Talk:History of poker

Origins of Poker

"The unique features of poker have to do with the betting, and do not appear in any known older game."

This sentence is wrong. The game "Poch" has a betting structure that is quite similar to Limit Poker. Maybe somebody should verify that and correct the text. I would do it, but I'm not a native English speaker and probably would f'up the article.

You're right. Betting has been a feature of card games for centuries, so it's ludicrous to suggest Poker appeared out of nowhere because of its "unique" betting scheme. Card game historian Parlett comments that "if" Poker derived from a combination of "vying [=betting] games current at its time and place of origin", they would have been been the French games of Bouillotte and Poque... and just possibly As-Nas. Moreover, the features of the original game of Poker (as opposed to today's extravaganza) were not simply its betting scheme, but also its hierarchy of scoring combinations and five-card hands. The earliest betting system was identical with that of many European games. We need to track down what the quoted source actually says, but in any case it's not a "modern school of thought", just one view and no more modern than e.g. Parlett. Bermicourt (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just checked the Longstreet reference and it contains none of the key words of the preceding sentence, so that looks a bit suspect. Bermicourt (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

And if you check the betting process for Bouillotte, one of the likely antecedents of Poker, it's essentially the same, even pre-empting the "spit" of some variants of Poker. I don't see a single aspect of Poker betting that is "unique" - it's all been done before. So Brenner and Brown is also questionable as a reliable source. Bermicourt (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just come across History of Poker] at pagat.com written by card game historians and expert card gamesters John McLeod and David Parlett, supplemented by Jeffrey Burton's research. This goes into considerable detail about the likely origins of Poker and should be taken into account by this article. It post-dates the 2 cited articles as well, so is about as bang up-to-date as you'll get. Bermicourt (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should briefly summarize the article, and not contain uncited claims that appear nowhere else in the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Removed etymological claims, at least one of which is false. My attempt is weak, and i hope someone comes along and makes it more shiny Rjljr2 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Poker Boom

I have started the topic of this fascinating time in history and brought attention to this moment in Poker history. I would appreciate if people would contribute to this topic in order to spread knowledge of the experiences in this acknowledged topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robobobo173 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an existing article covering that, Poker boom. Feel free to contribute to that. 2005 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that History of poker be merged into Poker. History of poker does not contain significant additional information not already in the History section of Poker, and indeed Poker contains some detail not in History of poker. If you look at other featured articles for games, such as Chess and Baseball, the history sections are even longer than History of poker. Hpesoj00 (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No merge Didn't see this no merge History of poker is notable enough for stand alone article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing, given the opposition and lack of support.

Resolved

Klbrain (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does this page say that the result of this discussion was merge?2601:58B:4204:B6B0:59FC:6C8D:3E74:7BE1 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

External Link(s)

I've added an external link to Foster's Complete Hoyle, which is referenced in the first sentence of the "19th Century" section. I haven't changed the body of the article, because it is a different edition, and the book doesn't have a reference footnote in the article anyway. If anyone has a link to the 1837 edition mentioned in the article, that should probably be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmgamble (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)