Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 5 September 2007

	Blackjack is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept March 21, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:V0.5

Archives

• 5 October 2005

Effort to upgrade article

The article for Blackjack has been demoted from a Featured Article to former featured article. It is now a B-Class article. Here are the criteria which are used by Wiki editors for rating an article. What steps do you people think contributors need to take in order to reinstate the entry for Blackjack to its position at the top? There is extensive knowledge available on the subject. The Gnome 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlie

Is the "Charlie" referenced in this article a standard Blackjack rule? I can't tell from this article. -Itsdannyg 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, but I see that the same could be said about many of the rules. E.g. DAS is common in multideck, uncommon in SD, RSA is uncommon, etc. Maybe there is a better way of conveying this, e.g. listing common rules for the strip, downtown, single/double/multi decks, etc. --Mike Van Emmerik 07:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

We're told that a blackjack has an ace of spades and a black jack, but the picture shows an ace of hearts. Which is correct?

• The reference you're talking about is no longer valid in terms of the game; any combination of an ace and a 10-valued card makes a blackjack in the game. Willbyr (talk · contribs)

Insurance

I don't quite understand how insurance works. As I understand it, you place another bet, worth half your original bet, that the dealer will get a blackjack. If you're correct, then you lose your original bet because you lost, but you get twice your insurance bet, so overall, you get and lose nothing. If you're wrong, and you beat the dealer, then you lose your insurance and gain your original, so you gain the equivalent of half your original bet. If you're wrong, and you don't beat the dealer, then you lose both your insurance bet and your original bet, which means you lose the equivalent of one-and-a-half original bets.

I don't necessarily say that the section needs rewording - it might just be my incompetence, so I'll leave you to figure that part out - but if someone could clarify that for me that'd be great. Neonumbers 08:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to re-write the Insurance section, but it came out just as confusing. Your understanding is correct though.--Fieldcommand 04:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) Neonumbers 22:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Insurance any clearer now ? --The Gnome 01:32, 6 October 2005

Here's another look at Insurance. Its a side-bet that has about a 7% advantage for the House. Card-Counting can predict when the Player should take the bet, as there are an excess of 10-valued cards remaining in the shoe. In fact the card-counter can have quite an advantage. This has become known by the House due to the Griffin reports made availible. As such, taking insurance, and winning, is a signal that a Player is counting cards. Its best not to take Insurance even if counting cards. ] 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)]

Isn't all this covered in the article already? The Gnome 08:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats the reference for it being to the player's advantage to take insurance if there are no tens showing and 7 players at the table? The house edge on insurance is only eliminated if there's a greater than 1/3 chance the dealer has a 10 underneath, and even in 4-deck its only a 64/193 (just under 1/3) probability the dealer has a 10, assuming an always shuffled shoe. And you'd have to play an awful lot of hands to ever see that situation arise in less than 4-deck. Or does this "advantage" just mean the insurance bet has a lower house edge than your regular blackjack bet, so that taking it will lower the overall house edge? Dangermouse29 6:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. According to my calculations, even 3 tens showing at single deck is profitable (e=5.4%, like double zero roulette but in your favour). With no tens showing, insurance is worth almost 30% by my calculations (15% of your original bet). But this assumes you can see all the player's cards; I guess this is why you never see face up single deck. At double deck, you would see insurance profitable with up to two tens visible. Perhaps single deck face down is assumed, and somehow you use the fact that no-one has declared a blackjack? Or you are supposed to peek at the dealt cards somehow? Neither of these seems likely. --Mike Van Emmerik 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Online countermeasures

Just curious how you know that online casinos shuffle every hand. Do you have access to the source code for the host program, or do you just base this on the lack of correlation of the count and the distribution of tens and aces next hand? I suppose it would be easy at a single deck game, e.g. 6 of spades was seen last game, there was no shuffle animation, yet the 6 of spades turns up again next deal or in a hit card. With multideck games, this would be much harder to spot, presumably. Finally, are you fairly confident that practically every online casino does this? I guess if I were offering blackjack online, I'd shuffle every hand, since it only affects the counters, costs almost nothing to do, and makes it very difficult for smart customers to beat my game. --Mike Van Emmerik 21:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

online casinos have a rules section that will state how often the deck is shuffled, IMO it is accurate to say that most shuffle after every hand.--Fieldcommand 04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Casino Bonus Key to Winning not Card Counting

When Gambling online in the game of blackjack the cards are shuffled every hand at every casino so card counting is useless. The only advantage or strategy you can use is basic blackjack strategy. Land based casino's you can count cards. An advantage of online blackjack play is that you get bonus money offered by online casino's because they realize, that there's no way they can take away land based casino business unless they offer some kind of incentive. This incentive is usually 100% bonus on your deposit and requires you to meet some kind of wagering requirement. By getting a bonus you are essentially gambling with the casino's money for free. By making low wagers every hand say like $2 you lower the standard deviation from the mean (or the amount of money you started with plus the bonus) so if you play using basic perfect strategy since the house edge is usually less than 1% you should be able to maintan moneys close to where you started and meet wagered requirements and still have money left from the bonus the casino gave you thereby never even wagering your own money.

Basic Strategy guide flawed?

Can someone please verify the basic strategy table? I don't believe that when the Dealer's face-up card is a 7 or 8 you should stand when you have a hard 15 or 16.

You're absolutely right! This was a serious mistake. There was another one there, 6-6 against a dealer showing a 6 is clearly a SPlit. Thanks for pointing it out! Owen× ☎ 13:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone able to verify that the soft total table is 100% correct? I've compared it to the table given in Edward Thorp's book, and although I expected some discrepancies, the differences are massive.

Well, you might want to pick a more modern resource, like http://WizardOfOdds.com/blackjack . Thorp's book is nearly half a century old, and blackjack has changed quite a bit since then. I did correct two obvious errors in the table. Michael Bluejay 00:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody changed one of the soft total scenarios from the correct move to an incorrect move. Namely, if a player has an ace and an 8, and the dealer is showing a 2, the player should double, not hit. However, the difference is very small; if you bet $1000 on a hand and ended up in this scenario, on doubling will gain you about $4.20 more in average winnings. There are two other errors; you should double a soft 19 against a dealer 6, and you should only hit a soft 13 against a dealer 5. I have verified all of the other scenarios independently.

On beat blackjack there is an online version, which calculates exact probabilities and expectations according the each possible card distribution in the shoe. The source code for that program is supplied, so everybody can verify ist correctness. For unknown reasons this link has been removed from the main page.

If you think it's worthy of being included, you can add it back -- especially if it was removed by a non-registered user who provided no explanation. Also, please sign your comments by using four tildes. Thanks, Michael Bluejay 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Most basic strategy tables that I have seen (for the American and European version) recommend a stay when the player has a soft 18 and the dealer's upcard is 2, Misplaced Pages's table recommends a double. Also, all tables recommend a stay on all soft hand 19s, while the[REDACTED] table is the only one I have seen where it recommends a double if the dealer's upcard is 6. Can someone clarify these two situations, and if the table is correct, bring give sources. Thank you. 88.255.1.180 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Aryan

The Wizard of Odds charts are correct, and are the definitive source. The Wizard is the foremost expert on gambling math in the world. -MichaelBluejay 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

References

I took out Blackjack Ace Prediction, by David McDowell, 2004. The book is at the very least containing a lot of unsubstantiated and mathematically unsound claims. This has been exposed on Arnold Snyder's website, among other places on the net. Here's a bunch of links:

McDowell's Folly: Commentary on David McDowell's Blackjack Ace Prediction, by Arnold Snyder http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/mcdowellsfolly.htm

Errors in False Key Probability in David McDowell's Blackjack Ace Prediction and Corrections of McDowell's Win Rate Estimate, by Radar O' Reilly http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/correctionfalsekeys.htm

The Win Rate calculation in McDowell's book, by ETFan, http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/etfanletter.htm

Convexing Calculations for McDowell's Blackjack Ace Prediction Book, by ET Fan http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/convexingcalculations.htm

--The Gnome 12:28, 14 November 2005

Just a note from an infrequent contributor/cleaner of the article (variants is my baby ;): Good work to everyone on this one! D.valued 08:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so good work. One of the above articles was written by a competing author. The second by his wife. The third and fourth by a person that had not read the book. Do not use Blackjack Forum Online as a legitimate source as it is highly political and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Split card-counting into a separate article?

This article is huge. Should we split card-counting off into a separate article? Michael Bluejay 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it called "Black Jack"?

Anyone know? If so, maybe it should be included. 206.201.180.226 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer seems to be here:

how stuff works, with a different slant here www.worlds-best-online-casinos.com/Articles/Blackjack-History.html (can't link because of a spam block!). Since knowledge/history is in the public domain, I'm sure this info could be worked into the article. --Mike Van Emmerik 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

removed

==Other casino games that are potentially beatable==

Casino games in which a player can get an advantage with sufficiently skilled play and game selection include poker tables, video poker machines, and a few video slot machines. Games such as roulette and craps cannot be beaten with any kind of betting system or strategy, though roulette is potentially beatable if the player can discover a rare biased wheel, and craps is potentially beatable if the player can throw the dice in such a way that certain totals appear more or less frequently than they would with a completely random throw.

This does not concern Blackjack in any way, so I removed it. I might as well add a section on boats to airplane since both are vehicles.

Yup, totally agree. Plus it's already at Gambling#.22Beatable.22_casino_games; I would not object to a "see also" entry pointing there. --Mike Van Emmerik 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

shuffle tracking

I am troubled by the claim that Arnold Snyder introduced shuffle tracking to the general public. Jerry Patterson wrote about it long before Snyder. 192.139.140.243 05:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Shuffle tracking remained relatively unknown among the general public, and even amongst many advantage players, until the appearance of Snyder's articles in his Blackjack Forum magazine. It didn't help that from respected player and theorist, Patterson changed to snake oil salesman, e.g. his promotion of the unsound TARGET system. (Check out entry in the Glossary of Wong's website bj21.com.) The Gnome 08:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Patterson really should be removed. No one in the BJ field respects him and his teachers resigned after he came out with TARGET. See blackjack-scams.com/html/card_clumping.html. Besides, JPs card clumping has nothing to do with shuffle tracking. Objective3000 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Be bold Rray 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Even money

One thing that I didn't see in the article (and I may have overlooked it) is that some casinos will allow a player to take even money on a blackjack rather than the normal 3:2 payout if the dealer's up card is an ace. Willbyr 13:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the same as taking insurance, which is why all—not some—casinos offer it. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the fact that you don't actually place an insurance bet makes it slightly different than taking insurance. What you're doing is making sure that you win with your blackjack instead of possibly losing your bet along with everyone else if the dealer has a blackjack and you don't take the even money payout. I have only played at the casinos in Tunica so I didn't know if this was a policy that all casinos followed or if some did it and some didn't. Willbyr 04:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot "lose your bet" when you have a natural and refuse to take even money. If the dealer turns up a natural of his own, you do not lose your bet: You are just not paid anything, because it's a tie. If the dealer turns up anything except a natural, the dealer pays you the regular 3:2 before proceeding with the rest of his hand.

That you're not placing an insurance bet on the table does not change the fact that taking even money is indeed exactly the same as taking insurance! The Gnome 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No-bust black

No-bust blackjack is the only variant allowed in California cardrooms and thus a very popular there. A section describing this variant would be valuable

Splitting

Can you split J, Q, K since they have the same value? Such as if you get K and a Q, or is it only if they are the same - two kings etc. -- Astrokey44|talk 05:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Only if they are the same face. However, showing 20 is highly favorable so it is not recommended. Even if the dealer is showing an Ace, you're odds are greatly lessened by spliting. pattersonc 02:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something in this exchange? The player can split any pair of 10-valued cards. Example: the 10 of hearts and the King of spades can be split. The Gnome 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• According to THIS site, it depends on the casino. The link also explains other rare split rules. pattersonc 02:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fine, but my point was that the exact-same-rank only rule for Splitting Tens is the rare exception. The prevalent rule around the world is to allow the Splitting of any 10-valued card. (That is, as long as Ten-Splitting itself is allowed! Some casinos forbid Ten-Splitting in order to protect the --casual-- player.) The Gnome 10:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been in some casinos in Australia that forbid splitting say a jack and ten, they have to be both jacks or both tens. This despite the fact that usually it is in the casino's favour to allow splitting of tens. Splitting of tens is favourable only when the count is high, and then only against a weak dealer card like a 5 or 6. Most authorities state that it is not advisable to split tens even when favourable, as it is a strong indication that the player is a card counter (if not obviously an idiot). --Mike Van Emmerik 13:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Players so rarely split tens that you make take the casino by surprise when you try to do so. The floor supervisor may make up a "rule" on the spot. (S)he doesn't want to appear unknowledgeable. And if you ask, "CAN I split these?", you obviously want to, so the casino might think that "restricting" you is the safer call, even though they'll make more money if they let you split willy-nilly (assuming you're not counting cards). I'm reminded in one of Ian Andersen's books where he got early surrender by carefully phrasing his question: "Can I wait until the dealer checks her hole card before I surrender, or would I have to surrender now?" -MichaelBluejay 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Minimum bet?

What is the minimum bet a player can make? Dionyseus 09:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the casino/game. where I played it was a $5 minimum -- Astrokey44|talk 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed; I've never been to a casino where the minimum bet was less than $5. I've also played in an Indian casino which required a 50¢ ante as well as the $5 minimum bet. Willbyr 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Casino Apache in Ruidoso, NM has a minimum of $3 dlls. Irwin 01:10, 1/5/06 MT

Pontoon

Would it be useful to have a separate Wiki entry for Pontoon as separate from blackjack? After all, it is more of a different, independent game than simply the "British version" of blackjack or simply another blackjack variant (I see their relationship as akin to rounders/cricket vs. baseball).

I'm a Wiki newbie and wouldn't mind making this my first article. However, since the blackjack page is a featured article, I don't want to mess anything up. --Hoyapaul 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Pontoon should be a separate article. A good starting point for info is the Wizard of Odds. Don't worry about messing anything up; if that happens, someone else will fix it. You learn by doing, so go for it! -MichaelBluejay 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking my website

I am interested in linking my website anteupchips.com to your website. I am trying to sell gaming supplies. You may email me at shelly6212002@yahoo.com Thank you Michelle Curtice 12.75.19.1 12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the rules. You cannot do this. --Dacium 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Card Counting

The subject of card counting is not covered in the blackjack article. I would like to add a section introducing the subject, and will remain general (not favoring any individual system).

Has this been done in the past and removed, or would it be welcome?

Mbbradford 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on Card counting, but yes, the subject should be included here, but with a link to the main article. You might also do some editing over at the main article, because it still needs some cleaning up. Rray 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference to card counting in the rules section seems flawed. The page says "although this reduced payout has generally been restricted to single-deck games where card counting would otherwise be a viable strategy, the move was decried by longtime blackjack players." The trouble is that card counting doesn't work in single-deck games, because the deck is shuffled after each hand in single-deck games. -DelRayVA 2 January 2007

Favorable Conditions?

The article states "Under the most favorable conditions (single deck, downtown Las Vegas rules)". I believe that actually Las Vegas Strip rules are more favorable for players than the downtown Las Vegas standard.

No, not even close. Also, please sign your Discussion by using the four tildes. Thanks! -MichaelBluejay 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove all the UK Regulations Stuff ?

Almost every country has laws governing how blackjack plays. Because most casinos are so big most casinos have there own whole acts, I know this is true in Australia and alot of other countries. If we let the UK stuff in we really need to let everything in. Maybe there should be a seperate article for UK laws and any countries that get popular. The huge paragraph in the rules section in particular really drags the article down. It is meant to be the general rules of the game, not the rules according to UK law or any other countries law.--155.144.251.120 05:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the suggestion about moving the information to a separate article. Maybe something like Blackjack regulation by country? Jeff Silvers 09:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps simply a page called Blackjack regulation. This article is getting out of hand otherwise. Also there are to many examples in many sections where only generaly descriptions have a place here. Also there is a large amount of 'filler'. For example I don't think I have seen such a bigger section to descripe something as trivial as Insurance wager. Also section on using other peoples hands for profit (i originally wrote most of it!) is just filler. Dacium 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Using other players for extra profit

This relies on a thing called "backline betting". If this is not allowed, then you can't use the information in this section. Many European and Australian casinos allow up to three bets per box. I'm sure that this would be covered in one of the main blackjack theory books; I haven't played in years and I can't find my texts. Can someone with say Snyder or Uston look up this keyword and find a reference? As an example, this thread discusses the strategy for splitting when you have a large bet and a small bet on the same hand. In effect, for the cost of the small bet, you can make all defensive splitting plays. Like turning a terrible 16 v 10 play into a not so bad two hands of 8 verses 10. --Mike Van Emmerik 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the section completely. It isn't talking about backline betting nor playing different with different sized bets out. Its talking about getting players to buy bad hands and buying good hands from them. Nothing to do with back betting. What you are talking about (back betting your own bet with a much larger back bet so that you can move the large amount to a single card when favourable) is most definately illegal. Most laws state that a back better has to not be you and not be colluding with you to play the game, nor should you be associated. I don't know the decrease in house edge that would be obtained from implementing it, but it surely wouldn't be enough to remove the house edge.--155.144.251.120 22:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that is missing

What about five card tricks? I don't know the ins and outs of the game, but if you get five cards dealt that equal, or are under, 21, you win. I can't believe this was a featured article when this piece of info is missed. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

This rule is referred to as "5 Card Charlie". It is not usually offered in major casinos, but it does exist and so it should have a description somewhere. The term "Charlie" was described in the article until the enthusiastic editing done on Jan 6. Mikepelley 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

5 card charlie is not part of blackjack, it is Spanish 21 rules.--155.144.251.120 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, 5 card-Charlie was available decades before Spanish 21 Objective3000 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

removing bad links

Most of the external links are of online gambling affiliates. For example http://www.bjstats.com is an affiliate with GoldenPalace. If these sites advertise on[REDACTED] how will other spammers be stopped? I am going to take these links down within 24 hours unless someone replies. Pascal.mr 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't care if a site is an affiliate of something. That's silly. Please don't use this article or the encyclopedia for some vendetta. 2005 09:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As 2005 pointed out, whether or not the website carries an ad for someone else has nothing to do with whether or not it should be included in the external links section here. If we limited all links to websites which don't carry ads, we'd be doing the users of this encyclopedia a disservice. Rray 12:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but http://www.blackjacktactics.com/ is a site that shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. It has no unique or special content and it is filled with advertisements. If you do not agree to remove it I will take this discussion to a higher level. (there's no personal vandetta just making sure Misplaced Pages is kept clean, you can see me on nonrelated articles as well)Pascal.mr 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Being filled with advertisements has nothing to do with it - CNN is full of advertisments too. If you think there is no unique or special content on the site, that's something different entirely, but the edit you made earlier deleted 5 or 6 sites with no explanation other than "cleanup". Multiple editors have kept an eye on this article for a long time though, so you might try being respectful of their judgment regarding these links as well. Clearly someone saw a reason for it to be listed, and other editors saw reason for it to continue to be listed, because it's been here a long time. If you do remove the link, include your reasoning, or better yet, discuss it on the talk page before making a major change like deleting 90% of the external links section. Rray 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have discussed this first. Although the huge amount of spam that is on[REDACTED] causes a lot of editors to delete external links without going through the process.There's a difference between CNN and a smalltime gambling affiliate. What do you think of the site/landing page?Pascal.mr 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked over the current "External Links" and all of them appear to offer original content that would be useful to someone wanting more info that this article has. They have advertising but it's not in your face and the sites are not built for the sole purpose of serving ads. Obviously, as with any gambling articles, we need to be vigilant, but the current 5 or 6 links look like they're worth keeping. The presence or absence of original and useful content should be the basis for a decision.

I did, however, remove a gratuitous reference from within the article to an external site. I won't mention the site name, but it appeared to be just for ads, and it did not appear to have original content. Simishag 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please have a second look at http://www.blackjacktactics.com/ The ads are "in your face" 3 huge ads that cover most of the page. The content in this site is not unique in anyway, there are 1,000's of sites with similar content on the internet. What will be your decision when a similar site posts itself? Pascal.mr 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I found the article on the MIT Blackjack Team and the glossary of terms to be useful. I agree that they are not "original"; the information is certainly available in other places. But that alone isn't the point.

The site provides a collection of this common information in an easy to use format without, IMHO, unreasonable amounts of advertising; the ads aren't any bigger than ads on Yahoo or CNN or whatever. In fact, I'd argue that CNN is worse, since every time I go there, I get a ton of blocked popups. I think your claims of "in your face" and "most of the page" are hyperbole.

If you can find a site that provides all this info without ads, feel free to add it in. You say there are "thousands" of similar sites, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find one that's more acceptable to you. Simishag 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick list of possible sites to add blackjackinfo.com, wizardofodds.com/blackjack freeblackjacktips.com, and this is just from running google searches for 2 minutes. Are they all valid sites? Why shouldn't they be on this article? Trust me there are 1000's more. I don't think Misplaced Pages is the appropriate place for such sites.Pascal.mr 05:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't any encyclopedia article about blackjack not link to the the most in depth blackjack content on the Internet? The point obviously is you just don't like these online gambling sites, which is fine for you personally, but should keep you from choosing to edit such articles. This is an encyclopedia. 2005 09:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop writing irrelevant and misleading personal notes about me having some sort of a vendetta against online gambling sites. It only damages your credibility. Blaming someone of being subjective is easy when you don't need to prove it. I could have used the same argument (with better logical explanation about your motivation) but I don't...As you can see I've been around many topics in Misplaced Pages and my only concern is that it is kept clean. (an apology will be in place, although I don't expect one).

Back to your point you are saying that if I was to write an in depth site about let's say 888.com, it will be posted in Misplaced Pages? The consequences of that would be hordes of affiliate websites flooding that page. Misplaced Pages would be a mess and I know we all don't want that. Pascal.mr 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there were an in-depth content site on the Internet about 888, then of course it would be appropriate to post in the article about 888. If there were an incredibly detailed website about Berkshire Hathaway or Wal-mart, then that website would be appropriately listed in the Berkshire Hathaway or Wal-mart article too. Saying that the Misplaced Pages would be flooded with affiliate sites is a logical fallacy called "slippery slope", and the assumption is that you couldn't trust the community to make a distinction between good quality, helpful content, and spam.

By your line of reasoning, any website written about a company wouldn't qualify for inclusion here because it might lead to spammers adding their sites. That kind of reasoning just doesn't make sense. Rray 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Back to your point you are saying that if I was to write an in depth site about let's say 888.com, it will be posted in Misplaced Pages?" Of course it could, quite obviously. Once again, this is an encyclopedia, not something to promote your prejudices. We'll have articles on the Easter Bunny and Charles Manson, and link to significant web resources that cover the topic in more detail than an article can... even if you don't like the topic for some unstated reason. Encyclopedias, including this one, are not a "mess" because they cover topics encyclopedically. 2005 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this does make sense. Just tell me this, who decides which links are appropriate and which are not? If an affiliate ads a link and claims it involves a unique content anyone can say it is or it isn't. How is a final decision made?Pascal.mr 08:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Decisions are made by editors, generally by consensus. Spammers have the ability to add worthless links, but other editors can (and will on sight) remove them. Usually this works just fine, in some cases huge pissing matches ensue. Generally though a preponderance of editors come to the right conclusion. I do think though you need to reconsider your attitude on this. There is nothing wrong with linking to quality websites that happen to be affiliates of something. At same time, sites that add nothing to the article should never be linked to (unless they are the official site of the subject of the article.) WP:EL is the external links guideline. In general it approves linking to quality resources that go over and above articles, while prohibiting links to copied/stolen/useless/trivial/trite/etc sites. 2005 09:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest a really usefull blackjack link: online-casinos.com/blackjack/

Raudabaugh

I've been trying to find confirmation that Raudabaugh is the 2007 inductee to the Blackjack Hall of Fame, but haven't been able to find any sources on the web, even in blogs and message boards. Am I misspelling the name, or can someone else confirm this information? If not, I recommend we pull the name off the list. --Elonka 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the name was added by an anon, 24.106.36.35 (talk · contribs) in May. Based on their contribs, this is almost certainly vandalism, and I'm embarrassed for Misplaced Pages that we missed it for as long as we did.  :/ I'm pulling it. --Elonka 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Split: Blackjack Hall of Fame

Pardon the blackjack pun, but I recommend that we "split" the "Blackjack Hall of Fame" section out to its own article, per Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Anyone else got an opinion on this? --Elonka 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. 2005 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Rray 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.  :) --Elonka 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Realize that the BJ Hall of Fame is simply a self-promoting group that votes for its own members and is affiliated with a casino. Objective3000 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Rray 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Only that it is not as claimed an objective or agreed upon "public" vote. Another casino consultant could set up a "BJ Super Hall of Fame" and vote for his friends. I don't pretend to understand the criteria used in creating Wiki articles. Just thought I'd add a point that might be misunderstood. Objective3000 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll find http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability useful probably. I did some cleaning up of the article Blackjack Hall of Fame today because there was some ad-speak and unencyclopedic stuff going on, but feel free to have a look at it too. Rray 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your changes make sense. But there really isn't a public vote. I didn't bother to return my ballot last year since we all new in advance who was selected to win the "election.":-) Objective3000 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Error in chapter on Shuffle Tracking

The entry for Blackjack currently contains the following statement, the bold part of which is not correct: "Card tracking is restricted when the casino uses a half-cut, or what is known inside houses as 'The Big C'. This is when the shoe is cut halfway, meaning that only half of the shoe will be played, so on an 8-deck shoe, only 4 decks will be played and thereafter shuffled. As card tracking relies on the principles of elimination, the half-cut makes it virtually impossible to eliminate or predict the remaining cards". The Gnome 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once