Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:23, 2 November 2006

Archives

/Archive 1: Sept. 2004 - Sept. 2006

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Sirex98 hereby award The Barnstar of Diligence to 2005 for extensive work in articles, due to a large body of contributions and having a keen eye for detail on various edits made on Misplaced Pages

Craps / Dice Setting

It looks like in several places, you have edited craps and dice control articles arguing that the claims are made by charlatans, and say "The mainstream casino gaming industry gives no credence to these claims.". According to http://wizardofodds.com/craps/crapsapx3.html Stanford Wong has gone from someone who was on record that craps was unbeatable to a convert that given the skill and the practice, players can successfully change the probablilities that certain numbers can be thrown. Also in the article, Michael Shackleford, the author, goes from a complete skeptic to one who allows that it is a possibility. Both of these figures are very well respected in the gambling community, and no respected gambling authorities think of either of them as charlatans, (though many still disagree with Wong's premise).

The article also describes a bet between Wong and a professional gambler, where not only was Wong willing to bet money that dice setters could roll fewer than 80 sevens in 500 rolls (a bet with a -34% EV if dice control was not credible) but he won the bet as well. While I don't think an MIT study on this is coming anytime soon, "Putting their money where their mouth is" is an common method for gamblers to argue or settle a dispute on mathematical grounds (even if the single test isn't statistically significant).

All this being said, I would argue that it is not NPOV to argue that dice control is not credible or that craps is definitively unbeatable.

(For the record, I have never taken one of these courses or even tried dice setting. However, I have read enough to respect the possibility that it can be done.)Toonces 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, aside from mistating that I labeled any specific body a charlatan. If you are trying to say that someone who is trying to use dice control could throw better than someone not, well, fine, but what are you trying to say about that? "The mainstream casino gaming industry gives no credence to these claims" is certainly not inaccurate, although again, how is this mattering to something? Misplaced Pages articles need to be cited from references that meet the reliable sources guidelines. Inserting any assertion, especially armwaving ones, is not appropriate. In other words, statements about dice control aren't "special". They need to be treated link anything else. 2005 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a regular editor of Misplaced Pages. In my opinion, I would edit the Misplaced Pages entries on gambling, craps, and dice control to include the point that there is legitimate disagreement as to whether craps can be beaten with dice control. I think the above article is sufficient evidence of that. But since you seem to be the person who made the edits that implied that dice control is not legitimate, I preferred to try to convince you first, so that you don't just revert those edits back.

As for specifics: if by "The mainstream casino gaming industry", you mean casino management, you are probably right that they don't believe it is possible to do dice control. But they have always been well behind the curve of any advantage gaming as they were probably 3-5 years late to learn that Video Poker or even Progressive Bonus slot machines were beatable. The more credible source is the gambling theoretitians, people like Stanford Wong and Michael Shackleford as well as Bob Dancer, Arnold Snyder, and Mason Malmuth. It is not true that that class of people give no credence to these claims.

The charlatan comment refers to comments you made in the discussion section of the gambling entry. You say, "Craps is mathematically unbeatable. Anecdotes from scamsters doesn't change that". My point being that the people I am referring to, Wong and Shackleford, are by no means scamsters, and their work is not anecdotes. I believe that the Shackleford Reference I quote above meets the "Reliable Source" guideline.

To repeat, if you want to add something to any article, just see that it is properly sourced and in the right tone. 2005 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bible

Just wondering what your thoughts are: should articles refer to Super/System as "the Bible of poker", or instead "a very important book," "a seminal book," etc. - Abscissa 13:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have an opion other than it is not "the bible of poker" but is nicknamed by some "the bible of poker". It's a nickname, not a reality. 2005 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Geographical Occurances of Poker rules

I noticed you moved some text I added when I first wrote the Betting (poker)#Kill game section that talked about geographical locations where various kill rules occured. I now agree with you that it doesn't belong there, but do you have a suggestion of where such information does? Wouldn't it be useful to have information about where various rules are used most frequently? -- bkuhn 22:01 UTC

As I recall, the statements were not accurate. California cardrooms for example use several type of kill styles. A description of kills is helpful, but there is no reason to add geography to it. 2005 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ho-Chunk Casino

thnks for helping me clean up Ho-Chunk Casino.I am Amrykid ,Elite wikistudent and I approve this message. 13:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I feel that the article Ho-Chunk Casino should be merged with Ho-Chunk as their is very little information pertaining to the casino and therefore, I do not feel that it is substantial enough to stand alone. T. White 09:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. 2005 11:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rakeback FAQ Spam?

I believe this FAQ has rather useful content, and there is only one banner ad at the top of the page. In addition, the web site is a free directory.

The 3 other external links for rake (poker) all have banner ads, and more of them to boot. Also, these links only explain what rake is, and do not even touch upon the rakeback option in the online poker industry. It seemed justified to include information related to this subject.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Banners don't matter. The link explains how to use that rakeback site which it should be makes it completely worthless as a link. 2005 06:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The link explains what rakeback is, but happens to contain internal links referencing the affiliates listed on the site, who are listed on that site for free and happen to be some of the most trusted affiliates (thus also useful information). What would need to be changed/added for it to be acceptable in your opinion?

Thanks again.

Linking to such a brief page has no added value, especially since it is promoting itself. The article says what rakeback is. How one site is doing it certainly is not something to include here. Misplaced Pages writes encyclopedic articles and is not here to promote your site. 2005 06:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make sense. First of all, rakeback isn't mentioned anywhere on the rake (poker) page or any of the external links. Second of all, The rakeback FAQ link originally posted gives equivalent if not more information regarding "rakeback" than any of the three external articles describing "rake" do individually. Again, what would need to be changed or added for this link to be acceptable?

It's not making sense because you are just trying to spam your link in the encyclopedia. Don't. We don't care what you change on your site. Contribute to the encyclopedia. 2005 08:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So if the FAQ was on a website that had absolutely no links to advertising instead of on the RakeBreakers site, it would still be unacceptable? I doubt that is the case, given the other External Links have advertising all over the place. Also, those three links all cover the same subject matter, so why are three links describing "rake" okay, while one link describing "rakeback" is not? In addition, your recently added "See Also" link to "such a brief" definition of rakeback on the "List of Poker Terms" page doesn't really enhance the knowledge of visitors who are looking for more information. What if the FAQ were to be published directly on Misplaced Pages? Would that suffice?

The link there now explains what rakeback is. The link you provided adds zero value beyond that. To repeat, this is an encyclopedia, not something to promote your site, or a "how to" guide to everything. I'm not going to go around in circles on this. Please contribute to the encyclopedia or don't. We aren't here to promte your site, or your agenda or anything else. There could be a FAQ somewhere that could potentially talk about rakeback in a way that would merit a link, but obviously none has been added, and it's quite unlikely because rakeback is just getting some of your rake returned. There is littel else to say about that other than that is what it means and it exists. 2005 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That revert of WP:EL

..You beat me to it! Nice! Mike | Talk 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the arrogant stuff over there is just unreal. This one actually stunned me. By the way, I appreciate your comments on the fan site stuff. We need to be sure to protect linking to valuable, high quality sites, even if some folks want rigid, brainless rules that ignore quality. 2005 23:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Particularly, Barberio seems to feel that his will is Gospel and he doesn't need to discuss anything before making changes. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The two hour wait for comments before making the edit was a wee bit minimal.... 2005 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my edit summary at WP:EL

Sorry, that edit summary wasn't directed at you. I reverted and edited the reverted version without seeing your edit. I was addressing Dreamguy. Sorry for any confusion. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. My comment was not aimed at you, but rather DreamGuy and the fellow who made a similar edit earlier. After I made my comment it did look a little strange under yours, but it was not meant for you. Sorry if you thought it did. 2005 00:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User page

Hey, I've noticed that you don't have a user page. Any reason why not? It can be a good place to let others know what types of stuff you do around Misplaced Pages, as well as to show off your barnstars and stuff. - Mike | Talk 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you may want to archive this talk page, as it's getting quite long. I can do this for you if you want. - Mike | Talk 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no User page because my contributions to the encyclopedia are not about me. I could archive this page but it is somewhere below cleaning the pan under the refrigerator on my list of things to do.;) 2005 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble then ;-) - Mike | Talk 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

5 Card Stud

Hey, just wondering if any live casinos in North America still have 5 card stud (if you know). - Abscissa 02:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any for sure. 2005 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, would you be kind enough to clarify your comment... basically I am wondering if it is a "dead" game or not since they don't play it at the WSOP and no casino I have ever been to has it. Maybe commerce in LA or something? - Abscissa 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any that offer it. Some casinos have mexican stud, but I don't know of any that offer normal five card stud, but that doesn't mean there aren't some out there that do. 2005 08:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)