Talk:Open-ended (poker)

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

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

Low

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

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

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

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The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.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

Inside and outside draws[edit]

The term originated with draw poker, and is really meaningful only in that game where the distinction between an outside and inside draw is critical--outside draws are sometimes playable and inside draws rarely if ever are. But the term is also used in games like Texas Hold'em where it is less relevant, because many inside draws can be played profitably and some outside draws cannot be, other factors usually being more important.

Don't know about draw poker, but the Hold'em statement is pure nonsense. There are many pots where you can't play an inside, but can play an outside draw, there are pots where you can play both inside and outside etc. but there is no pot which allows you to fold an outside draw, but call with an inside draw for +EV. Total nonsense. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. The statement was either nonsense or confusing and non-encyclopedic. 2005 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement was mine, and I stand by it, though I can understand removing it on the basis that it's not attributed to a well-known source. I'm confused about your disagreement though--you give examples where each is playable and where each is not other factors being more important, which is exactly what I said (and what any other pro would agree with). And I'll give you exactly an example of what you say doesn't exist: let's say the board is 9-8-6-3 (suits different so that they don't complicate things). Depending on the exact size of the pot and implied odds (especially at no limit), it's very easy to imagine a situation in which one would play Q-J (an inside draw) but would fold 4-5 (a worthless open-ender). For the 4-5, catching a 7 makes you a straight that's almost certain to be beat, while catching the deuce makes a better one, but still beatable. If the Q-J, on the other hand, catches the 10, it's the nuts and likely to get paid off by someone with a 7, and he might also win by catching a Q or J. --LDC (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on the other point, but the labguage was simply way too generic. What about on the flop versus the turn, no limit versus limit, against a preflop raiser versus a check raise from the big blind... there are just too many variables to make a secondary statement about this (since the article isn't about gutshots). The main point of what is an open ended draw is clear so its best to just stick to that. 2005 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand simplifying the language--I was just trying to point out that the term is really meaningful only in Draw poker, though I hear it being used in hold'em all the time in ways that imply "open-end good, gutshot bad", which is a gross oversimplification that often leads to bad decisions (not that I have anything against other poker players making bad decisions :-) --LDC (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]