Poker Terms, Part 2

3 June 2005

The game of poker has had a resurgence of popularity in recent years. More popular than ever, there really are big bucks in the game. Poker tournaments garner large TV audiences and the lines for a place at table in a casino or card room are long.

This is the second of three articles that examines the jargon and slang of the game. In this second part, we take a look at terms for betting in poker.

all in, adj., to put all of one’s bankroll in a pot, an all-in player cannot be forced from a hand but is not eligible to win any money bet above their final bet, 1907.

ante, n. & v., a small forced bet that everyone at the table is required to pay before each hand, 1838, to make such a forced bet, 1846, from the Latin ante meaning before.

bet, n. & v., a wager, to make a wager, of unknown origin, it may be an aphetic form of abet meaning to support or maintain, c.1590s.

big bet, n., the largest bet size In limit games where the maximum bet increases in later rounds. A small bet is the smallest bet size. So in a 5-10 game, small bets are $5 and big bets are $10.

blind, adj., n., a bet made without looking at one’s cards, especially a forced bet made at the beginning of a poker hand in lieu of an ante. The two players to the left of the dealer place blind bets of a fixed size. The first, or small blind, is half the size of the second, or big blind. Non-blind betting then starts with the player to left of the big blind, who must call, raise, or fold.

bluff, v. & n., to bet as if one’s hand is stronger than it actually is in an attempt to deceive the other players into folding, a hand that is played as a bluff, 1846. The general sense of to deceive through boasting comes from poker usage, which in turn comes from an older sense of the word meaning to blindfold, especially to blindfold or blinker a horse. The ultimate origin is not known.

bring in, v. & n., the first bet on the first round of a hand, to make such a bet. In seven-card stud, often the lowest up-card is forced to make this bet.

bump, v., to raise a bet.

buy the pot, v.phr., to make a bet large enough to induce the other players to fold.

buy-in, n., the minimum stake needed to enter a game.

call, v., to match the current bet on the table, originally it meant a challenge to other players to show their hands, 1680.

cap, n., a limit on the number of raises permitted in a round of betting, usually three or four.

check, v., to wager nothing, to pass on betting.

check-raise, n., a raise made after one has checked earlier in the current round of betting. A type of sandbagging, check-raising is prohibited by some house rules.

family pot, n., a hand where all the players are active bettors.

fold, v., to surrender a hand by declining to bet.

forced bet, n., a mandatory bet other than an ante, typically a blind bet or a bring-in.

freezeout, n., a tournament in which a player is not permitted to buy more chips once play has commenced.

it, n., the amount required to call.

jackpot, n., a large payoff, a side pot that accumulates in value until it is awarded to the player who fulfills certain conditions, 1881.

jam, v., to bet or raise the maximum.

kitty, n., a reserve fund, which all the player’s pay into, used to pay the house for expenses incurred, 1887. The term is related to kitty meaning a prison or jail; the kitty being money that is "locked up" and the players cannot bet with. Over time, the term transferred to also mean the pot in a given hand of cards. Also known as the widow.

limit poker, n., a game where there is a fixed limit on how much one can bet or raise in any round. Limits can be either bets of a fixed size or defined by a minimum and maximum. Often the limit is raised in the later rounds of a hand. For example, a 5-10 hold’em game requires $5 bets and raises on the first two rounds and $10 bets and raises on the last two. A pot limit means one cannot bet or raise more than currently exists in the pot.

no-limit, adj., a game in which there is no limit on the sizes of bets and raises. In no-limit table-stakes games players are still limited to the amount of money they have in front of them.

open, v., to bet first in a round, some games require a specific hand (often pair of jacks or better) to open.

Pasadena, v. & interj., to fold, a play on the word pass and the California city.

pass, v., to not bet, to fold.

position bet, n., a bet made based on where one is sitting at the table rather than on the strength of one’s hand, e.g., a player on the button is in good position to steal the pot if no one else opens.

pot, n., the amount of money staked in a wager, from the vessel that would contain the coins, 1823.

pot-limit, adj., a game in which the maximum bet or raise is the amount currently in the pot, including the amount to be called.

raise, v. & n., to increase the stakes in a hand, a bet that increases the stakes.

rake, n., a percentage of the pot retained by the house in certain games, e.g., poker.

re-buy, v., to purchase more chips while sitting at the table, re-buying is not permitted in certain tournaments.

table stakes, adj., denotes a game where one is not allowed to buy more chips while a hand is in progress, one can only bet with what one has at the start of the hand.

Poker Terms, Part 1

27 May 2005

The game of poker has had a resurgence of popularity in recent years. More popular than ever, there really are big bucks in the game. Poker tournaments garner large TV audiences and the lines for a place at table in a casino or card room are long.

This is the first of three articles that examines the jargon and slang of the game. In this first part, we take a look at names of various styles of poker.

poker, n., a card game in which a player bets that the value of his or her hand is greater than that of the hands held by the other players, other players must then either equal or raise the bet or drop out, the player holding the highest hand at the end of the betting wins the pot. Poker has great number of variations in the number of cards held and the sequence in which they are dealt and in how betting is conducted. These all share the fact that final hand consists of five cards and are ranked as follows: pair, two pair, three-of-a-kind, straight, flush, full house, four-of-a-kind, and straight flush.

The game of poker is American in origin and the game as we know it dates to at least 1836. It is based on a number of European games, including brag. The origin of the name is uncertain, but is probably from either the German poch or the French poque, both names of similar games.

ace to five, adj., a type of lowball poker where straights and flushes do not count, A2345 is the lowest (best) hand.

community, adj., a type of game where face-up cards dealt to the middle of the table are shared by all the players in a hand. Hold ‘em and Omaha are community games.

dealer’s choice, adj., a format where the dealer selects the particular game to be played. Sometimes, to eliminate positional advantage, players take turns selecting the game for an entire round of deals.

declare, adj., a type of game where players must declare before the showdown, typically used in high-low games where the players must declare whether they are attempting to win the high, low, or both pots.

deuce to seven, adj., denoting a form of ace-high lowball where the lowest possible hand is 75432 with no flush. Also known as Kansas City lowball. Cf. ace to five.

draw, adj. & n., a style of the game where players may discard and replace, or draw, cards after the initial round of betting. The draw is followed by the showdown round of betting, 1857.

five-card draw, n., style of game where each player receives five cards, there is a round of betting, then a draw, followed by a second and final round of betting. Perhaps the best known style of play, it is not used much in casinos or cardrooms.

high, high-ball, adj., style of play where the highest-ranked hand wins the pot, the best possible hand is a straight flush. Standard poker. Cf. low, low-ball. In the late-19th century high-ball was a game similar to keno.

high-low, adj., style of play where the pot is split between the highest and lowest hands.

hold‘em, n., style of play where each player is dealt two face-down cards and then five community cards are dealt, players then make the best five-card hand. Often called Texas Hold’em.

let it ride, n., a style of poker played in casinos. A player places three bets and receives three cards, two community cards are dealt face down. The player then has the option of removing the first bet or letting it ride. The dealer turns over the first of the community cards. The player then has the option of removing the second bet before the second card is turned over. Hands are paid off based on a fixed schedule; at least a pair of tens is required to win.

low, low-ball, n., style of play where the worst hand wins. What constitutes the worst hand varies from game to game.

Omaha, n., a flop game similar to hold’em, but with two key differences: 1) each player is dealt four hole cards, 2) a hand must be made using two of the hole cards and three of the community cards.

ring game, n., a regular game as opposed to a tournament.

straight poker, n., played without wild cards or unusual betting procedures, five-card draw or five- or seven-card stud, 1864.

stud, n., variety of the game where a player is dealt one or more face-down hole cards and a face-up card followed by a round of betting. Players are subsequently dealt additional face-up cards each one followed by a round of betting until they have filled their hands. Often the final card is dealt facedown. The chief variants are five-card stud, where each player is dealt a total of five cards and seven-card stud, where each player is dealt seven and must make the best five-card hand out of those. Originally called stud-horse poker, 1879. Why stud or stud-horse was chosen as the name is not known.

Judging Words

6 May 2005

It seems everyone wants to be a lexicographer. Even the 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals wants to get into the act. Judge Terence Evans writes in his opinion in the case United States v. Murphy on 4 May 2005:

On the evening of May 29, 2003, Hayden was smoking crack with three other folks at a trailer park home on Chain of Rocks Road in Granite City, Illinois. Murphy, Sr., who had sold drugs to Hayden several years earlier, showed up later that night. He was friendly at first, but he soon called Hayden a “snitch bitch hoe”* and hit her in the head with the back of his hand.

*The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch “hoe.” A “hoe,” of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden’s response. We have taken the liberty of changing “hoe” to “ho,” a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps “You doin’ ho activities with ho tendencies.”

British Electoral Speech

6 May 2005

On this past Thursday the United Kingdom held a general election to choose a new parliament and government. As expected, the Labour Party under the leadership of Tony Blair, despite losing a few seats, won a majority of seats, giving Blair an unprecedented (for a Labour politician) third term. Despite both being democracies and sharing similar political traditions, the United Kingdom and the United States have different political mechanisms and different vocabularies to describe them.

Both nations hold general elections (1800), where the legislatures are selected, although the schedules are different. US general elections are held every two years, where the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate runs for election. In Britain there is no regular schedule of elections. Usually, the prime minister selects the date for election when the political advantage rests with the ruling party, but an election must be held at least every five years. Occasionally, an election is forced on the government when the parliament votes a bill of no-confidence (1846). In between general elections, vacancies for parliamentary seats are filled in by-elections (1880), or what are called special elections in the United States.

The parties in Britain put forward their ideas for leading the country into a manifesto (1620). In the United States parties have platforms (1803) instead. The parties go head to head on polling day in Britain, or election day in America.

The object of these elections are seats in parliament (ca.1290, from the Latin via Old French, meaning place of speaking) in Britain or congress (1678, from the Latin meaning coming together, meeting) in America. Both legislatures are bicameral (1832), or two-chambered. The British Parliament is divided into the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with the lower house possessing almost all the real power. The prime minister and most of the cabinet ministers are members of the House of Commons. In the US, the two houses of Congress are the House of Representatives and, taking the name from the ancient Roman Republic, the Senate. By law, members of Congress are prohibited from serving in the cabinet; they must resign their seats in the legislature before joining the president’s administration.

Each seat represents a constituency in the UK or a district in the US (and riding in Canada). Constituency is used in the U.S. to mean those that are represented, but rarely as a synonym for the area where the constituents live. Those elected to parliament are Members of Parliament, or MPs. Their counterparts in the U.S. are congressmen, or the non-sexist member of congress. The term congressman is sometimes restricted to those elected to the House of Representatives, but it can include senators as well. Those who wish to be MPs must stand for election; those who want to be congressmen run for office.

The biggest difference between the British and American systems of government is that in the United States the executive functions of government are separate from the legislature. The president appoints the cabinet (1644). In the U.S., this is the administration; in Britain it is the prime minister who forms the government. This latter term is used in the US to refer to the executive, legislature, judiciary, and civil service.

The main opposition party in Britain forms a shadow cabinet (1906) of politicians who would run the cabinet ministries if their party comes to power. This allows for a swift transition if the government falls. The term shadow cabinet is unknown in the US, although the District of Columbia elects shadow senators because, not being a state, the capital city does not have representation in that branch of the legislature. (The District has a delegate who officially serves in the House of Representatives, but who cannot vote on the House floor.)

The British cabinet consists of ministers, or secretaries of state, who have a portfolio and run a ministry. The head of the government is, of course, the prime minister. The number two official is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who runs the treasury. In the US, cabinet officials are called secretaries and the organizations they run are generally called departments instead of ministries. There is only one Secretary of State, who runs what in Britain is called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Those MPs who are not in the cabinet (either real or shadow) are called backbenchers (1874), from the fact that they sit behind the ministers. There is no equivalent term in the US. Both the House of Commons and the House of Representatives have a Speaker, although the position is ceremonial in the UK while the Speaker of the House of Representatives wields great power, able to set the agenda for the house single-handedly. Parties in both countries have whips (1850), who are responsible for ensuring members vote the party line. The US parties also have majority leaders and minority leaders who lead the party delegations in their respective houses of Congress. In the UK, the prime minister (real or shadow) is the head of the party. In the US, the president leads his party and there is no single leader for the party that is not in the White House.

Nuclear Option

29 April 2005

A term in the news quite a lot lately is nuclear option. The current usage isn’t the literal meaning of the words, some political or military strategy involving weapons of mass destruction. Rather, the nuclear option in the news is metaphorical. It refers to the US Senate changing the rules regarding filibuster to allow more of President Bush’s judicial nominees to be confirmed and take the bench.

For those non-Americans (and for those who don’t follow political news), the issue centers on arcane rules of procedure in the Senate. The Senate has the constitutional responsibility of approving the president’s judicial nominees and it does this with a simple majority vote. But in order to vote on an issue, Senate rules require 60 out of 100 senators to vote for cloture—the ending of debate. So the Democrats, who have 44 seats (plus an independent who votes with the Democrats on procedural issues), can prevent any nominee from coming to a vote—and they have blocked votes on 10 out of 215 Bush judicial nominees.

Evidently, a 95% success rate isn’t good enough for the Republican majority who are insisting that all the nominees come to a vote on the Senate floor. To do this, they are trying to change the Senate rules on filibuster and require a vote on judicial nominees. The filibuster is a venerable Senate tradition, one of the reasons why the body has the nickname of "greatest deliberative body in the world." This radical change is the so-called nuclear option.

Literal use of nuclear option has been around since the 1960s. The use in reference to the choice to develop nuclear weapons dates to 1966:

On the question of Israel’s potential for producing nuclear weapons, Professor Bergmann warned, "It’s very important to understand that by developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes, you reach the nuclear option; there are no two atomic energies.
--New York Times, 14 May 1966

And the literal predecessor of the current usage is in reference to using nuclear weapons during war:

Yet they urge a withdrawal of our forces from Asia, Europe and the Mediterranean; a "re-examination" of our commitments; and the abolition or severe reduction of foreign aid. How an American President could retain non-nuclear options in such a posture is never explained.
--New York Times, 18 Oct 1969

This last is particular telling because it leads to the current metaphorical usage. Nuclear weapons, while possibly quite effective in achieving a military goal, have long-term negative consequences and the damage inflicted violates any principle of proportionality. This is precisely what is meant by the current metaphorical usage.

This use of nuclear option in the specific sense regarding the filibuster of federal judicial nominations began with Republicans in 2002:

Still, some Republicans have raised the possibility of what they call the "nuclear" option—retaliating for Pickering’s defeat by tying up Senate business. "The feelings are running so deep on these issues, that that may well happen," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. "Any one of us can tie the Senate in knots."
--Chicago Tribune, 14 May 2002

But the term has been in use for longer than this as a metaphor for risky or potentially devastating political moves. The term was used following the 2000 election to describe the option of resolving the disputed election in the courts:

They could all but concede the White House to Vice President Al Gore on the basis of manual recounts in three Democrat-leaning Florida counties or choose the political equivalent of the "nuclear option"—a treacherous path through federal courts and legislatures where the outcome is anything but clear.
--San Francisco Chronicle, 23 Nov 2000

And this use is preceded by an even older one from the Clinton impeachment proceedings:

On that day the Republicans chose to surrender to the Scolding Tendency, the hectoring voices within their ranks determined to impose an unbending morality on the republic. This is a movement that cares little for public opinion, which continues to soar off the charts in favour of the President. (Impeachment, coupled with war in Iraq, boosted Clinton’s approval rating by 10 points.) It brooks no compromise, dogmatically insisting on the absolute punishment of impeachment even when less nuclear options were available.
--The Guardian, 23 Dec 1998

And from some eight years before the Clinton impeachment debacle, the following use of nuclear option is used in a very different political context:

If the [Endangered Species] act takes effect, the federal government would take control of at least part of the aquifer. Wynne once called that prospect the "nuclear option."
--San Antonio Express-News, 17 June 1990

Despite the fact that Republicans began the use of nuclear option in the current political context, some members of that party don’t like the term, believing that it makes them appear reckless and irresponsible. They prefer the term constitutional option, because they say the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to vote on all judicial nominees:

Supporters of the option, like conservative legal advocate Jay Alan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, prefer to call it "the constitutional option." They argue that filibusters aimed at judicial nominations are unconstitutional, and their option would simply restore majority rule on those nominations.
--Boston Globe, 2 June 2003

I guess even using the term nuclear option can be pretty devastating as well.