Talk:Betting in poker

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

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

Low

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

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

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Strategic impact of betting

This article describes the common terms, rules, and procedures in the game, but does not cover the strategic impact of betting.

(also means before) I'm not so sure this is still a good idea. Often I want to look up something like the strategic impact of the ante structure, so I go to ante and it just redirects here. Or I may want to learn how no-limit hold'em is played differently from limit hold'em. The problem is, the statement quoted above seems to discourage discussion of strategy of betting in poker, because all links to betting terms just link here, and here we have this "no strategy" thing, so it tends to stay that way. We have all the other bases covered pretty well by now, so I say we axe this sentence and start discussing tactical and strategic ramifications. Anything that gets too big can be split off. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC

Agree. -Grick 06:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

"How to" guides and game strategy tactics belong on Wikibooks:Poker strategy guide, since they are often a matter of opinion. I think this article is at the correct level right now, but I think a poker Wikibook is a great idea. -- Netoholic @ 08:19, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I started the poker wikibook some time ago, so far as starting off a confusing article on hand rankings and writing a poor article on pot odds can be considered starting it. I mean, certainly we needn't have extensive discussion of strategy here. But if there is to be no discussion of the ramifications, tactics, and strategy, then you must leave out basic principles like how every hand starts as a battle for the antes/blinds, you must leave out notions like check-raising (since it's a tactic rather than a form of bet), etc... I mean certainly this shouldn't turn into a strategy book, but it doesn't harm to have just a little strategic information. I mean, why describe raising if you don't describe why somebody might want to do it? Sure, a whole chapter can be written on raising (and it's certainly been done), but it doesn't hurt to discuss the basics. Otherwise, it's like, "you can raise the bet, whoop de doo." - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, I think it's a matter of balance. I just think the current article does a pretty good job. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I like the factual tone of the article. However, I think there are some "factual" items that probably deserve treatment in this article, namely rules for straddles and missed blind rule variations. Anyone else think that stuff belongs here? If so, I can take a crack at some descriptions.--Toms2866 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added discussion of straddles and blind/button rules when players bust out of the blinds. It seems kind of tedious, but this stuff is an important part of blind-structure games. --Toms2866 22:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit that changed the text to use singular they, not because I'm one of those overly pedantic folks who think it's always wrong, but because I think in this particular case (with a specific referent) the original text is better. --LDC 21:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon in "Dead button rule"

Not knowing a lot about poker, I am confused by the description of the "Dead button rule." What does "the big blind is posted by the player due for it" mean? What is "busting out"? PenguiN42 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big blind is now wikied in the article. Busting out means eliminated because they have lost all their chips, but in this context could mean just "leaves the game" for whatever reason. 2005 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sad fact is that even experienced players often find these rules complicated (especially the moving button rule). The rule variations represent trade-offs between complexity and equity. The simplified moving button rule is the most simple, but also the least equitable (a player could miss both the big and small blinds). The moving button rule is the most complex, but also the most equitable (no blinds are missed, the button always moves). The dead button rule is popular (especially in tournaments) because it represents a middle ground between the moving button and simplified moving button rules. If you are new to the game and just playing with friends for fun, consider using the simplified button rule.--Toms2866 06:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even after reading the article, I too do not understand the moving button rule. Surely there must be an easier way to explain it? chunkyasparagus 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expounded a lot on this rule. Hopefully its clearer now. —Kymacpherson 04:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified moving button rule: I have never seen this in online play. The dead button/California rule is usual, and I have seen the Moving button/Nevada rule used, but I have only seen the simplified moving button rule used in single-table tournaments. — MSchmahl… 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straddles

I've never seen a "sleep" allowed in a casino, but I've seen it played in home games. My take on it was that it gives too much advantage to the player that makes the straddle; its like a mini-raise with impunity—the player can pull his money back if there is a raise in front of him, which realistically removes all the risk of straddling. I'm guessing thats why its not played in casinos; if it were, players would be sleep straddling literally every hand. If its listed here, the description should at least be qualified by a statement that it is not played in real money games. On the other hand, there probably should be a description of a "rock" (obligatory straddle) somewhere on this page or some other article, because that's played in casinos a lot and I've even played in a casino that enforced the rock rules. —Kymacpherson 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind obscure home game stuff listed, but this literally has not one reference on the Internet besides this article (and clones of it). That's a few miles past trivial to me. Since it can't be cited if someone wants to make a paranthetical-type sentence about it, fine, but it certainly doesn't merit a peer heading as a type of straddle of similar importance to the others since it is literally not mentioned online except here. 2005 00:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you haven't run across it in your limited experience doesn't make it an "obscure home game" thing. Check out page 86 of "Cooke's Rules of Real Poker" by Roy Cooke and John Bond (sorry, they only have a dead tree version). Poker also predates the Internet by many years, so I'm not surprised that a few things won't be found online yet. Also, the "risk free" interpretation above isn't quite right--yes, the sleeper is "off" if there's a raise in front of it, but otherwise it's "on" and must be left in and acts as a regular straddle. In other words, it's just like a regular under-the-gun straddle, but only operates when the player making it becomes essentially under-the-gun by virtue of no action in front of him. I've played in games with sleepers allowed in many public cardrooms, and know many other players who have as well--most of whom have been playing for 20 years or more, as have I. I suggest you defer to the expert on this one--and that would be me. --LDC 01:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it wouldn't, so please save the presumptions. Casinos don't use this, since it makes no sense, and even if some outback place did, the fact it isn't refered to at all makes the terminology suspect rather than the actual practice. A cite from one cardroom somewhere should not be impossible. You've written many good articles here, but you need to defer to Wikipedia guidelines, in terms of citations and no original research, and also not make presumptions that your expertise is greater than others, which it most certainly is not. (The Cooke citations is plentty to keep an obscure term, but without it it certainly should not have been in the article.) 2005 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my point about the strategic significance—the button should sleep absolutely every hand. If there's a raise in front of him, he can get away scott free; if not, he has bought the right to act last in the opening betting round in hand where he already has the positional advantage over the blinds in later rounds. (If you would agree with me that raising from button with any two cards is already a legitimate tactic, then clearly sleeping from the button is an even more powerful play) Likewise sleeping from the cutoff or other late position seems obviously advantageous too. —Kymacpherson 12:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a good portion of the Wikipedia guidelines, too, back when there were just a few hundred of us. Most people don't know that because the earliest versions of the Wikipedia software didn't permanently archive the oldest articles, so the early major contributors don't show up in the stats. As far as "expert" status goes, I'll stack my experience and expertise in casino poker room practices against anyone on the planet, and that includes the authors of the best books on the subject, most of whom I know (at least the west coasters--my experience is admittedly mostly in Nevada, California, and Washington). But that's really beside the point anyway; Ky is right about the strategic advantage being unfair, and that's why most cardrooms don't allow it anymore. But this article isn't about casino poker--it's about poker, and shouldn't be limited to present casino practices. As far as "terminology" goes, what poker players call these things and always have called them is "sleepers". I really don't see why failure to find the term on the web should automatically make it suspect when it's a well-known term in the industry. --LDC 13:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now this starts to make more sense, but also raises another question. What you described are not "sleeepers". I thought you were saying Cooke mentions in his second version of the book about something called a "sleeper straddle". "Sleepers" are different, and that is available in the original Caro/Cooke book. I don't know what this thing you are describing is, but it isn't a "sleeper", so I'm adding the definition of a sleeper with the cite. There may be some home game rules where you can "take back" a bet, or is live, but that is not a sleeper. I also took out the "as in hold 'em or Omaha" statement since it mistakenly implies flop games, when Draw games can use straddles, when they are blind games rather than ante games. 2005 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always used the terms interchangeably; Cooke's book admittedly describes them badly, and there may be rule variations. His book describes straddles in general in a section titled "Straddles and sleepers", and does not clarify the latter at all well. What I described is the way I used to play them in small clubs in California in the 80s (which was lowball--you are also correct about it not being a flop game thing). --LDC 06:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added sleepers because they are permitted in the "semi-pro" private games I frequent, and appeared to be well-known to all of the serious players. I simply assumed that they were well known in general. I have no idea how common the sleeper is across the country. 2005 has a valid point that references for the sleeper are thin to non-existent. If consensus is that they are obscure, I don't feel strongly about including sleepers in the article. Changing gears a bit...the discussion above seems to occasionally confuse the Mississippi and sleeper straddles, at least my understanding of them. The Mississippi buys last action, the sleeper does not. Unlike the sleeper, the Mississippi cannot be pulled back; action starts the left of the Mississippi (e.g., the SB if there is a Mississippi on the button). The sleeper is simply an action-inducer, basically declaring "My action will be at least this amount if action gets to me without a raise." Action still begins at UTG when a sleeper is laid. Players between the BB and sleeper can still limp, but are aware that a raise is coming if action gets to the sleeper without a raise. If there is no raise when action gets to the sleeper, the sleeper may not be pulled back. As far as I can see, there's no particular advantage to the sleeper. I think the Mississippi is common enough to warrant mention even if consensus is that the sleeper is not.--Toms2866 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

