Talk:Texas hold 'em

message: Here Miels:
Royal Flush 
Straight Flush 
Four of a Kind 
Full House 
Flush 
Straight 
Three of a Kind 
Two Pair 
One pair (usually Jacks or better)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.180.198 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: This article, as appears to be common with many of the gambling articles on wikipedia, uses some references which are not remotely reliable sources.  Pokertips.org, for example.  From looking through the poker articles, I'm seeing this situation all over the place.  It appears that there are lots of gambling websites, and especially poker websites, which exist for the purpose of getting people to click on their commercial links.  These websites have a bunch of articles and definitions to get people to visit the website, but this does not make them reliable sources and wikipedia articles should not be using them as such.  --Xyzzyplugh 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, I also see an ezine article listed as a source.  Ezine is about as authoritative as random blogs or myspace pages.  --Xyzzyplugh 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ezine your referring to is published by Two Plus Two Publishing one of the most reputable sources for poker strategy guides.  The ezine is edited by Mason Malmuth one of the owners of said publishing companies.  While Ezines as a whole are bad sources, this one is an exception.  I agree with you about the other citations, they are shitty sources, but they're being used for very "low impact" things, namely rules for other poker variants.  One of the problems of researching on the web (especially for things I already know), is that its a giant pain in the ass to find good sources (amidst all the crap).  Even more difficult is finding a book that lists all of these poker variants since some of them have been invented rather recently.  I will attempt to track down better sources for the rules for these games.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the ezine refernce was to... xhttp://ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Texas-Holdem&id=112171  I removed that, since it was an unreliable refence to a legend!  Even though the articles aren't signed, pokertips pretty clearly meets the criteria as a reliable source since the site is referenced all over the place. 2005 00:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a burst of remarkable good timing, the texas state legislature officially recognized Robstown, Texas as the birthplace of texas hold'em yesterday.  I have added that fact along with a citation to the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They must have read this thread... 2005 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with references for this article

message: Okay, the FAC people pointed out a (rather obvious) oversight in this article.  The history section goes until 1970 and the explosion section begins at 1999.  Something relevant to THE must have happened in the intervening decades.  Don't worry about citations on the talk page, let's just try to come up with the relevant ideas that are worth tracking down.  My two suggestions are a brief mention of the increased interest in the WSOP main event and publication of Super/System.  Any other suggestions? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 09:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most important development in that time, by far, is flop games coming to California in the 1980s, and then to a lesser degree coming to the East Coast, but that isn't nearly as important since stud was still the dominant game until after 2000. 2005 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion, I have added it to the article.  The history is really interesting, and the generally accepted story is wrong.  The legality of draw had nothing to do with it being a game of skill, nor did the decision legalizing hold'em have anything to do with that either.  That was the story I had always been told.    --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1970s-2000 

message: I reverted a removal of image sizes by Ideogram.  In particular, the blind illustration must be larger because of the detail it presents.  Relying on individual users to set their defaults is not sufficient for two reasons (1) the default applied to all images regardless of detail (thus users must either have some images be too small or others too large) and (2) most readers are not logged in and thus see the default page. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Users that are not logged in have image sizes set according to their screen resolution, which is what you want most of the time.  Although some images may indeed need to be larger than average to show more detail, unspecified image sizes should be the default.  --Ideogram 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that some users (such as myself) already have the default set to the maximum 300px, but if you want to set this one image to 300px I have no problem with it.  --Ideogram 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the only image that I think needs to be set larger, although I generally prefer to set image sizes to make it appear better.  I think you default setting may be why you find the presence of all the images so distracting.  Log out and look at this version of the page.  Tell me what you think.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you need to allow for user preferences and try to let your article look good under most circumstances.  In my case, I have large browser windows (1024x1536) so most users who would have smaller browser windows would actually find the images more distracting.  --Ideogram 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: This statement rings false to my ears, on a number of levels. It's certainly a confusing thing to say in the lead. -- Kendrick7talk 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the  from there as it is very easily verified and known as fact by any regular players, you could check this in any Texas Hold 'em book - or by watching any televised game or online site long enough, the kickers will decide the winner when the need is there.--Alf melmac 08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is not "often." I play a lot of hold em. Heck, I'm playing as I type. -- Kendrick7talk 08:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: then re-write the sentence to remove that word. We need only cite things that are not easily verfiable or likely to be challenged, this wouldn't be the case if the word "often" were not in operation.--Alf melmac 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that this will occur in games where there are several players who will play any Ax hand and call their hand down to the river if an A hits on the flop. This will occur on games that are either very loose, or short handed, particularly heads-up -- the last two being the kind of game frequently on TV, as you note. But even in shorthanded games, a pro isn't too likely to call down his Ax hand with a weak kicker, IMHO, unless he's got some extra outs (e.g. flopping a four flush). -- Kendrick7talk 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kickers are often used to determine the winner? 

