Talk:Gambling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gambling trail website

I have once again removed the link to the gambling trail directory: 1) It is filled with links using referrals 2) it is far from comprehensive. User:Trial Guide: you are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Rasmus (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edit to this page. You did not post your reasons for reverting it on this discussion forum. You have not attempted to gain a clear consensus that it needs to be reverted. You are in violation of the 3RR rule by using group intimidation (using sockpuppets) by reverting edits without consensus discussion on this board. Please post your discussion topics here before reverting my edits again.

Other wikipedia rules that support my edit.

Wikipedia Rules:

1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki! 2. Ignore all rules, including this one. OK to add Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

I am a contributing editor of the Wikipedia Open Source Project. I am attempting to add one valuable resource under one topic. I am adding a gambling directory in a category that does not have one. Wikipedia Rules: (OK to add: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

If it is deemed that the nuetral information that I add is "spam" or "commercial" in nature. Then I will contribute in another way. I will remove blatant commercial links from other categories. Wikipedia Rules: 1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki! 2. Ignore all rules, including this one.

For example, the category online casino has a section for Blacklisted Casinos. Having this section that only points to commercial sites, without offering an area for white listed casinos, does not convey a NPOV (rule #3). Another example is the category Bet Exchanges. This category is loaded with mostly commercial links to various Bet Exchanges.

If the one relevent nuetral link that I am trying to add in the category "gambling" is considered spam or commercial in nature. I feel it is my duty to remove other spam or commercial links as a contributing wikipedia editor.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 17:44, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)

You have violated the WP:3RR rule by reverting more than three times on this article under this user name alone. (A dozen other reverts by you are under IP 24.88.58.171 over the past two days.) If you continue to advertise your website you will be blocked from editing. Not a single user has indicated support for your addition and many have reverted or opposed your advertisement. Please do not continue. - Tεxτurε 19:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not modify other user's comments. I have restored my comment to where I entered it. Open source indicates community consensus and does not include one user pushing their opinion over the consensus. You are attempting to overrule the community through brute force. This is not what Open source is about. Please stop attempting to force your view on the rest of the community. - Tεxτurε 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

1) Consensus is clear from the edit history [1]: at least 6 different users have removed your link. 2) You might look up the meaning of sockpuppets. It would be pretty impressive for me to maintain 6 different identities, one of which is on the Board of Trustees. Even assuming that, it is no defense against the 3RR that the other party have been reverting, too. 3) Once it was clear that your edit encountered opposition, since several persons reverted it, it was your responsibility to start the discussion. Especially since Angela warned you early on that your link was viewed as spam [2]

If you want to be welcomed as a contributing editor to Wikipedia -- and this is a great community with many extremely gifted persons -- consider abandoning this uphill battle for one single link. The main focus of our articles is the text itself. Try to improve an article by adding some real content, not just adding or removing external links. I actually agree with you that many articles have too many external links. But until you show that you aren't just trying to make a point (read WP:Point) you are certain to by reverted. Good luck! Rasmus (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Texture,

I edited the article. My edit is the one being reverted. It is not being reverted due to a consensus after a discussion on this board. It is being reverted by people who have never visted the link that it leads to, and without discussion. The tactics being used are clearly an attempt to use sockpuppets, a clear violation of the 3RR rule.

I am not the one trying to force my will. You and your sockpuppets are. I think I know why too. This is taken from your member page.

"This Wikipedia page is considered semi-tractor-trailer-policy. Semi-tractor-trailer-policy pages are an attempt to jack-knife any real policies and present herculean efforts in codification to questionable purpose. These long-standing unwritten unapproved unthought unrules have widespread support since no actual vote ever becomes real. They should be treated as law, unless they do not support your flame war."

This sounds like someone who is trying to impose their will, inspite of any guidelines or rules that may be written or imposed. This sounds like someone who places the highest emphasis on rule #2. Ignore all rules.

My edit is relevant, and pertinent to the article I posted it in. I am simply adding two words, gambling directory, with a link that leads to a gambling directory in an article written about gambling, that does not have a link to a gambling directory.

This is clearly OK to Add. Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). Which mine is.

Please describe for me why you think my link gambling directory, which leads to an open directory that anyone can post their gambling related site in, is SPAM or commercial in nature, while you allow the various links I mentioned in my last message. I do not understand why my edit is reverted so quickly while other blatently obviously commercial links can stay. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If mine can't stay, then all commercial links are subject to editorial review. If those links can stay, mine is a perfectly relevant and proper edit to this article.

Have you even visited the link I posted? What consensus was taken to remove the link I added? There have been exactly two visitors from wikipedia.org this entire month, one of which was me testing the link. So, what consensus was taken to determine that the link I added should be removed? Please stop reverting my edit to this page. Please post your discussion topics here before reverting my edits again.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 18:18, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Trail Guide, why is this gambling link your only edit of interest? Do you have no other productive edits to make?

I have visited your link. Wikipedia is not a link directory.

Who am I a sockpuppet of? Angela? I'm not on the board. Ramsus? I am not married to his beautiful wife, Christina. Am I one of the many other users who showed their disagreement with your link by removing it? Which ones? (I haven't edited all weekend - weather was too nice.)

Are you really taking a "semi-tractor-trailer" policy statement on my user page as a sign of imposing my will? You have no humor. Don't visit anyone else's user page or you could be in for a shock. - Tεxτurε 20:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

The use of multiple identites to revert an edit multiple times, to avoid violation of the 3RR rule is sockpuppetry. It does not matter if it is one individual or many users if the manner in which the identies are used is consistent with attempts to avoid wikipedia rules.

As far as making a point, are you sure you are not the one who has taking my little two word edit to a page, and made it a personal vendetta for some unknown reason. "System administrators should not apply rules in a vindictive or excessive fashion in order to demonstrate the potential for abuse."

Here is how it should have gone down.

I make an edit. Someone reverts it. I make the edit again. The person(s) who wants to revert the edit should have opened a discussion before reverting it again. The edit should have remained, until an appropriate discussion was made, and a consensus was achieved. This is not how it happened. Reverting an edit more than a dozen times without a discussion is a clear violation of the 3RR rule.

What actually happened was that an edit was made, and continuously reverted, by a group of intimidating people, who tried to impose their will, without discussion. No meaningful review of the additon to the article was made by any of the group members. And, no concensus was even attempted to be made, nor a discussion attempted to be opened.

Intimidating, poorly supported, arguments were made to justify the violation of the 3RR rule. I am not sure why this small little edit, on one single page of the Wikipedia Open Source Project was targetted for such opposition. But, I feel some immature people have taking some sort of power trip thinking that they have "supreme rule" when it comes to Wikipedia.

If there is something about the rules that you do not like, you should petition to have the rules changed. My edit to this topic is relevant, and proper. It is not unlike other External links displayed throughout Wikipedia, and this article specifically.

If my edit is not allowed, and if anyone can simply revert an edit, without discussion, then I feel a responsibility to remove other commercial links. There is a double standard being applied, and that is not just making a point. I am looking for what the standard is. There should be a single standard.

If that standard says my edit is not allowed, then that standard should be applied to all. If that standard says such links are allowed in the External Link section of an article, then my edit should be allowed.

I respectfully ask that my edit be left in place. I request that you do not continue to violate the 3RR rule. I request that a meaningful discussion take place, and that a true concensus be attained before my edit is reverted again. The standard needs to be established, and then enforced so Wikipedians know exactly what the standard is.

If you find it necessary to remove my edit, I respectfully request that all of the other commercial or SPAM links be removed from this same article. Until my edit is accepted, or the other commercial links are removed, users will continue to be confused about what edits are acceptible. I will continue to strive to attain one single standard, that applies to all Wikipedians.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 19:19, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to look up Sock puppet and Consensus.

If you choose to delete other links just because your own link here was deleted this is a violation of WP:POINT.

Commercial links are allowed but only if the community believes they are more than just advertisements for a single user's site. You obviously feel strongly since this is your only edit and you defend it against all rules and consensus. Please don't use this article to advertise your link website.

What other commercial links do you think follow this guidance? What article has a link that is both not contributing to the article and not supported by the community? If you find a link that is purely for advertising purposes I agree with you that it should be removed. Do you have an example? (Bear in mind WP:POINT and don't just find one for spite. I'm looking for a real example that needs removal.) - Tεxτurε 21:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

All of the links, except the .org link, that are found in the External Links Section are commercial in nature.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 19:19, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Which one?

• Gaming Studies Research Center - at University of Nevada, Las Vegas
  • University of Nevada Research Center? How is that commercial?
• DictionaryOfGambling.com
  • "Dictionary"? Sounds like a useful link.
• United States Gambling Laws
  • "U.S. Gambling Laws"? Sounds like a review of U.S. laws and very relevant.
• Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno
  • University of Nevada again. A rather detailed research study. Do you dislike university sites?
• Wizard of Odds - game descriptions, etiquette, and odds
  • A description of games, odds, and how they work sounds very relevant to a general gambling article. Is it just for promotion of a commercial online gambling site? What is your objection?
• Are slot machines honest ?, an article from the "American Casino Guide" about slot machine fraud and the functioning of the commissions charges with checking them.
  • An article about commissions dealing with slot machines? Sounds very relevant.

Which are you objecting to? - Tεxτurε 21:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia daily withstands hundreds of attempts by commercial sites to exploit the open nature of Wikipedia to promote themselves. Thus obvious commercial sites are removed without much comment. When I first saw your link, I checked it (by copy-pasting the link to the address bar of my browser. I don't want spammers to think they get traffic by spamming Wikipedia), and noticed that all the link was obviously commercial and contained little relevant information about the subject. You really ought to be able to see the difference between your site and an relevant link like [3]. As for the 3RR you seem to be misunderstanding something. You add the site, I remove it by reverting, you readd it again - now you revert. So even though I made the first revert, once you have added it again 4 times you have violated the 3RR. You are now up to around 17 reverts in the last 40 hours and it is a wonder you haven't been blocked yet. That Texture and Ahorsteimer have each made 4 reverts does not allow you to violate the rule; in fact most people would excuse them due to defending against link spam.

Rasmus (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll happily take what punishment is due me if the community feels I did wrong. - Tεxτurε 22:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Are you serious?

Which one?

Gaming Studies Research Center - at University of Nevada, Las Vegas

• • University of Nevada Research Center? How is that commercial?

If you visit the link, it is a subdomain of UNLV. Any IT student can create a subdomain, and fill it with commercial advertisments, which it appears is exactly what has happened here. Furthermore, higher education facilities are commercial in nature.

DictionaryOfGambling.com

• • "Dictionary"? Sounds like a useful link.

This is a very tastefully done site, and does not appear to be advertising driven. This is a beautiful site, however, it is a .com domain, therefore commercial in nature, and the link is only there to promote this individual's site. All of the terms found here should be able to be found in the Wiktionary, which would be much more appropriate than a post here. If the terms cannot be found in the Wiktionary, the editor should post them there, and not place a commercial link here.

United States Gambling Laws

• • "U.S. Gambling Laws"? Sounds like a review of U.S. laws and very relevant.

Yes, it does sound that way. But you will also find that this .com domain has commercial links. It is simply a gambling portal, designed from a lawyer's perspective. An individual's site, that is clearly inappropriate in this article.

Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno

• • University of Nevada again. A rather detailed research study. Do you dislike university sites?

Same response as the other .edu site. Higher learning institutions are commercial. This site also displays commercial advertisments. I object.

Wizard of Odds - game descriptions, etiquette, and odds

• • A description of games, odds, and how they work sounds very relevant to a general gambling article. Is it just for promotion of a commercial online gambling site? What is your objection?

This is a joke question right? What is my objection? This is the most blatant of all commercial sites posted in this article. This site is completely driven by commercial interests. I will agree that the site is tastefully done, and contains great content. However, it cannot be disputed that this is a commercial site, and the link promote's the site of one individual, and that the site is highly commercial in nature. Furthermore, this link is displayed in several different Wikipedia articles in an inappropriate way.

Are slot machines honest ?, an article from the "American Casino Guide" about slot machine fraud and the functioning of the commissions charges with checking them.

• • An article about commissions dealing with slot machines? Sounds very relevant.

Who cares how it sounds? Obviously someone else agrees that this is a commercial site. This link has been removed in the last undiscussed, unconsensus revert, unauthorized edit revert.

Finally, I note that the edit I made adding gambling directory has been replaced by another Gambling Directory. Again, without discussion, or concensus, but apparently that is how it works here. But whoever added these two Gambling Directories is violating the Wikipedia rules in another way too.

Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

There should not be two directories listed here. If it is the consensus of Wikipedians that one of these directories should replace the one I included here (http : // www . gamblingtrail . com / directory), then it should be discussed, and then implemented. Not, implemented, then discussed. I added a gambling directory, where there was none.

If that is the consensus, then only one directory should replace mine. If two are comparable, then preference must be given to the open one. There is no basis for adding the Yahoo directory.

--Trail Guide 23:25, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)

___________________________________

Please do not act like a meaningful discussion takes place surrounding every edit and revert. I have not edited or reverted this article in over 24 hours. I have patiently waited for anyone to respond to the issues I raised. I find it amusing that the "discussion" has halted since I stopped reverting, awaiting further discussion. However, as long as I edit or revert, the discussion remains open for bashing and flaming.

The last revert in the history section said something about "not acting in response to a troll's agenda." Quite humorous.

It is evident that this entire project is being handled by immature people. Perhaps that is the problem at Wikipedia, a lack of maturity.

If you disagree with someone's edit, revert it continuously. If you need to make multiple reversions, start flaming them in the history section of the article as you revert again. If the 3RR rule appears to be violated, flame them more publicly in the discussion area of the article. But, by no means attempt to open a meaningful discussion, and ascertain what the community consensus is. Do not attempt to understand all perspectives of the argument. Do not keep an open mind. Stick to your guns. Be bold. Intimidate and bully your point of view. Then, assume since you made such a compelling argument, that everyone must agree with you, and go ahead and make you reverts or edits again. After all, your wordsmith skills are unmatched by anyone in these discussions, so you must be right, and everyone must agree.

It is equally evident that discussion is not the goal. Consensus is not the goal. Individuals imposing their will is common practice. The goal is to be the biggest, baddest, fastest editor. Bullying tactics, sockpuppetry, and intimidation is the way to edit an article.

For the sake of maturity I will wait another 24 hours for a response in this discussion forum. If no discussion takes place, I will feel compelled to proceed with edits and reverts without discussion. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Apparently I was right in the beginning, when the two most important rules of Wikipedia are:

• 1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki!
• 2. Ignore all rules, including this one.

So maybe we can start with an easy question. How many directories should be included in an article, and should open directories or commercial directories be given preference? --Trail Guide 07:58, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. You obviously are interested in increasing your website's pagerank and readership, not in contributing to wikipedia. The "Be bold" policy is not intended for spambots, it's for people who feel an article could be improved but hesitate to touch it. Flammifer 08:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please add meaningful discussion to this topic. Do not continue the flame war. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Here are the facts.

I added a gambling directory, where there was none. A clearly proper addition per Wikipedia rules.

It was continuously reverted, without discussion or concensus. A clear violation of Wikipedia rules.

The only discussion that took place was flaming and intimidation.

There has never been a meaningful discussion of this topic.

The gambling directory that I added was replaced with two different directories. A clear improper addition per Wikipedia rules.

I have not made any article edits or reversions since this discussion was attempted to be opened. I am trying to ascertain what the community consensus is, as to which gambling directory should be included.

Per Wikipedia rules only one should be included. I am not even inquiring about the gambling directory I posted here. I am asking a quite simple question. Let me break it down for you to the lowest common denominator. Let's see if you can stay focused long enough to answer it.

There are two directories currently posted in this article. Forget about the third gambling directory which I posted. Only focus on the two that are currently posted in the article.

The Wikipedia rule states, "Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included."

The question is, of the two that are there, which one should stay?

I contend that the DMOZ listing is an open directory, and should be given preference. This directory feeds the directories of most of the major online directories, and is human edited for appropriate sites in each category.

On the other hand, the Yahoo Directory is a paid-inclusion directory, and therefore commercial in nature. While Yahoo is not owned by an individual, it is a publicly traded company with many stockholders that are looking for commercial profit. Yahoo as a whole, and the Yahoo directory are clearly a commercial site.

In my opinion, the Yahoo Directory should be removed, and the DMOZ directory should be the one that remains.

Please note, that the gambling directory that I added is not listed in either of these directories. I have no commercial interest in the choice that is made here. Furthermore, I do not believe Wikipedia is, or ever will be, one of the Internet's most desired sources of eager prospects. Which makes your claim, of some marketing or commercial interest at stake, absolutely ludicrous.

The directories that are currently listed were both added simply to have a sound basis to remove the one I added. I could care less. If they add more to the article than I added, then I am open to discuss it.

Please try to stay focused. The question is, which one of the two directories that are currently listed should stay? I have made my argument. Let's achieve a consensus, and make the apporpriate edit. Isn't that easy enough? --Trail Guide 09:35, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear. Nobody thinks your link belongs here. Do you really care about the Yahoo link ? Flammifer 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your question should read, "Do I care about Wikipedia." To that extent, yes. I do care about the Yahoo link.

I repeat, the Wikipedia rule states, "Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included."

Please stop discusing the link I added. I am not talking about that. It has been removed, and I have not attempted to replace it. Please, do your best to stay focused, and on topic. --Trail Guide 10:07, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)

I think I speak for most of us, when I say that few of us has much patience left with you. You have not shown any interest in improving Wikipedia by concentrating on anything except these few external links. You have also reinstated the links on the talk-page, which were obvious spam intended to improve your pagerank by leaching on Wikipedias good reputation. The consensus at the moment seems to be that both DMOZ and the Yahoo directories should stay, regardless of the guideline on the external links page. Rasmus (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Rasmus,

I respect your opinion, and appreciate your attempts to participate in an open discussion about this topic. Please do not assume you speak for "most of us". Please only represent your thoughts, and allow others to speak for themselves. This is an open discussion forum, that allows anyone to speak for themselves. There is no need for you to speak for anyone other than yourself.

Your opinion of why I am changing my original posts to their original format is irrelevent. regardless of how you feel about it, or what you think is obvious. You are wrong, and it is your POV.

From my POV I find it reprehensible that in the open discussion forum, of an open source project, an individual's comments can be edited by others, and thus the entire context of his message can be altered.

From my POV, a simple two word addition was made to this article. It was continuously reverted without an open discussion or a consensus achieved. When a discussion was opened, the comments made in the discussion by one side of the arugument, are altered by the proponents of the other side of the argument. Changing the context of the comments. I have not altered any of your comments, so I ask that you please refrain from altering mine. This is an appropriate forum for me to openly discuss, and reference materials, to support my discussion.

Finally, exactly how do you arrive at the fact that consensus is to keep the Yahoo link? There has been no consensus. As a matter of fact, I am the only one who put an argument forward on this subject. It seems the me the current vote stands at 1-0 for removing the Yahoo link. If you have a point to make regarding why both should remain, please elaborate. However, please do not act all powerful, and just assume your opinion is the consensus, and mine is not valid. To me, it actually appears that not one single solitary soul can come up with a valid opposing arugment. Therefore, consensus would be to get rid of the Yahoo link. --Trail Guide 20:30, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)

There has been one concensus achieved on this discussion so far. There has still not been anyone that will discuss why two directories are listed on this page, one of which is completely commercial. But, it does seem that one consensus has been achieved.

It is unacceptible to change the comments made by another user. I will ask again that you stop editing my comments on this open discussion page, so that my comments may be taking in proper context. As this timeline grows, historians will always be able to learn who the culprits are. They caan easily check the history of any page to determine who has been making continuous edits without participating in the open discussion. Keep up the good work. This only adds to the stellar reputation of Wikipedia.

Here are some other comments I found about Wikipedias wonderful reputation.

August 26, 2005 "Wikipedia's owner is politically biased, as is his Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales is the conservative millionaire who funds Wikipedia, who owns its servers, and while he has expanded control slightly as Wikipedia has grown larger to his lieutenants, he still has a large amount of control over everything. He has said publicly that he runs the site according to the philosophy of Ludwig von Mises. He has appointed like-minded lieutenants to powerful positions on Wikipedia - on the Arbitration Committee Fred Bauder was appointed by him long ago, and JayJG more recently (JayJG's appointment ignoring the last election).

Anyhow, it's no wonder that on Wikipedia, USSR troops shooting Polish military officers (at Katyn) is called a "massacre" while American troops shooting Korean civilians (at No Gun Ri) is called an "incident". Or innumerable examples of a double standard like that. Wikipedia is fine for articles on the hard sciences and the like, but for topics such as history, if you're interested in a Howard Zinn like "people's history", or even something that doesn't sound like world history according to the editorial board of the National Review, I suggest other wiki encyclopedias like Democratic Underground's Demopedia, Daily Kos's Dkosopedia, or perhaps even a more radical one like Anarchopedia or Red Wiki. They don't yet have the momentum of Wikipedia, but I am certain that eventually they will - in the early days of the Internet there was only one political newsgroup and mailing list, nowadays there are many moderated political newsgroups and mailing lists. So it will be with wiki encyclopedias.

July 18, 2005 "Wikipedia is BRUTAL. While you may be able to find some worthwile info on generic issues like "baseball". Wikipedia is mainly populated by a bunch of 20 year old leftwing, propeller head, academic elites attempting to rewrite history."

May 16, 2005 "Wikipedia allows propaganda on obscure subjects. Whereas Wikipedia's editing procedures will generate accurate articles on topics of wide or non-controversial interest, they also allow fanatical followers of obscure cults to advertise their obsessions without sufficient peer review to ensure the articles are accurate."

March 14, 2005 "Wikipedia Promotes Porn Websites. The public should be alerted to the fact that Wikipedia contains material unsuitable for young children. One example of this unsuitable material is their article on SuicideGirls ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuicideGirls ) which is an article that highly recommends this porn web site. Another objectional article is their one on BOMIS. Both of these articles include soft porn pictures. Jimbo Wales founder of both Bomis.com and Wikipedia is actually in the business of selling erotic images over the Internet. In other words, Wikipedia was in fact founded by somebody in the sex business. The last thing that any encyclopedia should be doing is recommending porn web sites when their primary users are obviously children. There is actually a lot of other adult material on Wikipedia, such as articles on porn stars, perverse activities, and of course explicit information on sex education. Hence, Wikipedia is clearly an irresponsible member of the web community that should be blocked by all responsible parents."

December 30, 2004 "Wikipedia is run by a pornographer. Just look up BOMIS at Wikipedia. It tells you a sex site finances Wiki. Wiki is evil."

November 11, 2004 "Why is this site so highly rate? Because Wikipedia is crawling with thousands of editors addicted to writing grabage articles like the one they have on tampons. Their editors are the people clicking on most of their links. The public knows better and looks elsewhere."

I'm sorry. Is this the reputation you suspect me of trying to hijack? Please do not edit my comments anymore. You will only further damage Wikipedias reputation.

Trail Guide 19:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing link spam from your comments seems perfectly normal. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Feel free to go away if you don't feel you can contribute to articles. Flammifer 02:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For the historians Flammifer has decided not only to alter my comments to change their context. He has actually now decide to actually change the words. It is stunning the liberties people will take when they have the ability to appoint themselves absolute power. Simply amazing. I wonder how old Flammifer is. My guess is about 15. But I can only base my judgement on how he is acting.

Trail Guide 07:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think historians will be much interested in this page. If you feel the context of your comments is being violated by the removal of the external links, you will have to find another way to communicate it. No Wikipedians tolerate linkspam and independent of your claims this has the effect of linkspam. A suggestion is to write (http : // www . gamblingtrail . com / directory), which will not be picked up by search engines. Also, you might want to refrain from using Ad hominem attacks. Nobody here is impressed by those. Rasmus (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Spam linking

Trail Guide has now begun changing others comments to insert the spam link to his website. This is vandalism and if it continues the user can be blocked from editing. (I'm beginning to believe that the person is paid by the link. Is this a Google bomb?) - Tεxτurε 20:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

---

This is ridiculous. I am not altering anyone else's comments. To the contrary, other users are altering my comments, and I agree, this is abhorant behavior. I will continue to revert my comments to their original form, so that they may be taken in proper context.

I will not, and have not, altered anyone's comments but my own. I request that I be given the same respect. Please stop altering my comments in this open discussion forum.

Can we keep this discussion on topic. Does anyone have a valid argument as to why there should be two directories listed in this article. One of which is a commercial directory, that only accepts paid inclusion? Trail Guide

You are not editing in good faith, and unfortunately that renders all your comments nothing but an attempt to waste other people's time, not generate discussion, on topic or not. If others editing in good faith were to raise an issue, then discussion could ensue. I'd suggest you stop now before you harm the reputation of your website any further. 2005 01:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that I made one edit to this article. It has been reverted. I do not dispute that. A better directory has been added. In good faith, I do not agree with the Yahoo link being added. It is a commercial directory of only paid inclusion sites. The DMOZ directory is sufficient for this article. It is an open directory that serves many popular online directories. It is human edited, and open. Only one directory should be included in this article. It should not be the one I added, and it should not be the Yahoo one. It should be the DMOZ one. Why is this so hard?

Trail Guide 01:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Rulers of Articles

What I find most interesting about the timeline shown in this discussion is what historians can learn about Wikipedia. They can learn that there are very few people interested in an open discussion about the aticles in Wikipedia. They will learn there are many more, so called "editors", that have taken the open source nature of Wikipedia, to appoint themselves as "Supreme Rulers of Articles."

When a discussion is opened it is met with name calling, flaming, and accusations. The Supreme Rulers of Articles, make executive revisions without discussion or consensus. They force their will upon all users, and fight to outlast any potential edits that they do not agree with. They guard their article with unrelenting brute force.

The historians will also learn that a simple discussion can remain opened for several days, while only one person makes any valid argument. A simple "which directory should stay" question, will not be addressed by any of the so called Supreme Rulers of Articles. These Supreme Rulers of Articles will continue with their agenda, no matter how absurd it may appear, all while avoiding the simple question that the discussion surrounds.

They will also learn that many attempts can be made to keep the discussion on topic, and many attempts can be made to attain a consensus. But, that all of these attempts will be met with resistance by the Supreme Rulers of Articles. They will learn that the Supreme Rulers of Articles will shift the focus of the discussion to impose their agenda, no matter what.