complicated?

does anyone else find this article overly complex? I am especially interested to hear from those who don't play poker - Abscissa 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly do. In particular I wanted to know about betting in Texas Hold 'Em. Recently friends I had not played it with before stated that bets in a round merely add to what was there before. Say 3 people are betting, 2 have bet $10. Player 3 then raises $5 (making his bet $15). According to my friends, players 1 and 2 just have to both bet $5 more in order to be calling Player 3s raise. This makes no sense to me as every bet is it's own and I've only played where 1 and 2 would have to bet another $15 each to be both calling. AnarchyElmo 02:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your friends got it right (except for the minor change that it's not legal to raise a $10 bet by only $5--you must raise at least $10). Your idea makes no sense--If I bet $10, and you raised $10 more to $20, then of course I only have to call $10 more; if I had to call $20 more, then I'd be paying $30 to see the next card that you only paid $20 to see. --LDC 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article maddening. I want to know the betting order for 5 card draw - the article is talking about Big Blind and Flop and River and how does any of that apply to 3 people playing 5 card draw? Too many terms, not enough clarity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.196.66 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is clearer now. It sounds like you are playing 5 card draw with antes not blinds, so start from the player to the dealers left. If the same person is always physically dealing the cards or you have a casino employee dealing you need some marker to act as a dealer button to mark who should be considered dealer for the purpose of taking turns. This moves one step to the left after each hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add Check Raise?

Should something about "check raising" be added to the procedure section (with link to Check-raise)? Added either to 1.3 (check) or as a new section 1.5, making "Fold" 1.6? Crowmanyclouds (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "call" needs to be clearer

The article states:

"To call is to match a bet or a raise."

and then in the next paragraph:

"A player calling instead of raising with a strong hand is smooth calling, a form of slow play."

The first quote says call means to match a bet or to raise it. The second quote discusses "calling instead of raising".

Clarification is needed here.Daqu (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting the first sentence: you seem to be parsing it as "to [match a bet] or [raise]", but notice the second "a" there, which makes it correctly parse as "to match [ [a bet] or [a raise] ]". --LDC (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification -- my error. Still, if the correct interpretation depends solely on carefully noticing that "a", the insertion of the word "either" might help others avoid misinterpreting the definition likewise ("To call is to match either a bet or a raise.").Daqu (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHO GETS THE BLINDS

small and big blinds post their blinds 400/800, the player to the left UTG goes all in for 2000, middle postion player goes all in for 4000, the player on the button calls the middle player, the small and big blind fold, UTG now can win the main pot of 6000, the side pot is 4000, so who gets the blinds of 1200?

The blinds are part of the main pot. 2005 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHOWING CARDS

Two players are left in the game after the flop, they both check all the way, the player on the left ask the player on the right what his got, he turns a card to reveal a pair, the player on the left mucks his cards, another player who folded earlier insisting on seeing the muck cards. Does he have a right to see those cards or does the player only have to show, if the live player ask,s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micfuerte (talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House rules on this vary from one casino to the next. In many casinos, any player who was dealt in to that hand may ask to see all remaining hands at showdown. Some casinos limit this to only players who were involved later in the hand. The rule was originally intended to prevent collusion, but it is often misused by players to get information about other player's habits; this is why many casinos limit the rule. It also slows the game down and tends to cause arguments. --LDC (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify LDC's answer, Robert's Rules of Poker [1] defines this as any Called Hand can be requested exposed as long as the requester was originally dealt into the hand. (A "Called Hand" is any Hand that is live at Showdown, whether the Hand was the inital, middle, or final action in that round, or if the hands were checked down through the final round of betting). The Hand is considered Dead when it is exposed, unless the winner of the Hand makes the request. In that case, the Hand is Live when it is shown and the Pot is awarded to the best hand. Yes, that means the Player who had taken the Pot would have to give it up if the Hand he requested to see bests his own, in accords with the "Card's Talk" rule.

Within the rule is also a reference to a Player not being allowed to abuse this ability by overuse. As stated, it is not a tactic, but a security procedure, and does indeed tend to annoy Players who are not aware that it is allowed.

As LDC said, though, House Rules vary, and many indicate that the exposed cards are always a Dead Hand, and are touched to the Muck first to ensure no action.

In fact, this year WSOP has changed the rules so that in Live Action, a request to see a hand is only allowable under suspicion of Collusion or Soft play, and even then requires a Supervisor to expose the cards.[2] The ability to request a Called Hand still exists for tournaments, however, but the hand is Mucked and always considered Dead.

Note: This should not be confused with the "Show One, Show All" rule,
which applies when a Player exposes his cards, intentionally or otherwise, to another Player.

Hope this helped!
BarryD9545-Tampa,FL 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence of the first paragraph under etiquette: cards, is ambiguous. From the way it reads it sounds like a player can expose his cards when folding, at anytime, which I'm sure is bad etiquette. I think "in either circumstance" should read "in the latter circumstance" 125.236.180.215 (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEADS UP

Last two left in the game, heads up, who gets to deal and who gets wot blinds, i,ve played in games when the big blind is dealer and another when he is sm blind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.2.186 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Rules of Poker[3], as well as WSOP[4] agree that the Small Blind is always on the button. While this may appear to change how the Blinds have previously been paid, in actuality, it does not.

Remeber that the Dealer Button is an indication of who would be dealing the cards if the deck were being passed around the table - or in Heads Up, back and forth - so the Player opposite the Button in heads up is the first to get a card. If the Player Opposite the Button were also the Small Blind, that would mean that the Dealer Button would act last both before and after the Flop, giving that player an obvious and strong advantage. Granted that advantage would be passed back and forth, but it is not in the rhythm of how button games are played, with the players putting money into the Pot first (the Blinds) acting last before the flop, and the Button acting last after the flop. In heads up, the player who put in the larger amount first - the Big Blind - gets to act last before the flop.

Although there are many confusing diagrams and charts illustrating how the button moves to who, where and when, the easiest way to figure out who is to be On The Button when down to two players, there are two simple guidelines:

1. A player is never the Big Blind Twice in a row.

This might mean that the Dealer Button "backs up" in some

situations, and/or that someone pays the Small Blind twice in a row.

2. A Player is never On The Button twice in a row.

Although not common, it does happen occasionally that the third

and fourth place finishers are knocked out in the same hand,

leaving only the players in the Cutoff and Button positions remaining.

Hope this helped!

BarryD9545-Tampa,FL 18:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

MOVING PEOPLE IN HOME TOURNYS

Two tables of 8, one has 4 left another has 5 people, when one more gets knock out how best is it to make the final table work. do i say to one tables u 4 sit in the vacant seat and highest card is the new dealer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.2.186 (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Roberts Rules of Poker[5], as well as WSOP[6] agree on how to combine players to a final table. I'm sure you're aware that this is NOT the same method for simply condensing tables as players get eliminated from a tournament.

When the desired number of players is reached - eight, in your case - Players draw cards for new seats and there is a new High Card for the Dealer Button.

A Home Game being a more congenial atmosphere than a Card Room or Casino, you may allow Players already sitting at the Final Table to keep their seats and have the arriving players fill in the empties, but there should definitely be a new High Card for the Dealer Button.

NOTE: Be aware that this may indeed position someone someone On The Button, or to pay The Blinds, twice in a row!

Hope this helped!

BarryD9545-Tampa,FL 07:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryD9545 (talk • contribs)

Broken Links

On the article page, under Notes, the link to 'Laws of Poker (PDF), United States Poker Association' is no longer valid. A Google search didn't help to hint to the current whereabouts of USPA. --Cschleiermacher (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The line was referenced by two other sources also, so I just removed this one. 2005 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straddles for dummies ?

Can someone explain straddles for dummies? The article didn't clearly enough (for me, and I've been playing Poker since 2004). If the player UTG has to basically bet an amount that's double the big blind, and that's called a straddle, what's the difference between that and just someone betting double the big blind without calling it a straddle. Or is there no difference? Have they just decided to give it a name? It's effectively a 3rd blind - the VB (very big) blind. Simply increasing the ante to the small blind amount would be better in my opinion. It would help to stop people from wanting to just sit there forever waiting for aces and only having to pay their SB and BB once per round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dd4005 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I'll try to explain... if somebody (I'll call him UTG because of his position) were to look at his cards and then bet twice the big blind, it's a normal bet and unless somebody raises, UTG won't be able to act again until after the flop. If the game allows it, UTG will have to option to "straddle." Before looking at his cards, UTG can make a blind bet of twice the big blind that will then act as a bigger blind; if there are only callers and no raises, UTG will still be able to act. I hope I've helped... let me know, and good luck on the felts! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JaeDyWolf, that does explain it in a way that gets into my head better :) So Mr UTG can only do that without looking at his hole cards. Interesting. I'm struggling to see a great advantage of that to the UTG guy. He hasn't seen his cards so really doesn't know if he really wants to even see the flop. Then again, if there are a lot of callers, there's more motivation to see a flop I guess. The reason I ask is that I'm re-watching the first season of GSN's High Stakes Poker. I still think a larger Ante would be better for stimulating action. At least now I know that if I ever was in a game when someone asked if we should do a round of live straddles, I'd not object to it. Now Props on the other hand, that just seems like bingo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dd4005 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he can only do it if he hasn't looked at his hole cards, and he gets to act again before the flop. In the casino I play in, straddling is permitted (and I do it occasionally if I'm card-dead) but only UTG is allowed to straddle. At the level in which I play, it's definitely not a good idea because I don't have that strong of an idea how to read other people. For some pros, on the other hand, they might be able to use the play to their advantage if they're capable of bluffing effectively or getting paid off if they do wake up with a big hand...

"Nothing's better than straddling with Aces" ~ Mike Matusow

Also, there is no limit to the number of straddles in a single hand on most professional high-stake TV Cash Games. I saw one episode of Full Tilt Million Dollar Cash Game where (I think) on a six-handed table, there were four straddles. So there was the SB, BB, 2xBB, 4xBB, 8xBB and 16xBB which were all blind bets, and then SB acted first! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, 16xBB. I'll have to look out for that show - I hadn't heard of it. That hand does sound kind of bingo-ish though. I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone like Sammy Farha was instrumental in that hand. Much thanks for your help on explaining this stuff JaeDyWolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dd4005 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, he wasn't, but he was running through my head when it happened! It was quite a while ago when I saw it, but I'm fairly sure Patrik Antonius and John Juanda were involved... It may be bingoish but it's INCREDIBLY fun to watch. All the best on the felts! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Open" vs. "Bet" vs. "Raise"

The terminology in this page seems either antiquated or slanted towards stud variants of poker. In most poker discussions these days, "Bet" and "Raise" are the standard aggressive actions, and "Open", while being understood, is a less common term. A "bet" occurs when a player puts money in the pot before there has been any other money put in the pot for that round. This appears to be what the page defines as an "open". A "raise" occurs when a player is not the first person in the round to put money in the pot and that player increases the amount of money required for others to stay in the hand.