message: what percentage of texas holdem do you think is skill and what percentage is luck? is it 50/50 or more luck than skill or what?--Sonjaaa 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between "skill" and "luck" that is often used isn't really a helpful way to think about the game.  In the short term, almost anyone can win money.  So in that sense, the game involves a lot of luck.  In the long run, it is very hard for most players to win money, so in that sense the game involves a lot of skill.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good question, and one that a couple of poker authors do address in books - so reliable sources are available, although the answers will be subjective. I'll see what I can find. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The question isn't meaningful as posed: first, you have to ask "over what period of time?". On any one hand of poker, the result is nearly 100% a matter of luck, although a skilled player can manipulate his chances of winning a little, especially at no-limit.  Over many hours of play, luck evens out somewhat and good players should expect to do better, but even the best players will have bad days, weeks, or months.  Once you get into thousands of hours of play, the best players will consistently win, and the mediocre players will consistently lose.  One also has to ask "under what conditions?".  The profitability of a game to a good player is influenced by choice of game, betting limits, mix of players, time of day, and many other things.  The best players in the world will consistently make money at weak tables, but if the top ten are all playing a game against each other, then their results will be mostly a matter of luck, because their respective skills even out. --LDC 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: is it more skill or luck? or in what ratio?

message: I removed the paragraph about the nuts from the showdown section.  I felt like its presence was of limited value and it distracted from the flow of the article.  Any concerns?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nuts 

