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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
The contents of the
History of poker page were
merged into
Poker on January 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see
its history.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply