10

Is poker - while I readily acknowledge that it's a popular card game - really in the realm of what we want this site to be about?

I'm seeing a bunch of questions about poker and it made me wonder about their topicality here.

EDIT: The creation of the poker proposal makes the fact that poker was on-topic here irrelevant. Poker has its own SE and is now no longer on-topic here. That's why I'm selecting an answer besides the highest-voted one as the answer.

| |
  • Poker technically belongs on this site, but I feel that there is very little overlap between poker players and the rest of the community. I vote "off-topic". – Michiel de Mare Oct 20 '10 at 22:28
  • Just because there is another site, doesn't mean that poker is off-topic. What makes it off-topic is that poker players are a completely separate community. – Richard Gadsden Oct 21 '10 at 18:02
  • Right. Whatever the reasoning you use, the conclusion reached is that poker is off-topic here. I don't have anything against poker...really...I just never thought this was intended to be a poker community. I'm really ready for this thread to close. – gomad Oct 21 '10 at 18:23
3

While the game of poker is certainly on-topic for this site, I would urge folks interested in poker to support this poker-specific proposal: Poker.

Beside the questions regarding strategies and rules, poker talk will include gambling techniques, celebrities, tournaments, personal habits and tells, online play... all questions probably outside the scope of this site.

It would be unfortunate to splitting up "poker talk" (based on the context of the question) longer than necessary. Support poker game questions here for the time being, but vote to give all-out poker Q&A its own home.

Poker Proposal

| |
  • 3
    Given the current flood of poker non-questions, I'd rather not support poker here for the time being and still support the Poker Proposal! – gomad Oct 20 '10 at 22:41
  • Agreed, and it's only four off-topic votes from the commitment stage. Two people could cast the votes needed to get it into commitment. – Richard Gadsden Oct 20 '10 at 23:14
  • Followed and voted since I do have some interest in poker. It should be able to move onto the commitment phase now. – Brian Campbell Oct 20 '10 at 23:49
10

Although I admit it has a different "feel" to it than the games I would expect to see most, I cannot think of any objective reason not to include it.

So I'd say it's in.

| |
  • 1
    +1 There's certainly a ton of game theory involved in poker, which puts in into the same category as other strategy games in my mind, and makes it totally worthwhile of inclusion. – lilserf Oct 19 '10 at 22:10
  • Agreed, although if it becomes popular enough it may be worth breaking out into its own SO site – tryaria Oct 19 '10 at 22:18
  • 2
    Done: area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3425/poker. Please support the creation of this poker site. – Robert Cartaino Oct 20 '10 at 8:38
0

Poker is a Card Game, why this is offtopic on this side when poker on stackexchange not exist, yet? When this will be created then i think this exchange will be for (Board and Card Games)-(Poker). In this time i think poker is a good place in Board and Card Games because this is Card Game.

| |
  • 2
    Poker is on topic, though would probably be better handled on its own SE; if you note, the top ranking post in this thread says it's on topic, and the second to top recommends supporting the Poker SE. Flooding the front page with dozens of formulaic questions about poker is abusive, no matter which SE you are on. There is no reason to ask one formulaic question on every topic you can think of; it's better to ask questions that you actually want to know the answer to, and spend some time making each one a good question. Listing all possible poker strategy topics does not make good questions. – Brian Campbell Oct 20 '10 at 23:32
-3

I would say that it's primarily a gambling game - that is, a mechanism for moving money around - and that objectively it's different from games which are played primarily or entirely for the experience of playing them.

So I'd say it's out.

How about some votes on these questions so we can get a consensus?

| |
  • Actually, although betting is involved, it doesn't have to be for money. I find it's as much fun just learning to compete with your friends as it is to do so for money. – tryaria Oct 19 '10 at 22:21
  • 3
    I'd like to restate and refine @tryaria's point as follows: poker happens to be played for money in many cases, but that's not an essential feature of the game. Similarly, you can play any other game for money. We should not base this on how people happen to play the game - it should be based on the game itself. (Platonic ideal anyone?) – Erik P. Oct 19 '10 at 22:46
  • 1
    I happen to think that when you're not playing for money the game gets pretty broken, but I think that's beside the point. Poker has enough inherent complexity involved with its odds and game theory that it definitely seems deserving. – lilserf Oct 20 '10 at 14:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .