Talk:List of poker hands/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Suit symbols

Is there a reason spades is "♠" in one place, but just an "S" in another?

Also, why is char reference:

&#9824;

used instead of:

&spades; ?

I think the latter is clearer when editing.

Test: ♠ ♠

If there are no objections I will change this sometime soon.

(PS -sorry for multiple edits, I'm new!)

WikianJim 18:31, 29 January 2005 (UTC)

Two Over Pair beating Trips

I have never heard any respectable player claim that this should be an exception to 3-of-Kind beating Two Pair. The only reference that I have found is this google cached discussion at fullcontactpoker.com. Like those who responded to the original poster, I could give various reasons why this exception is ridiculous.

Aside from how ridiculous the exception would be, I have yet to find any evidence that "most educated poker scholars" believe this. Please name some "educated poker scholars" and reference where they have stated their belief in this idea before reposting this section. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.47.33 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Suit seniority

When two competing hands are identical, except for suit, which one wins? Ie: does a spades royal flush beat a hearts royal flush? I guess i'm asking about suit seniority. --Commander Keane 12:11, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

My non-authoratative answer: whenever I play, that's called a tie, and the pot is split. Suit only matters for flushes. --Doradus 14:09, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

Someone has added the answer to the article, thanks.

Personally I'd like to see a link to some type of source to where the person got "Imperial Flush" from--for one, I've never heard of anything like this, and, not a screen down the article and it says that suits do not matter whatsoever. --Keamos 21:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Exposed cards

The following was inserted recently, and I removed it for two reasons: first, it has nothing to do with ranking poker hands, which is the subject of this article; second, it's totally false in what it does say. It does bring up the point, though, that there is not sufficient coverage of deal irregularities in general here, so I'll make a note of that on the project page. --LDC 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED TEXT

The order in which cards are dealt is unimportant. However, misdeals should be dealt with appropriately.

If a single card is dealt face up accidentally, the person to whom it was dealt should be given the option as to whether they wish to be dealt a new card or they wish to keep the card. If the card is replaced, the exposed card should remain face-up on the table giving so all players can see it, but it remains out of play.

Any further inadvertent face-up deals result in a re-deal of the hand. Often in a home game, the deal also passes.

If the bottom card of the deck is inadvertently shown to a player, the player may choose to keep this information to himself or disclose it to the table and have the deck cut. However, the cut cannot be asked for after any cards are dealt. The risk of bottom-card exposure can be easily mitigated with the use of an opaque plastic 'cut card' that remains as a cover on the bottom card.

The first and most important rule about exposed cards in all poker games in all casinos is of course that the player can never be given the choice of whether to keep or replace the card--this gives an unfair advantage to that player. The card must always be kept or always be replaced, according to rules which vary with the type of game being played. The determination of whether or not a card has been "exposed" must be made by a neutral dealer or floorperson; if a card "catches some air" or is touched by another player, and the player is concered that others may have seen it, he may request that the dealer treat it as exposed, and the dealer may do so only if the dealer is certain that the player himself could not possibly have seen it.

In draw games, an exposed card on the initial deal must be kept, while an exposed card on the draw cannot be kept. In lowball draw, a card exposed on the initial deal must be kept if if is one that can possibly be part of a perfect hand (that is, a wheel card in ace-to-five or a 7,5,4,3,2 in deuce-to-seven), but other cards must be replaced. When a card is exposed and must be replaced, the deal continues with the next player in order getting the next card just as he would have ohterwise, until all cards are dealt; then the exposed card is replaced with the top card of the stub.

In stud games, if one of the initial downcards is accidentally dealt up, the exposed card is simply treated as that player's initial upcard and what normally would have been the upcard is dealt down. If this correction cannot be made (for example, if two cards are exposed) the player's hand is declared dead and his ante refunded. If one of the players' final downcards is dealt up, it must be kept, but special rules apply: if there are three or more active players, other players recieve their final downcards as normal, and the player with the exposed card has the option of being treated as "all-in". He must choose before betting begins on that round; if he chooses to be treated as all in, all further betting goes into a side pot for which he is not eligible. If he chooses not to, he is fully subject to all further bets and raises, and fully eligible to win or lose all such action. If there are only two players, and the first player's final card is dealt face up, the remaining player's final card will be dealt up as well and betting proceed normally. If the first player's card is dealt down and the second player's up, he must choose to continue playing or declare himself all-in as before.

In community card games, a card exposed on the initial deal cannot be kept. The deal is continued as normal with the next player until all players recieve their initial cards. The exposed card in then replaced with the next card in the stub (which would have been the first burn card), and the exposed card is placed on top of the stub face-up, and will be used as the first burn card (so the community cards are not affected). If two or more cards are exposed, or if the first card exposed is one of the first two card dealt, the deal is voided.

There are other rules for other irregularities, but those are the basics.

Using "T" for ten

Is it going to be too confusing to ask that we use "T" instead of "10"? It's pretty standard notation (if anyone goes from here and reads anything else in a magazine or book, it will be "T", not "10"), and it makes it so that all ranks use one character. Revolver 08:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know that "10 is more obvious to people", but I think we also owe an obligation to inform people of the most common conventions, so they will recognize them and not be confused later. Revolver

It might be helpful to clarify the rules about straights involving Aces. You can have Ace high straights(AKQJT) and some games allow Ace low straights(5432A) but you are never allowed to "turn the corner" (32AKQ).

Actually some use "turn-the-corner" straights in home games, but this is pretty uncommon. QKA23 is considered three high straight in this case. --Raketooy 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Duplicating hand (poker)?

I thought all the stubs, like straight, flush, three of a kind, would be better organized into a single article, which is why I created this page. Afterwards, I noticed that hand (poker) has nearly the same information. Perhaps the two articles ought to be merged. -- MSchmahl 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to move some info from here that would seem fine, but this one should be redirected to the other one. 2005 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I will tag to merge to achieve a consensus. —Twigboy 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An obvious merge is needed, the information is pretty much duplicated in the other article. I will transfer all info to the other article (Hand (poker)) and redirect. --Hpesoj00 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

2005 - I can appreciate the reverting of the changes I made to some of the content (though previous discussion of why you thought the changes were inappropriate would have been appreciated), but I don't understand why you changed the section on Wild Cards to a section on Bugs. Surely both should be included, as both are valid rules (even though bugs may be more common)? Also have you removed the section on poker variants, the section on probability, and the introduction to the Low-poker ranking section for a reason?--Hpesoj00 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I only removed three sentences, which were redundant to a whole large section that was added. Iahve no idea what else you are refering to since I obviously did not remove that in simply reverting your change. If you think more should be added from the old article, then do so. As for wild cards, this article is about standard hands. There is an article about non-standard hands. Your added section included factaully incorrect information. For example, KKKKJoker is four kings with an ace, not five kings. Again, on-standard rules have their place, but this article should deal with standard rankings, meaning five aces is the highest hand when a bug is used, and a royal flush is highest with a standard 52 card deck. 2005 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. I think my confusion arose because I didn't realise this article was strictly about standard play. In that case I can see why you did not include the section on variations. Also my edit was based on an article titled "Hand (poker)", not "Rank of hand (poker)", I thought "Hand (poker)" would encompass all information from both articles. The section on wild cards (which was not my work, to make things clear) contained correct, but non-standard information as far as I can see. My edit involved quite a few additions, but with reconsideration, I think how it is now is probably better given the title. There was no need to add the table of probabilities that I added, I had removed that in the merge after realising that it, and the table for 7-card poker was already included on a separate page. I have replaced the section on probabilities only, as that seems standard enough. Thanks for replying. --Hpesoj00 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Specific links to Headings

FYI, many of the headings in this article are linked to specifically. For instance, all the hands (eg four of a kind), as well as lowball systems, have redirects to the appropriate headings here, so any heading changes should be corrected in the redirects. ENeville 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheels

I find it a bit misleading that there's a section on the "wheel" only under low-ranking poker (and it's linked to from the poker glossary). The term "wheel" is used in normal poker as well, but you wouldn't really know it from a quick glance of this article. Stevage 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Three of a kind a.k.a. Prile?

I cannot find any sources using this term in the context of poker. I can find a few references to it in the game of "Three card brag". Does anyone have an opinion on whether it should be included on this poker page? Hpesoj00 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought it shouldn't, and probably still do, but perhaps it is a common slang term just like "gin" or "pinochle" can be used as poker terms. I'd say take it out, but I don't mind it staying either. 2005 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding Ace-to-six low

In Ace-to-six low, is 10-J-Q-K-A considered a straight? Since the ace is low, I assume not, but this would be good to clarify in the article. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

"This is an attempt at good players not having fish suck out on them as much."

Would anyone care to either rewrite the above in English, or (if this expression is explained somewhere else on Wikipedia) to add a link to the explanation? Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.133.45 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

In my understanding of the phrase: Fish= newbies, green players or anyone who generally doesn't know what they're doing

Suck out= varies a little, but refers to hitting a card on the flop, turn or river that makes a losing hand into a winning hand. Subjectively applied, and usually indicative that the person had no business betting/calling a bet with the particular hand they called/bet with. For example, calling a bet for all one's chips, with 7-2 against opponents A-A and having the turn and river come up 7 and 2 (making two pair and "cracking" (beating) the opponent's A-A)Dkmoorhead 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Add examples for split pot

Besides the examples on which hands beats which i would also love to see for each poker hand / combination an example which shows a case in which the pot is split between the two players. i would also love to have the explanation in the text. Could someone do that?

to me it also isn't clear whether 8,8,8,A,J defeats 8,8,8,A,2 or whether the two players are to split the pot. can anyone answer on that? (i'm sorry but i don't know how to put my name and the time in here)

Poker hands have five cards. 888AJ defeats 888A2--all five cards play. But no more than five cards play--so if you're playing Texas hold'em, the board is 88AK5, two players with J8 and 83 in their hands tie, because they are both playing the five-card hand 888AK. --LDC (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Five of a kind

I don't believe five of a kind is a "standard hand", but instead, a "non-standard hand". Therefore, I think that should be moved to the Non-standard poker hand article. Not many places as far as I know play with wild cards, and is definitely not played in most official games. Camp3rstrik3r 02:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, there's a whole bunch of stuff in this article about non-standard hands. All of this stuff should be transferred to the non-standard poker hand article. This article should stick to the standard poker hands only to avoid duplication wit the non-standard poker hand article.--Toms2866 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Five-of-a-kind is a standard poker hand in every casino in which I have ever played any game with a joker, which is quite a few. For a long time, the standard game in California was five-card draw with a joker. Games like Pai Gow Poker also include the hand. It should be included in any standard ranking of poker hands. --LDC 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Five-of-a-kind is not a standard hand, as wild cards are not standard. --Hpesoj00 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Five a kind is a standard hand in any game using a joker, which is not normally called a "wild card", but how to decribe a bug isn't that important. Five of a kind is standard in casino draw poker games, even if those seldom exist. It is also standard in home poker draw games. It's description could be disclaimered somewhat like "In game where a bug is used, five of a kind...". 2005 20:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the distiction of "standard" has a different meaning. When a joker/bug/wild card is used, that is the only instance where it is possible to achieve five-of-a-kind. However, some rules of wild-card games stipulate that 5OAK is not a viable hand, because the hand could not otherwise exist. Put it another way, a 5OAK requires some phantom suit in order to be created, so some rules do not recognize it. Those that do allow it must make a special declaration in the rules. Because there is not a standard rule over its inclusion, and it's not possible in a standard game of poker, I believe it must be relegated to a nonstandard hand. —Twigboy 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But there is a standard rule, and is possible in a standard poker game. That's the point. We shouldn't get into non-standard rules, or ignore standard practices decades old. Five a kind is the best hand, in most cases it is not possible because a bug isn't used, but when it is used it is the best hand. This is certainly followed in casinos as a standard rule. 2005 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 5-of-a-kind is the most standard of the non-standard hands. Anyone who has heard of wildcards in poker has heard of 5-of-a-kind. Although I don't agree that it is a 'standard' hand, I don't see why it can't be included in the list so long as it is clearly stated that a wildcard is needed in the deck for it to be possible. 5-of-a-kind logically becomes possible with the use of wildcards, and is the **only** new hand that is made possible by the addition of wildcards. It is not just some weird hand that has been made up by a couple of drunken blokes playing poker in their kitchen (as it would seem is the case with most of the non-standard hands listed here). I vote that it should be included in the list. --Hpesoj00 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Convinced. I added a brief section on the use of wild cards, which describes 5OAK > RF. —Twigboy 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good section. I altered the title to "Use of wild cards and 'five of a kind'" as a substantial part of the section is about five of a kinds. Also it will stop people from adding it again to the top of the main list. --Hpesoj00 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FoaK is definately NOT a "standard hand." Wild cards are not standard, the article should not mention this. Instead there should be a mention in the intro that Wild Cards can change the hand rankings listed, and the mention of FoaK in the Straight Flush sections should be removed. I'm going to do that, but if anyone objects, then simply change it back. MJPerry 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, five of a kind is a standard poker hand in casino draw poker games. The fact that it isn't possible in games without a joker doesn't make it less "standard" although as the article does, it should note the circumstances in games with a bug when five of a kind is a standard possibility. 2005 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Full House Location in List Incorrect

I moved the full house section to its correct location in the hand ranking order (between four of a kind and flush). Even though the text of that section correctly said where it lay in the ranking, its improper location was misleading and generated a table of contents with the hands listed in ranked order correctly except for the full house. (I also added "and below full house" to the flush section.) Castien 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The full house section was moved by another user in the edit prior to yours, probably an attempted vandalism, although it could have just been a clueless poker player. Well spotted however! Hpesoj00 16:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Clueless, Australian, or Mexican :-) The common poker games of Australia and Mexico (Manila and Mexican stud, respectively) use a stripped deck, and (correctly) rank flushes above full houses. I'm sure there are many players of those games who wouldn't know otherwise. --LDC 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

strange?! or too bad

NOWHERE in this article (and the same remark is true for the Poker article) are mentionned (such as in a description) the words SPADES, HEARTS, CLUBS or DIAMONDS !!!!!! 84.227.29.31 05:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the specific suit names are mentioned in specific examples. I don't think the suits need to be specifically mentioned, as the name of the suits isn't integral to understanding any aspect of poker hand ranking. I also think it is almost a given that people reading this article will be familiar with a standard pack of cards (and even if they aren't, there is a link to the article Suit (cards) in the general rules section). Although, if anyone thinks the suit names need to be mentioned, I doubt it will have a negative effect if they do. Hpesoj00 11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the point is: you do not know what an encyclopedia is! spades etc. HAVE TO be mentionned at the very begining of the article, period 85.0.171.14 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be true for a paper encyclopedia, but we've got hypertext here, and links are better, because they don't clutter the article with stuff that doesn't really need to be there while they still give the reader a way to find background material he might not be familiar with. --LDC 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

There used to be a picture on this page, until C.Fred removed it. I found the picture quite handy and consistent with the text. What is the reason the picture is now gone? I would like to see it back, just my 2c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.215.58 (talk) 12:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

A spoof image replaced the original. It has been restored.mdash;Twigboy 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Royal Flush a Hand?

I have seen 'Royal Flush' referred to as a hand in its own right in many places, not just in this article, which is why I am first discussing my view. Surely 'Royal Flush' is a name for the highest ranking straight-flush? It is included in the List of slang names for poker hands, so why should it be regarded as a a completely new hand, and hands like 'Steel Wheel' (straight-flush A-5) and 'Four Pips' (four aces) not be? Of course it is the highest possible hand in games without wildcards, but I still don't think that is reason enough to regard it as any different than a straight-flush. --Hpesoj00 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd completely agree with you, but as it is often referred to as an distinct hand, I'm not sure should it be done here. In Finland (where I live), by the way, the straight flush is nearly always referred to as the best hand and the royal flush as the highest straight flush.--Raketooy 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Royal flush is only considered a distinct hand by chumps. Stevage 10:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory word aside, the royal flush is a commonly known hand regardless of its official or even unofficial distinctness. Cburnett 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding the Royal Flush to the poker ranking is redundant. The only reason why I could see doing this is to ensure that it's known that the Ace is high. But why stop there? Why not indicate a "Royal Straight" hand or a "Royal Pair" hand? The Ace is already indicated as being the high card in the rule books; there's no need to show a Royal Flush.

The issue was that the Royal Flush was down on this page as a hand and I thought it shouldn't be, not that it isn't included as a unique hand. The issue was resolved some time ago, and hence Royal Flush is no longer included as a unique hand. Hpesoj00 14:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the Poker hands article to mention that a Royal Flush is often counted as a seperate hand. I also added in the odds of being dealt each hand and expanded the sections on flushes and straights. MJPerry 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But it seems I broke some sort of holy Wikipedia rule, 'cos it's been deleted. 82.44.185.5 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the reason a Royal Flush was considered separately was because a Royal Flush beats a Five-of-a-kind. But this page says that Five-of-a-kind beats a Royal Flush, which would mean that there's no difference between a Royal Flush and a Straight Flush. Eh, I like my rules better. Scientivore 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on what game you're playing. In Deuces Wild, a Royal Flush beats a Five-of-a-Kind. You can see proof of this in the Video poker#Deuces Wild article. I did the math, and there are 624 ways to get a Five-of-a-kind in Deuces Wild, and only 484 ways to get a Royal Flush (4 Natural Royals, and 480 Wild Royals). Scientivore 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In regular poker, "royal flush" is just a nickname for the highest possible straight flush. It's not a hand in its own right. --Andrews Palop (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Royal beats five-of-a-kind" is a video poker only thing. In real poker, five-of-a-kind wins--a royal is just an ace-high straight flush. --LDC (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maths

Regardless of the usefulness of explaining why 47! is used, the maths as it stands is simply wrong. $52!-5!\neq 47!$ !! Perhaps you're looking for $(52-5)!$ or $52!\div 5!$ . Happy‑melon 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Touche. Your edit message was "why make it more complicated?" so I assumed it was correct. You could have just fixed it you know... :) Cburnett (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was wrong until I really thought about it after you re-reverted. I don't really see why changing it is necessary -

52!\div 5!

is likely to just confuse the issue further. But if you think it's a good idea, feel free to change it. Happy‑melon 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal Flush

Where is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's right there under "straight flush". --LDC (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"List" Title

Why was the title changed to "list of..."? It's clearly not just a list article, it's a full explanation and description of a single subject. It should clearly just be "Poker hands". --LDC (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It covers a topic (Poker hands) in such a fashion as to break down into a collection of very distinct, and almost independent, units. Indeed it's not "just a list", but that's not the definition of a "List of..." article on Wikipedia. Regardless, it is sufficiently "list-like" to have been made a featured list, so its status as a list doesn't seem to be in question. Happy‑melon 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"As such it is both a straight and a flush"

Under straight flush the articls says that a straight flush "is both a straight and a flush", but according to the definitions given under straight and flush, that's wrong. Something needs to be fixed. I'd add a "contradict" tag, but the article is semi-protected, so I can't. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; the definitions as they stand are contradictory. My inclination is to patch the straight flush definition, but I want to check out a reference or two first and wait for other comments. Thanks for pointing it out. PhGustaf (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --LDC (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous diagram

The article has diagrams like:

Defeats

Ties with

Straight flush examples

This is intended to mean "hand 1 defeats hand 2; hand 3 ties with hand 4". But that layout of words and symbols could equally well mean "hand 1 defeats hands 2 and 3, and ties with hand 4". More separation is needed between hands 2 and 3, or separate captions for each pair of hands, to make clear what is meant. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Order of definition and example

The article uses examples before definitions, like this:

A straight flush is a poker hand such as Q♣ J♣ 10♣ 9♣ 8♣, which contains five cards in sequence, all of the same suit.