This appears to have led to a problem on the Kuhn_poker page which references this page in describing the game. That page describes actions as raises that would more properly be described as bets, and I believe the confusion is due to the definitions on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeThicke (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Open" is the common term as it relates to a specific action (making the first non-forced bet). "Bet" does not relate to a specific action. The blinds are "bets" also. Saying "open" makes the action clear. 2005 (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a common situations in Hold'em: A player is first to act on the flop and puts $10 into the pot. The player would most commonly say, "I bet $10," rather than "I open for $10". The next player would then have the options of folding, calling, or raising. That player would not usually say, "I bet $20" but rather would say, "I raise to $20" or "I raise $10". This convention is pretty ubiquitous in casinos, online discussions, and so on. When "Open" is used in hold'em it is almost always in reference to preflop action. You wouldn't say "I opened the flop for $10." MikeThicke (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the word "open" refers to the specific action of making the first non-forced bet, and that is the common way it is stated. If a person puts out $20, the common phrase is "he opened with a raise". Your point about it not be common on later betting rounds is true, but "open" still is accurate. If Bob, Carol and Ted are in a pot on the turn, and Bob checks and Carol bets, Carol has "opened" the turn betting. "Carol led the turn betting" also covers it, but open is still accurate and descriptive, while "bet" is not at all descriptive ("first bet" is tho). "Bet" is a generic term, "open" is a specific subset of betting. (So, some text could be added to clarify common usage, but the word open and the basic concept should be included basically how it is.) 2005 (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This confused me on the "all in" sub-section under "table stakes". Here I presume "open" is actually meant. We should be clear, if we mean "open the discretionary betting in the hand" then open is fine, if we mean "open the/a/any round of betting" we must make that clear. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betting (poker) → Betting in poker — Remove the unnecessary disambiguation and replace it with a simple English title that is only one character longer. The proposed title also has the advantage of more closely describing the actual subject of the article, which is about betting as a part of poker play (with a small amount of material on side bets), and not about all betting in poker - that is, there's no significant discussion of betting amongst non-players. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the category of this article and all the related categories. All articles of Betting (poker), Blind (poker), Button (poker), Bluff (poker), etc etc. It doesn't make sense to randomly change this one away from the consistent way done in a few dozen other articles. Additionally, "Poker betting" would be a better, more common language choice if the idea was to move away from the standard structure. 2005 (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with "Poker betting" as a page title is that it could refer to wagering on poker by non-participants, whereas the proposed titles cannot. Since the article is only about betting as a game mechanic, it's better to have that clarity. Nonetheless, "Poker betting" would be superior to the present title, so if there's a consensus for that I have no problem with such a move. I do have a problem with the current title, which can be summed up by your (correct) assertion that it is "systematic". It is, and that nearly always indicates a serious naming problem with many articles. We don't use article titles to indicate a taxonomy of knowledge; we use them to communicate the subject of the article, and we use disambiguated titles only as a last resort. Preemptive disambiguation is always wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your first distinction doesn't follow. "poker betting" and "betting in poker" refer to the exact same thing, whether participants or not. The only sitiction is that "poker betting" is a common term while "betting in poker" is not. More importantly it is totally irrelevant. The article explains itself. Preemptive disambiguation is the norm, so under no circumstances should we just change one article. The current titling is fine in that it is completely unambigous and follows the norms of not just the poker section but the entire encyclopedia. There is no pressing need to change the titles of dozens of articles, and even less need to have discussions along the lines of "poker betting" versus "betting in poker". We now have a crystal clear and consistent way of doing it that prevents disputes over non-standard phrasing. 2005 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article would never properly be named just "betting", even if we had no other articles at that title. Thus, using a parenthetical disambiguator is misleading, as it implies that the word "betting" has a different meaning in poker than it does in other contexts. Since the article is specifically about betting within the domain of poker, Betting in poker is the standard naming convention (just like Magic in fiction or Racism in the United States). Powers ^T 12:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the article describes, the word "betting" does have a different meaning in poker than it does in other contexts, hence the reason for the article in the first place. Also your examples not appropriate in this context. Poker betting is common usage to a degree 15 times greater than betting in poker, and it is fulling inconsistent with actual standard naming conventions, which is Sports betting, Spread betting, Parimutuel betting, Arbitrage betting and so on. Again, there is no reason to go against standard naming practices, nor to not refer to the concept like the rest of the world. 2005 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betting has a different meaning in poker? Notify the dictionaries! Powers ^T 02:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it obviously does. Same with parimutuel betting, arbitrage betting and the others. I would have assumed it was self-evident that poker betting is different than sports betting, but you can read the articles to inform yourself if you want. 2005 (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a changed context, but betting in poker is not a different concept than betting in other contexts. The basic concept is the same. Powers ^T 14:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. I don't understand what you think you are saying. Sports betting, parimutuel betting, arbitrage betting and poker betting are all different concepts. (Definition of "concept": A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.) The specific instances of each makes for entirely different concepts in betting, including the reasons, structures and actions. This article is about betting, but only poker betting. Put another way, a knowledge of sports betting or parimutuel betting will be of nearly zero help in understanding the concept of poker betting. More to the point, "betting in poker" is an inappropriate title just as "betting in sports" would be, in part because "betting" is a completely different concept with poker versus sports. 2005 (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I don't understand what you think you are saying. In a poker context, betting still involves the outlay of money in exchange for a chance at a higher return based on unknown outcomes of varying probability. You can bet at the poker table, at the race track, or in your office football pool, but in every case you're still risking a portion of your assets on a particular outcome. Powers ^T 12:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you bet at the racetrack, or a football pool, or at poker in completely different ways. That's why we have different articles. Poker betting has a plainly different meaning than sports betting, etc. I don't see why you continue to dispute that. 2005 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the methods are different. But the basic concept -- risking money on the success or failure of a particular proposition based on probabilities -- remains the same. Powers ^T 10:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move to poker betting or betting in poker (I'll let others decide which). Betting in poker is not the same as blind (poker), button (poker), bluff (poker) because, as noted above, they are entirely different meanings unlike betting, which is merely a different manifestation of a single concept. — AjaxSmack 00:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incomplete bet or raise