message: * I don't see why this material in the "Objectives" subsection (which definately belongs in the article) falls under the "Rules" section, rather than the "Strategy" section (other than it's conceptual importance suggests it go earlier rather than later) I'd look to put it in the lead section, maybe...  This bit is awkward: "The objective of winning players is not winning individual pots, but rather making mathematically correct decisions. By making such decisions, winning poker players maximize their expected utility and win more money than they lose in the long run." suggest: "The objective of winning players is not winning individual pots, but rather making decisions which maximize the probability of winning more money than is lost over the long run.  Economists call this mathematical process 'maximizing expected utility'." or something like that.  
* "When only two players remain, special 'head-to-head' or 'heads up' rules are enforced and the blinds are posted differently than expected." here, "differently than expected" makes no sense to me, like the process is randomly determined each hand? or does this mean "The blinds are posted differently when only two players remain. Special 'head-to-head' or 'heads up' rules...[description of rules]".  The whole "betting structures" subsection needs to begin with an explanation of "why" before launching into the "what".  I really don't understand which blind players are competing over.  If they're just added together then why this complicated subdividsion?  Under what conditions does one win one blind or another.  This is the part that needs the most exposition.
* I had to squint at the Holdem_Table.png then click the link to read it clearly, it could be bigger - losing the margins might help.
Otherwise, it's a bit of a tough slog, but I can't think of how to make the technical exposition easier, the temptation might be to push the drudge from the front to the back of the article.  The later sections work really well, but the exposition of the rules is unconnected to why the rules lead to dramatic or strategic tension...  If the rules could be written to highlight the cost/benefit, risk prone/averse implications they impose on players, then it would have a greater chance of engaging the intuition.
Cheers, Pete.Hurd 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, thanks a lot!  (A note to others, I had asked Pete to look over the article for us, so this isn't unsolicited advice.)  I'll fix the things you suggest and think about a way to increase the readability of the rules second.  There is a saying (apt I think) that all poker games start as a competition for the forced bets (blinds or antes).  (Sklansky talks about this in The Theory of Poker I think.)  Perhaps adding this and explaining its implication might be worthwhile.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do folks think about moving the history and explosion sections to the front of the article?  It doesn't depend on the rules or strategy sections which proceed it, and presents a more interesting start to the article.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't logical to talk about the effects of a thing without explaining the thing first. The rules stuff should definitely go first.  That is a description of the thing in question.  The significance of that thing should come afterwards. 2005 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the history section presupposes knowledge of anything in the rules section.  There is nothing inherently illogical about presenting the article in that order.  Monopoly (game) (a featured article) has the history before the rules section.  It doesn't make that article any less readable, or otherwise illogical.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common sense to say what you are talking about before going on about the history of this unknown thing.  And it's extra silly here where the history stuff has so much only marginally related material in it.  And of course most obviously there is no reason to do things backwards so why would you want to. 2005 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I don't think putting the history section first is doing it "backward" (at least not in the negative way you suggest).  We do say what we are talking about, in the lead.  I don't see why knowing the details about the blinds, the order of play, or the showdown is needed to understand the history section.  Can you say why you think the article would be less readable or useful if we were to reverse the order? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is already chocked full of tangential material.  At best the tangential content should be at the end.  But that's not even the point.  Why don't you want the Texas hold'em article to lead with content on what texas hold'em is?  Frankly what you are suggesting is like doing an article on the history of the automobile or the United States without explaining what those things are.  It doesn't make any sense.  This is an encyclopedia, not a people magazine article. 2005 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The analogy is appropriate, I gave the example of monopoly which does exactly that.  I don't think that article is harmed in any way.  I want to make the change because many readers of this article will be more interested in the history than the details of blinds, etc.  That section is more readable (because it has less technical detail) and would encourage readers to engage the article more.  It will also not harm readers who are interested in the rules, since that section will still be there. I take it your objection to moving the history section before the rules section is a general dislike for that section.  While I appreciate your attitude, you are certainly in the minority.  Those sections have been expanded at the request of many editors on WP:PR, WP:GA, and WP:FA.  Given that this section is appropriate for the article, I see no reasn why it can't be first.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ironically, Automobile begins with a history section and United States has the history section very early in the article (4th out of 12).  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I want to make the change because many readers of this article will be more interested in the history than the details of blinds, etc."  This again makes no sense whatsoever.  What about people more interested in rules and what exactly Hold'em is?  Making illogical, random changes to this article for no reason other than you want one type of person to like the beginning over another type of person really is too silly to talk about.  Instead you should be considering how to improve the meandering last half of the article to something more relevant and encyclopedic. And certainly if you were to reverse the order, all the tangential material should be removed.  This article is about Texas hold'em, not poker in general.  Some tangential material could go at the end of the article, but anything like that at the beginning is clearly inappropriate. 2005 00:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some feedback 

message: Just my opinion, but this article is terrible for learning how to play Texas Hold 'Em. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to explain to beginners how to play games, but most other Wikipedia pages about card and casino games are a lot better than this one at explaining the mechanics to beginners. 75.75.110.235 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blinds aren't part of the game, so they can't be explained here. Casinos usually spread the game with a two-blind structure, but some have single blinds, three blinds, antes, straddles, or some other structure.  Home games may do even stranger things.  Betting structures are better covered in the general poker articles, as they have nothing to do with the particular game being played (though certainly some games are better suited to some structures). --LDC 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That is probably more appropriate for the article on online poker than an article on texas hold 'em. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a good article for learning rules 

