, NSW Australia late in 2005. The two main variations are:
1. All players put in a blind bet. One player puts in a big blind, and every other player places an equal small blind. After receiving their cards, the small blind players must then either match the big blind or raise to be in, or fold to go out. 
The point of blinds is to always have chips in the pot, so why not extend this to all players! you can't get out of folding without losing at least a small blind bet. 
2. Each player only has one opportunity to raise per round of betting. This means if you check on your turn and another player raises after you, you can only match that bet and cannot raise further. Similarly, if you raise on your turn, and a player after you matches and raises further, you can only match their raise and cannot raise yourself again.
This not only quickens each hand, it makes the game more enjoyable. Each player has a greater chance of making it to the end of the hand, giving a further air of uncertainty right towards the end. Importantly, at each turn of betting each player must choose carefully how much to bet; too little and you may not take advantage of a good hand, to big and you may give it away. Takes more skill to suck other players and take a big advantage of it. Also stops those tedious backwards and forwards betting seen on competition poker that leads to one player taking a large pot, after 10 long minutes, BEFORE THE FLOP HAS EVEN COME OUT.\
A third, occasionly used variation (which differs from all poker) is that all flushes are equal, no matter how high your cards are. This variation is not always played and the two variations above are what really separates Castle Hill Hold em as a distinct and more enjoyable game.
Feel free to play and experience the Castle Hill Hold em sensation.
- This is terrible. Can you say "luck fest"? ShardPhoenix 13:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It may be fine as a recreational game, but it's terrible as a proper form of poker as it leaves little room at all for skill. In any case, I don't really think variants of hold'em really deserve mention in the article (except maybe as a "see also" at the end); if they belong anywhere, I would guess it's community card poker. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dozens of invented variations on the game do not deserve mention here. 2005 03:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castle Hill Hold Em

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivey position. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idiotic text has been deleted. 2005 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ivey position]] merged here 

message: I modified the section on betting structures to provide a little more precision on no-limit. The key message is that no-limit is more than just going all-in. It is the ability to bet any desired amount above the minimum bet (or minimum raise). I also described straddles since are they are fairly common in cash games (and found in the new TV series High Stakes Poker). It seems like a big edit, but it seemed like one that needed to be made. Probably a better approach to straddle discussion (and side-pots for that matter), would be to create separate articles describing the intracies of those topics (e.g., Mississippi/button straddles, etc.). There probably should also be topic describing the various (sometimes complicated) blind correction methods (e.g., dead button) when a player busts out in the blinds. --Toms2866 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd replace the whole betting section.  It would be silly to repeat the same text in all game articles.  This article should just refer to the betting article. 2005 06:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the entire betting structures section with brief overview and reference to betting (poker) article.--Toms2866 22:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betting Structures 

message: Can someone tell me how to nominate an article to be featured? Vemund 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at WP:FAC. The nomination will likely fail, however. The article is far from featured level. It would be best if you tried out on peer review first. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, it is not ready to be a FAC.  It will even have a rough start in peer review.  At least one person, probably more, will need to be dedicated to working to implement the feedback from the peer review process.  I'm willing to participate, but probably not at a level sufficient by itself for peer review. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article. 

message: Hello -  There seems to be some disagreement over whether or not to use TOCRight.  The two versions to compare are:  and .  Personally I prefer the former, it puts the (rather attractive) image up front instead of the ugly table of contents.  Additionally, it conforms to the generally accepted style for wikipedia articles more.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the picture above the TOC.--Toms2866 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ps I think pictures jazz up the articles. Thanks. The popular culture/spectator sport section probably would benefit from a pic.--Toms2866 01:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohh that looks a lot better.  Thanks, I don't know why I didn't think of that.  No trouble for the picture.  But don't thank me, I found them on Flickr.  The author has a very nice set of poker images all licensed under the creative commons license.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOCright 

message: I would like to add a (brief) section on basic strategy.  I'd like to see what others think ought to be included.  I thought I would say something about the standard Tight-Aggressive approach recomended by so many authors.  In addition, I would note the focus on limiting starting card choices and on position (as suggested in the introduction).  I also thought about saying something regarding the general consensus that the limit and no-limit forms are strategically very different.  Any additions or subtractions?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I think we should avoid any discussion of strategy.  A link to the poker strategy article should suffice, which covers the basics of its better to be in position.  A statement to the effect that strategy for limit and no limit differ would make sense though. That's commenting on differences, and not what is good strategy. 2005 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with 2005 that this article should at most only have brief mention of strategy and link to Poker strategy. The Poker strategy article has a paragraph about structure considerations (e.g., limit/no-limit differences), but it is pretty thin. Feel free to improve it. Limit structure is also mentioned in the Manipulating pot odds section in pot odds. The hard thing about strategy is to limit it to basic concepts that can be explained in an encyclopedic fashion (that is, no advice or opinion). Try to avoid getting too specific about Texas hold'em in the strategy article - examples are fine, but the primary discussion should be high-level enough to apply to most poker variants.--Toms2866 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I share the concern that any discussion of strategy remain encyclopedic, and I do/did intended to write the section is a descriptive rather than normative tone.  I disagree with the suggestion that strategy not be included for two reasons. (1) As it stands, the article seems thin to me.  I would like to get it up to FAC standards, but in its current form I suspect people will think it incomplete without at least a paragraph on strategy.  This is consistent with other articles on card games, for instance Bridge (card game) and Gin rummy. (2) Try to avoid getting too specific about Texas hold'em in the strategy article.  Right.  This is why there ought to be a strategy section in this article, because being overly specific about texas hold 'em strategy would be inappropriate for an article about poker strategy in general.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the article seeming a bit thin. After further consideration, I agree the article should have a brief section with strategy highlights, especially those that make poker unique: vying for a pot, incomplete information (e.g., compare to chess), deception, and importance of math (probabilities, expected value). These elements are what make poker special and deserve main-article exposure.--Toms2866 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it wasn't written very well, especially with typos, but I did my best to edit it.  I don't know if I should have edited the CAPS in Brunson's quote, but I did.  They were bugging me.  Thekohser 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah well... Was it merely the spelling or do you find the sentences confusing or disorganized? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy 

message: I think we cannot use the Chris Moneymaker image in this article.  It is being used in the article on Chris Moneymaker under fair use criteria, which I don't think aplies to this article.  (For more details read the copyright information at :Image:Chris moneymaker.jpg.)  Although its a much less cool image, I suggest we replace it with :Image:JoeHachem.jpg.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. Good change.--Toms2866 01:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moneymaker and fair use 

message: User:2005 recently changed the "sources" section into "references" and "further reading"  All of the materials listed in both "references" and "further reading" are referenced in the text of the article.  Harrington, Jones, and Miller, et al. are all used in the strategy section and Alspach in the starting hands section.  I suggest that these two sections be merged into one. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded them.  My IE search this page thing didn't see their references in the article. I do think it would be better to use the "ref" links where they appear in the article. 2005 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  <ref> is cool with me.  To be honest I just used the () reference notation out of habit.  I'll change them, unless you beat me to it ;)  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference/Further reading 

message: Perhaps a article on bluffing. I.E. tells, sunglasses, how much is right to bet
:Have you looked at bluff (poker) or tell (poker)? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluffing 

message: I was thinking the other day, it might be nice to add a section on famous hold'em matches.  Unfortunately the only one(s) I can think of are either part of the world series (already covered) or the games with Andy Beal.  If there are others it might be worth adding a small subsection somewhere.  Can anyone think of any others?  And what do you think about adding them? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous games 

message: Why is Hold'em a redirect to this article? It would seem more logical to me if Hold'em was an article about the hold'em family in general, with wikilinks to this article and Omaha Hold'em and the other hold'em games. Entheta 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess Hold 'em redirects only because no such article like you have described exists.  On the one hand, it would seem a good idea to have a Hold 'em article, but it should be redundant to the community card poker article... which would be kind of hard. If you wanted to look at (and edit) that article and make a Hold 'em article that makes sense to exist to exist too, then it would seem a good idea to put an article in the Hold'em slot.  (Hold 'em with the space, to be consistent with other articles.)  On the other hand... perhaps the better thing to do would be to change the redirect to aim at community card poker where Texas and Omaha are linked, and Pineapple explained. 2005 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Hold'em a redirect?

message: Links labeled NLHE link here.  Perhaps the acronym should be mentinoed in the article?  I'm reasonably sure it stand for No Limit Hold Em, but I could be wrong.  It could be winner take all tournament style no limit texas holdem, like we see on TV Mathiastck 21:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NLHE does refer to No Limit Hold Em.  Can you say where these links are?  We shouldn't be using any acronyms without first explaining them, and I would like to correct them.  Thanks!  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I meant to do so, but had too many balls in the air and droppd that one.  It's in the wikipedian poker category.  I'll get it to you in a moment.  Mathiastck 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A long moment :) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poker  Mathiastck 15:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLHE 

message: I think a section needs to be added on tied hands. This is following a discussion I've been having on another forum. The example I gave was two players (it could be out of a field of 20, it doesn't matter at the moment), one with an AK hand and one with a 25. The community cards are AKQJT. Considering I haven't been able to find out exactly what happens in that situation yet from an expert I won't add anything now, but if someone could in the near future that'd be great. Ephphatha 06:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The description is correct. You make you best five card hand out of the seven cards available to you, so in this case both players have an ace high straight and the pot is split. 2005 08:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, could even go beyond two players, to take to the extreme all nine players going all-in and would split if the strongest hand was what was on the board, players 1) has AcAh, 2) KdKh, 3) 8s8c, 4) 5s6s, 6) 7h2c, 7) 2h4c, 8) Ad2d and 9) 4s9d the board is 10sJsQsKsAs then everyone has a royle flush :) --Sirex98 11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, in hold'em--as in almost all forms of poker--hands for comparison have exactly five cards, regardless of how many are dealt or how they are formed.  It is very common for players to tie when there is a straight on the board, and in other situations, such as boards like 99JJA, QQQ77, 3333A, and so on.  In the three cases of an ace-high straight on the board with no three cards of the same suit, or a royal on the board, or quads with an ace, it is impossible for any player's hand to beat the board, and so the pot is split among all eligble players (those who called all bets).  In the other cases (like a lower straight or a full house on board), it is possible that someone can have a higher hand, but very common that no one will.  I played a tournament hand once where I had pocket kings; the flop was K77, giving me kings full.  My opponent bet, I moved in, and he called with 98 (suited with two of the board cards for a flush draw--of course I thought he was drawing dead).  The turn came a 7, and the river a 7, allowing him to escape with a split pot since my kings were now worthless, and we were both playing the board of K7777. --LDC 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tied hands 

message: I am having trouble locating information on how Texas Hold 'Em works at Casinos. How does the Casino make money on the game?
:The same way they make money from any poker game--either by raking each pot (typically 5% to a maximum of $4), a fixed per-hand fee ($3 on the button, for example), or charging an hourly fee (common for larger games).  A casino has no interest in the outcome of any hand--players play against each other, and the casino simply charges for their services.  --LDC 16:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casino Hold 'Em 

message: I'm passing this, it's well referenced and reads pretty well.  It definitely needs a good one-over if  the eventual goal is featured article, but it's definitely a good article now.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass

message: I removed a reference to the most recent Bond film.  We cannot include every mention of texas hold'em in popular culture, and I don't see a reason why it is particularly notable (above other mentions of hold'em).  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond 

message: Say there is a five person game and at $20 buy ins. Then 3 players go all in. 2 lose and are out of the game. Then these 2 losers each buy in at $20 each. Is it OK for the winner to cash out his winnings (or any amount) and quit before the conclusion of the game?  And, Is it OK for the 2 losers to buy in from additional cash in their wallet, or do they need to buy in from chips already in the game, so that no more than $100 dollars worth of chips are in the game at one time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.68.56 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with most things in poker everything depends on the rules of the cardroom.  In most cash games people are free to leave at any time.  The winner can leave with his winnings (but cannot cash out for part of his winnings and continue playing with less).  In cash games people are always able to buy back in.  Some games allow you to buy in only for the original maximum, other times they can buy in for up to another amount (usually higher than the maximum).  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about re- buy ins  in a cash game 

message: Is the 'h' not capitalized because of technical limitations?  "Texas Hold 'em" is the preferred capitalization.  "Omaha" is NEVER referred to as "Omaha Hold 'em" (either its "Omaha", "Omaha High-Low" (or "Omaha High-Low Eight or Better").  Also, "The Hold 'em explosion" always referred to the tremendous growth experienced in California in the early 90's when it was declared legal (actually declared "not illegal"). HappyParrot 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reference for the California connection, please feel free to add that to the article.  If you have a reference for the name, please discuss hear.  Personally, I agree with Texas Hold 'em as the proper name.  With Omaha, even though it is not usually referred to as Omaha Hold 'em, I believe this is the true name of the game. —Doug Bell talk 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really care about the name of this article.  The only problem is that if we change it, we'll have a lot of standardizing to do (since this was the accepted name prior).  Regarding "Omaha" while the sorter name is more common, I think this is just the same as "Hold'em" being the more common name of texas hold'em.  Certainly the claim that it is "NEVER" used is a bit too strong.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fixup effort is not really that big of a deal, so it shouldn't factor into the decision on the name. —Doug Bell talk 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fixup effort would be enormous, and is reason enough to not discuss it further.  Capitalizing hold 'em and then every game name would be a huge endeavor.  This discussion took place more than a year ago so let's not go over the same ground again. 2005 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no "proper name".  It is spelled many ways, and Texas hold 'em is correct stylistically with how stud and draw are also not capitalized.  Also, I don't know where you come up with the idea that Omaha hold 'em is never used as it obviously is, and that is in fact the longstanding, correct name of the game. 2005 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct punctuation should be: Texas Hold 'em