Wouldn't it be better to write the definition first, followed by the example, like:

A straight flush is a poker hand which contains five cards in sequence, all of the same suit, such as Q♣ J♣ 10♣ 9♣ 8♣.

The latter sounds more encyclopedic to me, and easier to understand. Opinions? -- wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Those few sentences are some of the few from my original text, but I don't see a problem with either approach. If you think it reads better the other way, go ahead and change it. --LDC (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to but it seems that I have no permission to edit the article (that's why I asked in the first place :)). Would someone with proper permissions be so kind? -- wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to register, then you will be able to edit. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Odds

As far as I can understand, the odds here are all written as if there was only one person being dealt a hand in this poker game. For instance, almost everywhere, including this article, people agree that the odds are 1 in 4,165 of getting four of a kind. Those odds are written as if there is only one person that is getting cards from the deck. In a poker game of 6 people, wouldn't the odds be exponentially smaller as there are other people that could be getting the cards that you're hoping for? The 4th guy at the table would be dealt from the 37 remaining cards in the deck, and of those 15 that are gone, a large amount of the cards could already be gone, or they could all still be in the deck, therefore hugely increasing or decreasing his odds. I'm not quite sure how to go about the math that would describe this, but I hope someone understands what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drax89 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You get five cards out of 52. It doesn't matter whether the remaining 47 cards are in the stub of the deck, in other players' hands, or burning up in the fireplace. As long as the deal is fair, and you haven't seen any of the other cards, the odds don't change. PhGustaf (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To put in another way, "probability" is a measure of information: how certain can you be that something will happen? This doesn't depend on which cards may go where, so long as you haven't seen them. As far as you're concerned, there's no difference between a card in the stub of the deck, among the burn cards, or in your opponent's hand--if you can't see it, you can't get any information from it, so your probability doesn't change. It is meaningless to ask about the "real probability" of an event--that's always 100%--what happens happens; the cards are laid out the way they are. One can only ask what the probability is from any particular bettor's point of view at a given time, and that's not about how the cards are laid out, it's about what he knows about how the cards are laid out. --LDC (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

high card: ace-ten defeats ace-queen???

The diagram next to the section on high cards claims that ace-ten-nine-five-four defeats ace-queen-seven-five-two. That doesn't seem right to me. Queen is higher than ten, so ace-queen defeats ace-ten. Can someone fix it? -lethe ^{talk +} 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it says that ace-ten defeats king-queen, and ace-queen defeats ace-ten. That seems correct to me. Happy‑melon 11:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now; it's giving two independent examples of pairs of hands, rather than a cascade of four hands with the top defeating the middle two, which both defeat the bottom hand (which is what I thought). Now I see that there is a horizontal rule separating the two pairs of hand. Thanks, melon. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the first; I see that my confusion is the same as mentioned above in Talk:List of poker hands#Ambiguous diagram. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourty straight flush possibilities?

"There are 40 possible straight flushes, including the four Royal Flushes. The probability of being dealt one of them is [Math stuffs]"

Shouldn't it be 36? It is nine for each suit, including the Royal Flush itself, making it 36 total. Right? Or am I mistaking something here?

173.81.149.184 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ace can play both high and low. Happy‑melon 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I jumped the gun on that one. Sorry to bother you, heh. 173.81.149.184 (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Aces high

The "general rules" section here describes traditional poker hands. Things like lowball and Badugi are discussed elsewhere, so please leave "aces high" ranking alone. No need to complicate this text with details that aren't relevant to the subject at hand. --LDC (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here. Aces play high. Aces can play low, but only as part of low straits. This is what the article says. Happy‑melon 19:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's because I just fixed it. --LDC (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No Royal Straight Flush?

Why isn't Royal Straight Flush included? Cid SilverWing —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

It's mentioned udser "Straight Flush". PhGustaf (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it mentions Royal Flush, which is ace high. When I learned poker, I was told that a Royal Flush in Hearts is known as a Royal Straight Flush which beats the other Royal Flushes, which would be the only time a suit actually counts for more. Has no one else heard this? The terminology doesn't make sense though since all of them are Straight. I have heard it from other people too; but with different suits: diamond and spades. That's why I read this article, to find out which suit it is supposed to be. And isn't that by the way the 'Dead Mans Hand'?--Dbjorck (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. In standard poker hand evaluation, no suit outranks any other. A Royal Flush in hearts ties one in spades, and if four unlucky players hold the four Royals, each gets a quarter of the pot. "Royal Straight Flush" would be one of the very many nonstandard played in very many places. PhGustaf (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The dead man's hand is two pair: black aces and black eights with an unknown fifth card in diamonds (Ac As 8c 8s Xd), although some references imply jacks full of tens (JJJTT). 93.139.75.87 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Value of Suits

When it is said that suits have no value, this is incorrect. Suits do have value, they are just all equal. Otherwise a flush or straight flush would be worthless or just a straight in the later.

btw, don't be harsh on me as I just learned to play the game today using wikipedia and noticed that what was said did not make sense to me from what I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.194.196.48 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The intention is to highlight the difference between poker and, say, bridge, where the suits are ranked in a hierarchy; a bridge hand containing spades defeats an otherwise identical hand comprised of diamonds, say. The point is that, in poker, a royal flush in spades does not defeat a royal flush in clubs; if two hands are identical apart from their suits, then they are considered equal. I'm glad to hear, however, that you found the article helpful - that is ultimately why it's there! Happy‑melon 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, spades only beats diamonds during the bidding phase of bridge. Once trump is decided, the other suits are all weaker. A bit off topic, I know, but I wanted to correct it.

On the matter of suit values, though, I have heard the suits are ranked as diamonds, clubs, hearts and spades, in that order. This would only apply for otherwise identical hands. Is that true, or just a house rule? --74.210.89.205 (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)(Rognik)

Suits never decide winning poker hands. When it comes to the forced bet in stud games the suits lowest to highest are: clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades. 2005 (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Flush, Straight and Straight-Flush definition contradictions

I realize we have a bit of an issue with the fact that a straight-flush, based on the current definitions shown is also a straight and a flush. Most poker players would not refer to a hand such as 2-3-4-5-6 of hearts as either a straight or a flush but instead would refer to it as its highest ranking hand, the straight-flush. However, most poker sites use the shorter definition for straights and flushes which do not exclude straight-flushes. This means that the poker hands overlap in this area. So if a straight-flush is a straight and a flush then you cannot in the flush section put the line "There are 5,148 possible flushes, of which 40 are also straight flushes; the probability of being dealt a flush in a five-card hand is 5108/2,598,960." Doing so uses two different definitions of flush in the same sentence. This problem also occurs in the straight section. So if we go with the current definitions of straight and flushes where a straight-flush is included in both then these sentences must be changed so that the probability in the end is getting a flush (straight) that is not also a straight flush. I will make those changes. --CV43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.54.2 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

probability calculation detail

How much detail should be used for each probability calculation in this list? bkil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Why 7463 distinct ranks? It's 7462

The article says: Under typical rules there are 7463 distinct ranks. I did the calculation and received the total of 7462 ranks. Here are the calculations:

Straight flush	$10$
Four of a kind	$13\cdot 12=156$
Full house	$13\cdot 12=156$
Flush	${13 \choose 5}-10=1277$
Straight	$10$
Three of a kind	$13\cdot {12 \choose 2}=858$
Two pair	${13 \choose 2}\cdot 11=858$
One pair	$13\cdot {12 \choose 3}=2860$
High card	${13 \choose 5}-10=1277$
Total	10+156+156+1277+10+858+858+2860+1277=7462

Please do check me, cause I'm willing to edit the article. I guess, the author of "7463" just counted the royal flush twice. --Mikhail Dvorkin (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It's 7642. I must have had a duplicate in my spread sheet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.225.20 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Six of a kind?

Is that even possible? Vandalism? --WildKard84 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this, but I can't edit?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.224.180 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed now; thanks for pointing it out. Because of lots of little bits like this, the page is "semiprotected". This means that you can't edit it from an anonymous IP address, and you can't edit it from an account less than four days old. Note that posting from a named account actually gives you more privacy than posting from an IP address. PhGustaf (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) You seem to have forgotten a "Schnooberfluff" in this article. That's when you're one card short of a flush.

I wouldn't say that "forgotten" is the right word exactly. PhGustaf (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"High card" in intro picture

The entry for "high card" in the first picture showing all of the hands actually has a pair of 5's. Huh? -- Spireguy (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I commented the image out for the time being. Either someone's been playing with it, or we've been wrong for a long time. PhGustaf (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we were only wrong since January 18, when an editor replaced an older image with an "improved" one. The old image is restored and the improving editor has been notified. Thanks for spotting it, Spireguy. PhGustaf (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Over and up

[1] It is possible to find examples of both "A up B" or "A over B" being used for two pair. Likewise, it is possible to find both "A full of B" and "A over B" describing a full house. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think we need to focus on the one IP editor's desire to reinvent the labguage. Maybe somebody somewhere says "Kings up nines", but it isn't widespread usage. 2005 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For two pair, "up" does seem to be used, and also is "over", so without some authority saying one is a particularly rare term, the article should probably have both. [2] I know this means "over" is technically ambiguous, but in practice either the players have a local meaning, or the context is clear, eg player one says "I have two pair" and player two says "I have queens over fives." I think most players would naturally say "full house, queens over fives" or "two pair, queens over fives" if there is ambiguity. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address the actual edit. People say "kings up" all the time, but close to no one at all says "kings up nines". The phrase doesn't even make sense. Google any example like kings over fives, 6500 instances compared to kings up fives, zero instances. Etc. 2005 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice how many of those links for "kings over fives" refer to full house. Try "queens up sixes". Gimmetoo (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The issuse isn't full houses, and there is exactly one instance online of "queens up sixes" which obviously helps prove the point that there is no issue here. People don't say it that way. 2005 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is "over". The search shows that people do use "up" that way, and listing both may stop the IP editor. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Click the link! It shows no one says "kings up nines". Exactly zero. "Over" is not part of the issue here so please don't confuse things. 2005 (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"As over Bs" is part of the discussion because that's what the IP is replacing with "As up Bs". [3] shows exactly one use of "queens over sixes" on its own that might mean two pair, and one instance of "queens over sixes" preceded by "two pair". So on google searches, "over" shows up as often as "up" for two pair. I found "up" used "in the wild" for two pair and now that this has come up, I think both "up" and "over" should be listed for two pair. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, "over" is not part of the issue. It's a separate issue. The IP is asserting "kings up nines" is a way to refer to two pair. It is not. The links above show that clear as day. I can't imagine why you think we should include nonsense in the article, but the Wikipedia is not a place for things made up one day. If you think there are some issues with "over", then go ahead and start a discussion about that or remove it from the article. That is off the point. "kings up nines" is not a standard way to refer to two pair, and this can not be used in the article. 2005 (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Queens up sixes" shows that some people do use that terminology. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

119.47.92.9 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)You can look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaLYZzBgIdc. When Ngo's AJ vs Akenhead's AK, you can clearly hear the commentator said "Ngo with Aces up Jacks".

The commentator said "Ngo with Aces up, checks". Gimmetoo (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

youtube is generally not considered a reliable source, and a throwaway line from a random commentator isn't, either. (As far as full houses go, it's usually "Kings full", or the like, and the pair is mentioned only when it's needed to resolve the hand. Which happens annoying often in Omaha.) 119, this is really a minor matter, and I look forward to your contributions on more major matters. PhGustaf (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

119.47.92.9 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC) A's up B's is not a standard way to refer a two pair? Let's see some ways to refer to a full house:

A's full of B's

A's over B's

A's full (of B's of course)

In "Two Pair" article:

A's over B's

A's and B's

A's up

"up" what?

Since A's over B's is already used to refer to a full house, there's an ambiguity if A's over B's is used to refer to a two-pair too.

So, I offer two "solutions" if A's up B's is "not valid" in your opinion.

1. Remove A's over B's from Two-Pair article

2. Add some explanation that A's over B's is usually refer to a full house, not a two-pair

Thank you.

Permutation

"There are 311 875 200 ways (5-permutations) of being dealt five cards from a 52-card deck"

it seems to exclude the two cards already in drawn in the hand before the flop, can anyone confirm it? thanks. 202.21.159.254 (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is for a five-card-deal; the odds for community-card games like Texas Hold'em are more complicated, and generally slightly more favourable since the player can intelligently select from more than five cards. Happy‑melon 11:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Flush beats a Straight

A flush beats a straight, not the other way around. I don't have time to fix this page right now, but if someone else wants to, go right ahead. I'm 100% sure.

Every other website on this subject says a full house beats a flush, and that's what I've always played. What's going on?18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Hey is this example wrong? it says a flush of A,Q,10,5,3 is higher than a flush of K,Q,J9,6 this doesn't make any snese. why would a flush in non sequential order beat a flush that has three of a kind?--Myron Mumbles (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.52.85 (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The order does not matter. The highest card matters, not if you have straight of three in the flush. 82.141.119.188 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

About the 4-of-a-kind topic

It says "In community-card games (such as Texas Hold 'em) or games with wildcards it is possible for two or more players to obtain the same quad" ...

How can two players have the same quad in community-card games (i.e. Texas Hold'em?) There is only one deck of cards ... and no wildcard. This example should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korbeau (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Board is AAAxx, hands are Ax and Ax. PhGustaf (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Or if the board comes up 4♦ 4♠ 4♣ 4♥ Q♠, all players will have a quad (and any players who have less than a queen in their hand will play the board and have equal hands). Happy‑melon 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes lots of sense - forgot you can indeed share the same quad if its all on the table (versus the example with the wildcards)

119.47.92.9 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Board is AAAxx, hands are Ax and Ax. So there are five Aces then...

should have been: Board is AAAAx, hands are xx and xx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.179.17 (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Identical full houses never occur.

For example, when comparing identical full houses, there are no "kickers".

I'm not sure if there is valid logic behind this sentence. I always thought no two players can have identical Full Houses in one hand, as a full house consists of a 3-of-a-kind and a pair, and no two players can have 3-of-a-kind of the same card value in one hand. So no two compared full houses houses will ever be found to be identical. Example of identical full houses: 888-JJ vs 888-JJ. Clearly this could never occur as it would require six cards of value 8 in the deck.

My suggestion is to change this to: For example, when comparing identical straights, there are no "kickers".

You can have identical full houses when wild cards (such as jokers) are used. Not very common but it is possible. I do like your suggested example better as it is more likely to happen, tho. --Ektar 02:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm the original poster of this section (didn't add signature back then, didn't know how). In Texas Hold'em identical full houses can occur too, when the board pairs up (I forgot about that when starting this conversation), but the point remains that the example used in the text can be substituted for one that is more common. The example as it is now can never occur in 5 card draw games, but my suggested example can and still brings the point across. Theroachman 02:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It is possible for identical full houses to occur.

If the flop is dealt as follows Ah 2h 4d 4s 4h

player 1 gets dealt Ad and 5c

player 2 gets dealt Ac and 7d

Then they both have a full house of 2 Aces and 3 4s.Hendo313 09:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Identical *anything* can happen in any community card game with at least 5 community card games, simply by playing the board. Stevage 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And identical full houses can also occur in 5 card draw, when used at least 2 wild cards (jokers), or when playing with two decks. Both are possible, though probably not too common. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The math on Two Pair is wrong

I don't know how the person got 13C2 then (4C2)^2

              (13 C 1)x(4 C 2)x(12 C 3)x(4 C 1)^3
             = ---------------------------------------  
                            (52 C 5)

I got this equation from http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56500.html and confirmed it in my class; it seems to make more sense and gives a different value (approx .422569). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.68.172 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What you said is One pair. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

7-card poker probabilities

I added informations about the probabilities of the hands in 7-card poker, but my change was reverted by User:Happy-melon. His rv reason was "there are too many subtleties in the derivation of 7-card statistics to include them in a featured list without citations". I'm here explaining a little bit:

These probabilities of the hands in 7-card poker can apply to Texas hold 'em, which is the most popular community card poker game and perhaps the most popular poker game, and seven-card stud, which is the most common stud. So actually the information about the 7-card probabilities is likely more important and more useful than the 5-card probabilities.
If it only talks about the 5-card probabilities, it may mislead some readers (in fact I know some cases) who only play Texas hold 'em, making them consider these probabilities as those in Texas hold 'em. There's a huge difference between the two: One pair is less frenquent than No pair in 5-card poker but more frenquent in 7-card poker.
Featured article is not a reason to prevent others from adding useful informations.
If these sections about the hand categories are too long, we may consider about reducing and simplifying per WP:SIZE, but, these sections are not long at all, actually there is a huge blank at the bottom of every section of hand categories due to the floating image frames, so why so mean, why not add some more information to fill it up?
We don't need to add all these "too many subtleties in the derivation" into the article, we may just put the conclusion in it.
My edit was not completely without citations, I added a ref note: "See Poker probability#Derivation of frequencies of 7-card poker hands for the derivation." So, Poker probability#Derivation of frequencies of 7-card poker hands, along with its citation, can be considered as our citations. Ok, since User:Happy-melon asked for citations, I'm restoring my edit, and explicitly adding the citation to our article.
Last time I made some explanations about "set" and "trips" in the article, which was later reverted by User:Happy-melon, asking for citations, so I added 2. So far this article only have 5 inline citations, and 3 of them is added by me. But it seems User:Happy-melon is still keeping asking me for citations. Lots of things in this article are without citations but he doesn't ask. Yes, we need citations, but, citation is needed where the fact is challenged or likely to be challenged, if the content is not disputed, it's OK not to have a citation for it, and, if the citation is really needed, would you please use something like {{CN}} instead of reverting the whole change? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tomchen, and thanks for starting this discussion. You're right that this is all about verifiability. The majority of the article does not need citations because, as you say, it is not challengeable; the structure of various hands and their relative order is absolutely common knowledge. The 5-card probabilities are derived from first principles within the article, self-verifying themselves. Citations are needed for things which are neither common knowledge nor quickly-derivable facts and hence are challengeable; things like the nicknames of more unusual hands such as you refer to in your previous edit. The fact that the derivation of the 7-card probabilities warrants its own entire article demonstrates that these are not common knowledge nor immediately derivable, and since Wikipedia is not a reliable source a reference there is not sufficient. A reference to an external reliable source such as you provide is sufficient, and that's all it needs. I absolutely agree with you that it is valuable and useful to include these figures in the article where they can be verified.

Wikipedia's featured content is held to the highest standard of verifiability. Material which would warrant a {{citation needed}} tag is simply not appropriate to have in the article at all. The basis for using that tag rather than gutting every article that is lacking in references, WP:DEADLINE and WP:PERFECT, is the same basis for being proactive in keeping such tags, and the content that would warrant them, out of featured content: there is no deadline for making 'normal' articles 'perfect' in terms of verifiability, and there is no deadline in making featured articles 'perfect' in terms of content completeness. But a featured article containing unverifiable content is simply not of featured quality.