message: I'm going to start a sub-section on Texas Hold 'em lingo.  Any help is appreciated.  Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it since Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide for starters, but Glossary of poker terms already exists.  That's where standard jargon can be included.  Slang should not be though. 2005 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know that page existed, so I agree it's not needed.  However, there is dire need for a link to that article, so I am creating one. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: I've created a userbox if anyone would like to use it.
Just add  to your userpage. =)
May all your hands be live and all your pots be monsters! xenocidic (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox (Texas Hold 'em addict - all in with Pocket Aces) 

message: There's not yet a section on the number of players a texas hold'em can be played with. I suppose game strategy is heavily influenced by the number of players in the game. A section that describes the most frequent number of players on different occasions, and that mentions an optimal number would be nice. SuperMidget (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no optimal number, other than between 2 and 10, but even then it can be argued 11 or 12 can make decent games.  A line that it is normally played with between 2 and 10 players should be included tho. 2005 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's usually 2, 6, 9 or 10. Anything else in a casino (live or online) is quite a rarity, not counting tournaments and home games. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of players 

message: I know a while back someone had made a comment regarding this same topic. 
Thought it was just for laughs but today I heard a joke where "texas holdem" was referenced to in that manner. It's probably original research but just though whoever keeps track of this article might want to know.
Might warrant referencing or a stub.
74.225.212.103 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas hold em a term for group masturbation 

message: "When only two players remain, special 'head-to-head' or 'heads up' rules are enforced and the blinds are posted differently. In this case, the person with the dealer button posts the small blind, while his/her opponent places the big blind."
I think this isn't always true! Randomblue (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  heads up blinds? 

message: Hi, I'm new here. Can I recommend a change to the first paragraph? This is a grammatical/structural change only, nothing about content:
Texas hold 'em (also hold'em, holdem) is a Poker game of the community card variety. In Hold 'em, each player receives two cards, either or both of which can then be used in combination with any of the five community cards to make a five card poker hand. Hold 'em is currently the most popular poker game played in the casinos and poker rooms of North America and Europe, as well as online.[1][2] It is also widely broadcast on television.
Pentiumjim (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: change first paragraph

message: The rules on the movement of the blinds and dealer button when the big blind or little blind leaves the game (goes broke) could be clearer.69.125.87.10 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules

message: I was thinking of including a table of hands. They have one on the Spanish Wikipedia pages. I have copied the table from the Spanish site and I will translate it into English in the next day or two. There is a nice column which tells you howq many distinct five card hands there are which include a given hand. For example, there are four Royal Flushes, 36 straight flushes. Could someone double check the numbers and get back to me? Here's the table:
  	Jugada                          	Jugada en inglés	Descripción                                                                	Ejemplo	Combinaciones Posibles
1 	Escalera real o Flor Imperial   	Royal flush     	Cinco cartas seguidas del mismo palo del 10 al As.                         	       	4
2 	Escalera de color o flor corrida	Straight flush  	Cinco cartas seguidas del mismo palo, pero que no tiene As como carta alta.	       	36
3 	Póquer                          	Four of a kind  	Cuatro cartas iguales en su valor.                                         	       	624
4 	Full                            	Full house      	Tres cartas iguales (trío), más otras dos iguales (par).                   	       	3744
5 	Color                           	Flush           	Cinco cartas del mismo palo sin ser seguidas.                              	       	5.108
6 	Escalera                        	Straight        	Cinco cartas seguidas de palos diferentes.                                 	       	9.180
7 	Trío, Tercio, Pierna o Trucha   	Three of a kind 	Tres cartas iguales en su valor.                                           	       	54.912
8 	Doble par                       	Two pair        	Dos pares de cartas.                                                       	       	123.552
9 	Par                             	Pair            	Dos cartas iguales y tres diferentes.                                      	       	1.098.240
10	Carta alta o "Carta Mayor"      	High card       	Gana quien tiene la carta más alta.                                        	       	1.303.560
 Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a separate article that already does that, List of poker hands. 2005 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Hands 

message: I believe that this article has a fundamental flaw. From what I understand, this article should be simply titled: "Hold'em." Texas Hold'em specifically refers to No Limit Hold'em, distinguishing it from Limit or Pot-Limit Hold'em. The reason it is called Texas Hold 'em is because No Limit Hold 'Em was the game of choice of the Texas rounders back in the day, like Doyle Brunson, who brought Hold'em to Vegas. I can't site specifically where, as I don't have the book handy, but Tom McEvoy talks about this in his book "Tournament Poker" when he is discussing the history of Hold'em and the WSOP.
Matthew Biebel (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Texas does not mean no limit.  Texas hold'em is played with all forms of betting. 2005 (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get back to you on this when I have the book handy. Matthew Biebel (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting point you are raising, Mathew, if you can cite a reliable source, that would give more weight to your position and help the discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk •  16:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a source to verify this, but I've been playing poker for at least a decade and I am 100% certain that the term "Texas Hold'em" does not imply any kind of betting structure.  "Texas Hold'em" and "Hold'em" are synonymous.  The "Texas" is usually left off when you're specifying the betting structure, otherwise the name becomes awkwardly long (i.e. "Pot-Limit Texas Hold'em").  talk 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doyle Brunson's Super System 2, glossary, has the terms as synonyms. Rich Farmbrough, 12:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the distinction between Omaha hold 'em is important. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Hold'em means No Limit Hold'em

message: There are frequent edits being made to keep a heavily typo'd and poorly worded and unneeded example hand by a large number of IP addresses. Seeing as warnings aren't as effective on multiple accounts (at least in the way that I know they're used,) is there any further action that can be taken? It looks to me like sockpuppetry is involved. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article may be popular enough to justify protected status. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. I had been discussing it with a couple of people and decided that if the edit was made again then I'd try and get it protected. Funnily enough, it stopped right there! I'm keeping my eye on it, though, and if it flares up again then I'd most likely take action. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Trup QQ"

message: As far as I can see, tainted outs (that is, outs which also improve your opponent's hand and so are not true outs) aren't mentioned at all in the article. Does the table for the number of outs a hand has include tainted outs or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The table doesn't take into account what an opponent might be holding; it simply shows the probability of hitting however many outs that a player has. If a player is capable of identifying which outs of theirs are tainted then they would still be able to use the table, although that would require analysis of high-level play. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tainted outs 

message: I propose that Texas Hold'em Bonus Poker be merged into Texas hold 'em. I think that the content in the Texas Hold'em Bonus Poker article can easily be explained in the context of Texas hold 'em, and the Texas hold 'em article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Texas Hold'em Bonus Poker will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  This would be like merging the American football and Association football articles.  The games aren't related beyond a vague use of some terminology. 2005 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose, it can be linked in Similar games. It is a variant. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Comment: there are no third-party sources in the former article, and unless they can be found, it should be deleted. I would support a merge unless there are enough third-party sources to warrant a separate article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Texas hold 'em. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100505075244/http://howtoplaytexasholdempoker.org:80/2010/02/chart-for-poker-odds/ to http://howtoplaytexasholdempoker.org/2010/02/chart-for-poker-odds/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ultimate Texas Hold'em is a newly created, very short article that would likely be better placed within the main Texas_hold_'em article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus has been not to perform a merge. I'll remove the tags. Thincat (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Ultimate Texas Hold'em]] 

message: The phrase "One's pattern of betting may encourage opponents to into bet or to fold" seems to have an extra word 'into' in it.  Does this need to be fixed?--Toploftical (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. 2005 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a typo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Texas hold 'em. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021031448/http://www.pokerpages.com/about-texasholdem.htm to http://www.pokerpages.com/about-texasholdem.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allinmag.com/article.php?article=899
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chrismoneymaker.com/poker/bio/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527004215/http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/double-holdem-%E2%80%93-basic-tips-16135/ to http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/double-holdem-%E2%80%93-basic-tips-16135/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified