Talk:Flop (poker)

Merge?
Merge flop, turn and river? 131.111.216.140 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support --M4gnum0n (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent Reversion
I recently reverted a contribution to the list, and the contributing editor made a polite objection on my talk page. I felt that it was aimed at promoting a particular site. (It's probably too much detail for this article, too.) Dis I pull the trigger too soon? PhGustaf (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I find the site is noteworthy is none of the other authors of poker flop analysis software have every possible poker flop on their websites. (Technically this must be a significant challenge, for example the site referenced has over 221,000 webpages dedicated to flop analysis.) Poker flop analysis is a vital practise for successful poker players. The casual visitor of wikipedia is unlikely to go through the trouble of downloading and installing new software to learn more about poker flops, but at the site I referenced, anyone interested in learning more can experiment with analyzing different types of flops, and see if advanced poker is their thing.

A more detailed contribution may mention desktop software like Poker Stove, Poker Potjie, FlopZilla and StoxEV and the features they provide, but that becomes wider than the scope of poker flops and is probably a topic for another article.


 * None of that is on topic here, and the promotional stuff isn't going in here in any case. 2005 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How is poker flop analysis not on topic for poker flops?


 * This article is about what is the flop, the first three community cards in Hold'em style games. It's not about strategy or probability.  And it certainly is not about promoting software with inaccurate statements.  A sentence of how many unique flops there are could be useful, but it would have to be referenced with a reliable source.  In terms of the reversion though, statements like Professional poker players typically use software like Poker Potjie is pure spam as it is not true and emphasizing some non-notable piece of software is not what we do here. 2005 (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point. 'Professional poker players typically use software like Poker Potjie' is too strongly weighted towards that particular software, but it is true that professional poker players typically use software that provides statistical information, and analyze flops. If you look at almost any media regarding professional poker, statistics are mentioned, and software which provides statistics is also recommended. If you look at any forum of online poker players, you will see that many of them discuss the use of such software. So while I agree that the above statement is 'emphasising some non-notable software', the statement is not false, and therefore should be adjusted to say something like 'Professional poker players typically memorize statistics relating to different types of flops, and acquire their knowledge from books or statistical poker software.'
 * The number of possible poker flops, flop texture, and the flop analysis is certainly relevant to the article in my opinion. Wikipedia is not simply a list of basic definitions, it is also intended to give people a general view of a subject which includes mention of deeper aspects, and the implication of the said subject on relevant related subjects such as professional poker play in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillimon (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not about poker tools, especially non-notable tools. The phrase "poker flop analysis" only exists on the Internet on the website you linked plus a single other page. We have articles talking about software and what it can do.  If the software you mentioned does something different than what is gone into in the poker tools article, then if that "something" is notable, it could be mentioned there.  However your opinion that "Professional poker players typically memorize statistics relating to different types of flops" is total fantasy. 2005 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You've just shown that you know very little about professional poker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillimon (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid cheap shots here. Obviously, a successful professional poker player understands the values of flops better and in more ways than his customers.  But there's nothing to support your assertion that this involves memorization of piles of numbers, or that it involves your favorite software package.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was not familiar with the requirement that everything in wikipedia must be verifiable. It is unlikely that there is proof as to whether pro poker players typically memorize statistics (and it would depend on the definition of a professional poker player) By the way when I refer to a professional poker player, I refer to someone who plays poker as their job for months/years, use it as their main source of income, pay their bills, buy properties and vehicles with their earnings. It is wrong that you both make the assumption that this is not the case, without any proof, yet you hold this as truth. And if you actually knew any professional poker players, or even associated with them on forums, followed the careers, interviews and tutorials from the most successful professional players you would have a different opinion.
 * Fillimon, I don't think that this is the right article for the tool that you wish to discuss. The Poker tools article is a much better place, and you would be better served to make a case for it at Talk:Poker tools.  It may be the case that some of the issues that you have tried to bring into the fold here would be appropriate in that particular article.  I'm still a bit unsure as to what exactly you are trying to do, though. ♣ ♦ SmartGuy  ♥ ♠  (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at the poker tools page. I just thought that poker flop analysis should be mentioned on the poker flop page, thats all. But I'm new to contributing to wikipedia, I understand that things are done by consensus.

Well, I'm still dissapointed that my submission about poker flop analysis has not been accepted yet, but in the mean time I've included the number of possible flops as 2005 suggested. I think its a valuable contribution to the art of poker. I'm interested to see what other people will say about it as wikipedia evolves. I could not say much else without substantiation. I must say that there are many articles all over wikipedia that make assertions with no substantiation, so I find it inconsistent that I've been told here that everything I contribute must be substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillimon (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)