I can't find answer to this question: In No Limit after incomplete bet or raise - what minimum legal raise may player make? Example: No Limit, blinds 5/10 Player A 100 chips Player B 100 chips Player C 55 chips Player A bets 20 Player B raises by 30 up to total bet of 50 Player C raises by 5 (all-in) up to total bet of 55 (this is incomplete bet) If Player A here want to make exactly minimum bet - what that amount should be? Whether this amount should be "completing to a real raise" - up to 80, or it should be "raising by minimum amount (30)" up to 85? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.12.22 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All In

'All-In' for me, a beginner, is as confusing as the offside rule in soccer. There is an additional complication when two or more players have equal hands and the player with the largest stack first declares 'all-in': e.g.

Alice has 5K, Barry has 20K. Barry declares 'all-in' and Alice calls.
They show identical hands. I would expect both to profit equally, Barry more than Alice if there were folded bets in the pot.
Is there a difference between calling the stack of another player and declaring 'all-in'?

Yes, there is a difference. When Alice calls Barry's all-in bet, a side pot of $15K is created. If anyone else calls or raises Barry, that adds to the side pot. If not, Barry wins the side pot of $15K and only the main pot is contested. StuSutcliffe 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am using inferior software but I see Barry making losses and Alice profiting in this situation.

Thanks for this nice attempt at explaining the rules. Maybe it needs a section on 'shared pots'?

Alan Zalanx (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the response. Barry declares all-in and Alice calls. IMMEDIATELY when the actions at the table are over, Barry takes back the difference between his stack and hers before anything else (provided there weren't any other players at the table that matched his 20K bet). The order of events in this example are: 1) Barry goes All-in for 20K, 2) Alice calls All-in for 5K, 3) Barry takes back 15K of his 20K bet, 4) The cards are turned over. A player can NEVER win more than 1 x his/her stack per opponent. 24.177.237.132 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under raise

Someone knowledgeable please explain the "under raise" rules in limit and NL poker! Kluto~enwiki (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The sum of all raises" - is this correct?

In section "Open/Bet/Raise" it says: "The sum of the opening bet and all raises is the amount that all players in the hand must call in order to remain [in the game]".

Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "the maximum total raise"?

If I am "Fred" (see picture) and small blind is $5 and Carol just raised Bob's big blind ($10) by another $10, then what I need to call is $20, not the "sum of opening bet and all raises" as this would be 5+10+20 = 35. Aenchevich (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening bet is the big blind, $10. So the "sum of opening bet and all raises" is $20. The small blind isn't the opening bet; no one can enter the pot by only putting in $5 total. 2005 (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Betting in poker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Betting in poker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]