I hope this explains why I've made the reversions that I have; I'm absolutely not opposing your changes, indeed they've added valuable content on each occasion, and I've been careful to only undo the specific additions that are problematic rather than blanket-reverting with consequent collateral damage. It's good work; keep it up! :D Happy‑melon 23:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

full house redirect

full house shouldnt redirect here, especially not without anything pointing to the tv show article or at the very least to the disambiguation page --87.172.248.174 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends; if the context is poker, then it should redirect here. Which articles are you being directed from? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

nine million cards?

A hand always consists of nine million cards. Is this, "nine million cards", meant to mean something (slang, jargon?..., if so, an explanation would help) or simply vandalism? Muleiolenimi (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just some juvenile vandalism. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Two pair / Two pairs

I noticed someone had added an S to "two pair" in the article, but someone else has just reverted the change. Since I'm not an English native speaker, I'd like to know why the change was reverted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodyntox (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to oblige. It's best to think of the term, "Two Pair" as the name of the rank itself, which is defined as two pairs. Much like "Full House" is defined as one pair and one three-of-a-kind. I can see why some people would be happier referring to it as plural, but it is simply a rank of a hand. While I'm in England, four of the first five websites returned (Excluding Wikipedia or images) when Googling "Poker hand ranks" refer to it as "Two Pair." JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks JaeDyWolf for your answer. I understand it's to be taken as "a two-pair hand", thus the lack of S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodyntox (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right; as much as you can have a "Three of a Kind" hand or a "Flush" hand, you can have a "Two Pair" hand. Glad I could help :) JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Combination denotation inconsistency

In the section "General Rules" and again in the section "Notes," combinations are denoted by (n over k). In most or all other sections they are denoted by (k over n). Both are acceptable, but, really, one ought to be chosen and used consistently. In English, I believe, that usually would be (n over k) as is suggested by the Wikipedia article "Combination" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinations> which uses (n over k) throughout. As to the use of (k over n), this article says: "...the latter form is standard in French, Russian, Chinese[4] and Polish..." Wikifan2744 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

tabby?

Sorry, but what does "tabby" mean in all those hands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VZakharov (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

To what are you referring? I can not find the word "tabby" anywhere in the article. Nutster (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Issues in this article

Just came here from the Mainpage. This article contains sound information and good graphics, but there seem to be a few referencing and text quality issues. Here's some I picked up:

There are no in-line citations at all for most of the content. This is by far the biggest issue in the article.
There is no link to, or definition of, "kicker".
Under four of a kind it says "In some countries the term Carré is used." It is not clear whether this is a term for four of a kind, or - as it appears to be implying - a term for when two players have a tie on four of a kind. And again, there's no citation.
The four of a kind examples would be less ambiguous if the value of the kicker in the first example was reversed (ie put the queen in the lower value hand so the reader is clear that the kicker is only relevant when the four of a kind is of equal value)
There needs to be some sort of explanation of the way "frequency" is being used in this article, as it doesn't appear to reconcile with the definition found at the wikilink.
Quite a lot of sentences are incorrectly punctuated. For example "In five-card poker, there are 624 possible hands including four of a kind, the probability of being dealt one is..." Should read either "In five-card poker, there are 624 possible hands including four of a kind. The probability of being dealt one is..." or "In five-card poker, there are 624 possible hands including four of a kind, and the probability of being dealt one is..."
"Three full of Pair" or occasionally "Three over Pair" - not clear why italicisation is used here but not elsewhere for the expressions describing hands.

Despite these points, I found it interesting to read. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent notation for binomial coefficients

I'm reluctant to edit this while it's on the main page, but I wonder why {52 \choose 5} notation is used some places while {C_{52}^5} is used other places?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Six of a kind

If four 4s and an ace make "four of a kind", then do four 6s and an ace make "six of a kind"? Of course they don't, but the use of 4 rather than some other rank as the example invites that particular misunderstanding. How about showing four 6s and an ace above the caption that says "four of a kind"? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair enough point. Fixed! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Three of a Kind not via disambiguation page

I'm not happy that Three of a Kind links directly to this 'List of poker hands page' instead of going to the disambiguation page which has 7 other meanings listed. Admittedly the viewer is taken to the Three of a Kind subheading which has a note redirecting to the disambiguation page, but surely the primary page viewed should be the disambiguation page. I note that Four of a Kind does just that, so there is an inconsistency here. If no response in a few days, I'll change it. Akld guy (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Article revamp

I have pretty much finished a complete revamp of this article, with a view of getting it reinstated as a featured list. I have been rather heavy-handed with my edits, as I feel the article was in disarray, but I have tried to keep the content that I believe is relevant to the topic (list of poker hands). If I have removed anything which you believe should have been kept, feel free to leave a comment or fix it yourself (make sure it is cited, as the rest of the article currently is).

My aims when rewriting the article were:

Stay on-topic – Previously there was a whole section about the rules of poker. While certain details are relevant to a discussion about poker hands, specific details about how the game is played are not relevant.
Keep it as a list – Another reason for removing the "General rules" section as well as the "Variations" section was to make the article follow the same format as nearly every other list on Wikipedia. Lists may have sub-sections (like standard and non-standard hands), but never seem to have totally unrelated sections.
Stay general – There is huge scope to go into specific details about variants of poker. For example, the details about "inside straights" in Texas hold 'em or high card by suit. I removed anything which cannot be generally applied to the vast majority of poker games. Perhaps my boldest removal was the probabilities. The relative ranking of hand categories depends on the number of hands in that category (i.e. the likelihood of being dealt the hand). However, the probabilities themselves aren't generally useful when playing the game, so they were adding nothing to the article. The probabilities are still discussed in the article on poker probability, so it's not like content has been removed from Wikipedia.
Be consistent – I made every section follow the same basic layout, and use the same wording, as this makes sense in a systematic list like this.
Fit everything nicely on the page – Another major change was my replacement of the list of hands at the top with a table, and moving the hand comparisons from an image frame into the prose itself. I think examples are very useful, but the images were just taking up too much space.
Concise, clear wording – I tried my best. If you think I failed, please fix! I am no grammar guru.
Citations please – I removed claims that I just couldn't find citations for.
Address the complaints listed in this talk page – I think I've fixed them all, pretty much as a side-effect of completely rewriting everything.

Hpesoj00 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"4 of a kind" rank?

Hello. Can someone reply how is "4 of aces" compared to other "4 of a kind" in Poker? What would be the rank? Is it (higher to lower) "Ace King Queen Jack 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2" or "King Queen Jack 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Ace" or even "King Queen Jack Ace 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2"? Thanks in advance. --5ko (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The ace is the highest card, so two aces beats two kings, etc. 2005 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the rule set, but in general, the ace can be considered either the lowest rank or the highest rank in the deck, so 4 aces will generally beat any other four-of-a-kind. Nutster (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both! --5ko (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Kudos for Hand Images

So, I'm sure the credit for this may belong to multiple people, but whoever is responsible, you ROCK! I noticed that the images for all the hands use all of the aces and face cards with no duplicates. On top of that, no other card is duplicated, either! Statistically speaking, this is unlikely to have been a random thing, and was much more likely to have been deliberate. Very well done! DeeJaye6 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was not a fan of the previous set of examples, so I used a real deck of cards to work out the examples without repeats. I even had a few cards left over after I figured all these out. Some of my first examples could lead to confusion, so I made up a new set, using the same technique, removing the ambiguities. Nutster (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Royal Flush and Five of a Kind

The inclusion of Five of a Kind at the top of the hand hierarchy and the near-total exclusion of Royal Flush aside from a brief mention in the Straight Flush section seem inconsistent to me with the general experience one will find in the world of poker, especially in casinos, tournaments, or any sort of professional poker game. The only real place where Five of a Kind is a thing these days is in Video Poker, and even then it usually ranks above a Straight Flush but BELOW a Royal Flush. Five Card Draw in general is pretty nonexistent in tournaments or casinos, which is the only game where Jokers could be used as Wildcards outside of certain rare versions of Stud poker like Mexican poker. The form of poker that completely dominates the scene today is Texas hold'em (along with Omaha to some degree), where jokers are never a thing. This page makes it seem like acknowledgment of Five of a Kind as the best possible hand in poker is a widespread thing in the poker world when it most definitely isn't, even in the rare instance where wild cards are present.

Also, a poker player would almost refer to A-K-Q-J-10 of the same suit as a Straight Flush, even though it is technically the best version of one, it would always be referred to as a Royal Flush to call attention to the fact that its the absolute best possible hand in the game. "Royal Flush" is just as official of a name in the common rules of poker as a "Straight Flush".

In my opinion, the Straight Flush section should be called "Royal/Straight Flush" with the section mentioning that they are both five suited cards sequentially connected, with the best version being referred to as a Royal Flush and any lesser version being referred to as a Straight Flush. I believe Five of a Kind should be moved to some sort of "Other Hands" section, which could possibly make mention of "All Wilds", another type of hand that can show up in Video Poker where multiple types of cards are used as wild, such as Aces and Deuces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.231.202 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is a list of types of poker hand, not a list of types of poker hand that are commonly used in casinos and professional games. If I recall correctly, five of a kind was previously listed in a separate section for "other hands", but sources have been provided that list it alongside the other types of hand. I believe that excluding it from the list simply because it isn't common in casino or professional poker games would be to violate WP:NPOV. If you can provide a source that supports your claims about the prevalence of five of a kind (I do not personally dispute the claims, but sources must be provided) then please feel free to add to the article.

While there are sources out there that list royal flush in its own category, there are also sources that describe a royal flush as being the best possible straight flush and do not assign it its own category. In addition, if the article were to mention royal flush alongside straight flush in the section heading, or give it its own section, then what is the argument against treating other "special" hands in the same way? The lead section describes the categories as being defined by the patterns formed by the cards (with the ranks of cards determining a hand's rank within the category). If we stick to this definition, then there is no room for argument about what the sections should be (except, I suppose, whether five of a kind should be included). Personally, I think it's made fairly clear in the article that royal flush is the common name of an ace-high straight flush (there is even an image with caption at the top that gives it a special place in the article). Hpesoj00 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I can't really provide a source which directly confirms that Five of a Kind isn't prevalently used since its hardly addressed at all in poker literature, but one telling detail is that I cannot find evidence of a single instance of Five of a Kind being made in a form of poker other than video poker, or even evidence of live poker being played using jokers as wild cards. Regarding whether or not it's commonly accepted as the top ranking hand in the poker hierarchy when it does show up, I can show various images of video poker which list it below Royal Flush (such as https://www.igamingplayer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/videopoker.jpg and the table on this page: https://www.gamblingsitesonline.org/casino/games/video-poker/strategy). Regarding a Royal Flush as a distinct hand, no hand ranking chart will consider something like a "Steel Wheel" or "Dead Man's Hand" as a distinct hand, but nearly all will acknowledge a Royal Flush as an official name of the best possible hand, with some exceptions like you mentioned which merely have Straight Flush as the highest. The name Royal Flush will also always be acknowledged on poker platforms which visually show the name of a hand, like many professional poker programs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU_hFQnCpJ8 @ 13:00, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTIi7fI9mwI @5:25), unlike other "special hand" names. It is very much treated as an "offical" poker hand name, rather than as an informal nickname. The same is true with online poker platforms like pokerstars and partypoker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9C01:F7DD:C998:14ED:5FA5:821D (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think rankings in video poker are not particularly relevant here, as it's not really a variant of poker, but a one-player video game based on the rules of poker. There are multiple sources cited by the article that describe five of a kind as the highest ranked hand when using a bug/wild card. Of course, depending on the number of wild cards, five of a kind may be more likely than a straight flush. It is an odd one, which is why I previously argued against its inclusion in the list (see the "Five of a kind" section above -- have I really been editing this article for 16 years now XD). However, sources do describe it as a separate hand, and it does seem like a potential WP:NPOV violation to exclude it based on my personal opinion, especially when you consider that straights, flushes and straight flushes aren't possible in ace-to-five low. It was just easier to list is alongside the other hands. Again, if you have sources with other information, please edit the article and provide citations.

The question of whether the royal flush deserves a special place is much the same as the five of a kind discussion. We _could_ give it a special place, but then it's open to argument that other special hands should also be treated specially. It's easier to just have a section per category, and mention special hands within those categories equally in each section. This is most logically consistent and avoid arguments (in general ;)) Hpesoj00 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Replacing a dead reference link

As the current reference (13) leads to a dead domain. Perhaps we can replace it with a new reference which will give value to the readers? "How many poker hands are there?". Retrieved 13 July 2016.

This URL https://www.pokerlistings.com/poker-hand-ranking Seem to be explaining the hands and each rankings in very high detail and with explanations. This could perhaps be a good replacement reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PokerLars (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a dead reference. I've removed it, as the sentence it was attached to was already adequately sourced.

Your pokerlistings.com link is a basic basic blog entry covered in many, many adverts for online poker, so no thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)