Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2005 (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 10 January 2006 (rvv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Joe Hachem

I noticed you reverted my edit to Joe's article regarding the tipping thing. I think it is important for it to be there and offer a balanced view (as I had provided) to explain this to people who are offended by the second-hand reports of this incident. I had already indicated that the tip came from the prize pool. Please clarify further why you feel this has no place in the article. Essexmutant 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A handful of people complaining because they didn't know the tip was already taken out does not merit a controversy, and it is extremely unfair to include in a small article the mention of an essentially non-existent event. It's trivializing the article in the same as like catering to people who criticize a boxer for hitting someone because they don't understand there is punching in boxing. 2005 22:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Then why not identify the issue and explain the reasons why he did not give the tip? For example, he was asked if he wanted to leave a tip by the event organisers, despite them knowing that a percentage of the prize pool went to the tip. It's things like this that need to be clarified, otherwise someone else is going to come along and add at the bottom of his article "Hachem tipped sod all after winning $7.5m and is a cheap scumbag." Essexmutant 08:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want to mention this? Not only does it not add anything to the article, it's a distraction and just plain rude. It's like adding that two of his fourth grade acquaintances called him a pansy one day. Completely pointless. Sticky to newsworthy facts about the subject. 2005 00:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to mention it to clear up misconceptions that people may have about him. Essexmutant 08:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You are creating misconceptions, not clearing anything up. There is no "contoversy". It is inappropriate to create one. 2005 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's clear to me you are not prepared to find some common ground on this. How disappointing. Essexmutant 05:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Poker edits

I noticed your edits to various poker players. A few weeks ago I started writing about 40-50 new articles on poker players. Since establishing them I've started to go back and add more information as I do more in depth research. You may be interested in User:CryptoDerk/poker where I keep track of the articles, their progress, and miscellaneous information. CryptoDerk 00:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious what your objection was to my 2+2 link on Poker. I consider their forum one of the two canonical sources for poker discussion. What's the problem with them?

PhilipR 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

After reading your comments in the Talk page, AFAICT this falls in the category of quality links that would nevertheless start a slippery slope downward. Fine, I can understand that. I guess it just seems a bit odd to cite RPG but not 2+2, when in my mind they stand out far and away as the best two sources of poker discussion.

It might be good to explain your policy in a comment so that newbie editors like me don't run afoul of it. Granted, due diligence probably involves reading the Talk page before editing, but we newbies don't know what's due diligence! PhilipR 15:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad you noticed the Discussion page. There could be at least a couple dozen quality links there, but if 2+2 is linked, why not Cardplayer, or thepokerforum.com, etc. The answer is, each of those, including 2+2 is linked in the other two Google/Yahoo links. I suppose a comment link would be a good idea now that no other discussion occured about the issue. 2005 18:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you have the Super/System then you should check the table where Doyle lists the names of common Hold 'em hand names. There are two hands listed there as "Doyle Brunson" the 10-2 and the A-Q off suit. It also lists in the notes that A-Q off suit became known as the Doyle Brunson because he NEVER plays the hand.--Aftermayintoaug 06:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dude do you even know that Doyle plays No Limit almost exclusively. When he plays cash he plays NL, every bracelet he has won in Hold 'em has been NL. You, sir, are an idiot.

I see you hve no idea what you are talking about. The big game is not No Limit! You think 3000/6000 blinds are for a No Limit game?? Btw, I've played Limit with Doyle so please be quiet now.2005 20:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm about as willing to believe that as I am willing to believe that you, I dunno, ARE Doyle Brunson. Again, in his book, which I am now sure you've never read he talks repeatedly about how he likes to get all of his chips in the pot as soon as he senses weakness in his opponent, but you're right he wasn't talking about NL.

Dude, what on Earth are you talking about? he plays No Limit and He plays Limit, and he plays Pot Limit. Have you ever seen poker played?2005 08:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Career earnings

The career earnings are indeed subject to frequent change, despite being technically correct and relevant. I think I originally started doing it when I first started editing in the subject and noticed it on one of the pre-existing articles. For some (a very few) players there are "more accurate" counts than the Hendon Mob database. Probably what I'll do in the near future is go through the articles, select some "important" wins (WSOP or WPT titles, their largest money win) and just use those. I've already done this on some of the later and larger articles I've edited. Thanks for the input. CryptoDerk 22:38, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Moneymaker as part of The Crew

According to an interview ESPN did with Moneymaker, he said that he was invited to be part of The Crew. Since we don't have articles on Dutch Boyd or The Crew yet, it's probably not too important to link it or mention it now, although in the future it may be (that is, if The Crew gains a bit more notoriety and/or gets an article). CryptoDerk 03:03, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Please bring your attention to Misplaced Pages:Mediation#External links in Online poker Thank you. --Alterego 00:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

WPT

Do you even watch World Poker Tour? If you watch the button during coverage, you'll see that it always proceeds around the table in a predictable fashion. If they cut ANY hands out, you'd know because the button would jump and skip around the table when they cut hands from the television coverage. In addition, you can watch the previous hand's winners stack their chips as they deal the next hand. WSOP cuts coverage, as many others do, but World Poker Tour shows almost every hand played. The proof is there if you watch closely. I know because I have five episodes on my TIVO, and I checked three of them last night. Unfocused 11:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

1) I sat at the Commerce event season 2. It lasted NINE hours. 2) It is common for the show to have the same person having the button three hands in a row. 3) If you bothered to do ANY research on this you will find reports on websites like pokerpages that show events laste 52 or 90 or whatever amount of hands. 4) It's just plain insane to think a million dollar event is decided in 15 hands! 5) Your ludicrous, off-topic, hopelessly uniformed fiction has been reverted several times. Stop posting this foolishness. 2005 21:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, and (6) the most common hand in a No Limit event is one person raises the blinds and everyone folds. You actually think this virtually never happens at the WPT?? Anyway, none of this matters as you are obviously objectively wrong. Count the hands shown, then read the reports on the events. Occasionally some final tables were fairly short, like the first Pokerstars cruise, so a higher percentage of hands were shown, but for the most part these are normal tournaments and they take several hours like normal tournaments do. 2005 22:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't started off rude, we probably could have reached compromise wording sooner. I checked the other two episodes on the TIVO, and the play was much weaker on those episodes. Overall, the earlier parts of most shows appear to be edited around 60%, but after two players are eliminated, coverage of hands played jumps to between 80% and 95%. However, that wasn't the point to be made about poker coverage: the point is how the style of coverage differs between the three most popular versions of television shows. I've reworded to reflect this, rather than our rather pointless edit war over how many hands are covered. All things considered, I was more wrong than right, but you were rude in your objections, so I didn't really take them seriously. That's a fault of mine. Unfocused 03:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your last edit summary that "WPT doesn't show more" (paraphrased). Actually, since ESPN's WSOP final day of coverage of each event frequently begins with more than one table left, WPT actually does cover more final table action almost all of the time. I'm not going to bother to edit that in right now, but I think it is notable as WPT's somewhat unique (although not overly ingenious) coverage style. Unfocused 06:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It's just not true at all, in more ways than one. The WPT shows about 75 minutes of a tournament. ESPN shows hours of the earlier rounds, but also last time devoted two two-hour programs to the final table -- twice as much as the WPT. Of course the WSOP coverage starts at a final table of nine instead of six, but in any case the issue is extreme minutae, as they show approximately the same amount of hands in a two hour program; and of course we have no way of knowing how much time ESPN will give the final table this time around. It went over 16 hours so who knows how much they will show. 2005 07:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I won't waste any more time disagreeing over what is certainly statistical trivia. I assume we've found agreeable language so far regarding different styles of television coverage. Unfocused 03:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Omaha

You reverted all of my edits to the Omaha page. What gives? You want to keep the page poorly written, inaccurate, and uninformative? Allstreetbluff 12:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Your anonymous contribution was a major change that had several factual errors and POV statements. Now that you have a login perhaps you can make changes in a more incremental way where it is easier to deal with individual items. 2005 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That article does not need incremental changes, it needs wholesale rewriting. And with respect, my contribution did not have factual errors. The article as written, on the other hand, had many. In my latest edit I have tried to cut down on anything too "opiniony." If you have any objections to the facts or substance, please address them in the usual manner. Reverting to the original garbage is doing a serious disservice to the article, particularly when I'm willing to put a little time in to make it better. Allstreetbluff 01:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please put further comments on the article page. I've removed the factual errors, while leaving in the bulk of your edit. Again, now that you are logged in the larger changes are appropriate as opposed to large changes with significant POV from an anonymous user. 2005 01:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

SPAM removal

Good work! - Tεxτurε 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

On Slot machine I'll take your word that the links are worth keeping. - Tεxτurε 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Those links have a ton of content. Absent anything better, they enrich the article a lot. 2005 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cassava's Affiliate Program

The spam-magnet nature of Cassava's affiliate programs surely deserves mention. This article itself was just vandalized by an affiliate hoping to capture traffic for their account by placing their affiliate information into all of the outgoing URLs. I know of at least one blog which has blocked the specific string 'pacific poker' in comments and trackbacks specifically due to the overwhelming about of spam from affiliates hoping to cash in. Isn't it relevant to the article to mention this? --Stephen Deken 04:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Cassava Enterprises#Spam_Magnet. --Stephen Deken 04:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)