They will also learn that the Supreme Rulers of Articles will even alter comments made by users in an open dicussion forum, to further force their agenda. If they feel threatened by an opposing voice, the Supreme Rulers of Articles will simply change the context of that voice.

Thus is Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. Trail Guide 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Most Recent Discussions Archived in less than two weeks?

It is funny how the most recent topics discussed have been Archived in less than two weeks. That must be the work of the Supreme Rulers of Articles. For the most recent discussion regarding this article, or for details regarding how you will be treated if you attempt to edit this article, read the Archive of this discussion. You will learn what happens if you attempt a minor edit by adding two simple words like, "Gambling Directory. Trail Guide 08:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Types of Games

Should we separate multi-player games? Poker is beatable, but it isn't really a casino game in that you are not playing the house. It's a multiplayer game, like bingo or backgammon -- FeldBum 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a casino game in the sense that it is offered in a casino. I don't think the Wikipedia has a definition of "casino games" as "games played against the house". That's not to say we couldn't define them that way, but it would require a lot of subtle changes on lots of articles. POker is clearly a beatable game played in casinos so I'd say leaving it how it is makes sense to me. 2005 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Horse Racing Content

I think the info here on horse racing could use some expansion. I'm trying to learn about it but I have several questions:

• What is the "morning line"?
• How do you find out odds of place and show bets?
• Let's say I place a bet the day before the race. Are the payouts according to the odds I'm given then or the odds just before the race?
• Roughly, how are exacta and other bet payouts calculated?
• From what I've seen I think the standard way to report results is to base it on a $2 bet. Is this true? E.g. the published payout from today's Preakness for an exacta is $85.80, but it doesn't say how much you would have had to bet to win that.
• What is "boxing" of a bet?

It seems like maybe horse racing should have its own article. --Duozmo 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the table of contents on the right?

Oh I think I see, it's because the intro is so long. OK I will rephrase, "Why is the intro so long?". That I don't see. It seems to me (an innocent bystander) that the intro should stop in the 4th line at "... Material goods" and the rest should be in a new first section.I hope you dont object to this comment but, trust me, this article looks a mess when you stumble across it as I haveAbtract 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

I see you (2005 reverted my more elegant and therefore more user friendly layout. Could you explain why? Abtract 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mess up the page again. Its not funny. Leave the user friendly layout alone plaese. 2005 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain why my suggested layout is not better? Abtract 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from adding useless whitespace and mucking up a user-friendly and much more attractive design. C'mon. And just a suggestion, its nice for you to start contributing to the encyclopedia, but making random changes to the high profile, especially when they aren't user friendly, is not a good idea from a cooperation standpoint. Make use of talk pages, and then state YOUR case for changing what a dozen editors have contributed to. The burden is on you to justify changes, not the other way around. 2005 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had. The way it is right now looks peculiar and the eye is not led to the contents list. When I first looked at this article I thought my laptop was playing up and had somehow merged two parts of the article and sort of jammed the contents in on the right. All this because the intro is far too long. It surely is no accident that almost all articles have the contents on the left following a relatively short intro. I fully realise that this is entirely my opinion but I did give 2 days for a response to my statement that the article looks a mess as it now is. If I think this then maybe other visitors to the article feel the same. Would it not be a good idea to let me make the change and ask (here?) views from others who watch this article? Or do you own the article? Abtract 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Abtract's proposed change adds a lot of useless whitespace to the article, and it's much better with its current format. Lots of websites and web-pages use a right-justified menu of text links, so I don't think it looks peculiar or is user-unfriendly in any way. Rray 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave it alone please. Saying it looks a mess to you was not helpful. It looks much better the way it is, and you haven't made an argument why adding unfreindly whitespace makes any sense, so perhaps we can move on. 2005 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK OK I don't want to argue interminably. I am intrigued to know which other wiki articles have the contents on the right alongside a long intro in this fashion. If either of you could suggest a couple of good examples I would be interested to view them. Once I become convinced, I will naturally become a proponent of this method of eliminating whitespace from wiki and edit contents to the right wherever I can. Thanks, I presume you are both active in some sort of project to eliminate useless whitespace, maybe I could join you?Abtract 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

I think there are two problems here: One is that moving the table of contents to the right is highly irregular. Almost all articles on Wikipedia place the TOC to the left. Second, the table of contents is too long. This indicates that some sections might be merged, or that excess information might be moved to daughter articles. I don't particularly like either Abstract's version or the current one. Is there not some template to make the TOC left justify and have the introductory text flow directly to the right of it? — Amcaja 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just change the word inside the tage from TOCright to TOCleft, and see what you think. 2005 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Yeah, that worked. It doesn't look much better. It would be better if there were a way to move the TOC down a paragraph or two but keep it left. But I still think the real problem is that the TOC is too long; in other words, sections should be joined or moved to daughter articles. But I guess it's not a huge problem in the grand scheme of things. Should someone decide to make a featured article candidacy with this article eventually, it will likely have to be changed, but until then . . . . — Amcaja 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to spruce the article up a bit with some images from Commons. There are others there, so feel free to mix and match. This also allows us to move the TOC to the left again. Hopefully all will be satisfied with this look. — Amcaja 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to get rid of all the extra white space that's been inserted between the heading of "Unbeatable Casino Games" and the list of games? I'm not really super-familiar with formatting issues at the Wikipedia yet, but it's one of the first things I noticed on my screen.Rray 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to remove whitespace. You can move photos that are set to the right immediately after a left entry. In other words, you don't have to start photos at the top of a section. 2005 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

'perceived'

i seriously doubt that the social consequences of gambling are 'percieved'. You would be hard pressed to find any argument in favour of the social BENEFITS of arbitrary redistribution of wealth which are outweighed by the consequences regardless of how minor you may believe them to be.

I am inclined to agree that the wording as is indicates that the social costs are merely perceived and therefore not real; there will be a better form of words if we think on it. Abtract 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

I've had a go at improving it. Abtract 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

The existing language is fine. A weasel word like "can" adds nothing but a shot of pov, and also what is "uncontrolled gambling" supposed to mean? 2005 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very clear that gambling is addictive to some people and that it can bring social harm (to families, friends, business partners etc). This is particularly so when it is not controlled (or uncontrolled)by the individual or by the state. This is not a POV it is fact as surely you accept.Using the word perceived on the other hand implies that these social costs are imagined by some people rather than being real - this is s POV that flies in the face of the facts. My edit (sparked off by the tag someone else put on that you removed peremptorily) attempts to address the facts and to correct a slight imbalance in the way it was previously worded. Please consider this carefully and build on my edit (which is no doubt not perfect) rather than simply reverting it. Abtract 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

It is very clear that gambling is not addictive to some people, so that comment says nothing. The addictiveness of it is covered by another article and referenced here in a section. Your use of "controlled" is confusing at best, and plain wrong if meant some ways. Gambling that is not controled by the state does not necessarily have to have negative effects. Gambling that is uncontrolled by a human is different, but you seem to be talking about the government. Government regulations about home poker games for example likely have absolutely no effect on how good or bad they are. It is certainly not a "fact" that government control lessens (or increases) social hardships. Your POV assertion is way off base. "Perceived" does not imply imaged in any way. That seems to be the problem, that you aren't understanding what perceived means... look it up on dictionary.com. In fact, it makes a stronger point that what you are suggesting. The social costs of problem gambling are far more perceptible than statistical. But that is a bit neither here nor there. I'll add your edit without the "uncontrolled" part. (To simplify it, government control seldom impacts the social costs.) That loses the point of perception, but it isn't all that important anyway. 2005 07:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an outside view: This whole section could use with some source citations. If there's an argument over the social effects of gambling (and there arguably should be), it's best to present both sides, backed up by references. To avoid weaseling, use specific individuals instead of "some people" or "many researchers" and the like. — Amcaja 12:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Social Costs/Politics

I think it would be good, somewhere, to have a discussion of the commentary on the social costs of gambling and the history of legalized gambling in the United States. I am sure that there would be disagreements and some difficulty in finding text that everyone agrees on, but if we stick to the principle that no one is expressing opinion, but we are merely reporting on the opinions expressed by others, then I think it can all be worked through. Here is a suggested (very rough) outline. Please feel free to correct me:

Gambling: The Social and Political Questions

1. Theories of why gambling is harmful

   A) Victimization of the weak and attendent ripple out problems
       1) embezzlement cases where embezzler was raising money to pay gambling debts or just to gamble                           some more;
        2) other crimes of desperation, committed by gamblers facing large losses;
        3) dependents of gamblers (the unfortunate children);

2. Defenses

    A) Small number of problem gamblers should not ruin everyone's fun
    B) Libertarian defense-none of government's business

3. History of illegal gambling and attempts at enforcement

    A) Numbers rackets
    B) Rooster fights
     C) Organized crime involvement;
     D) Sports bookies;

3. Legalized gambling in the United States:

   A) Nevada;
    B) Horse racing;
    C) Dog Racing;
    D) State Lotteries;
    E) Supreme court decision opening the door to Indian Casinos
    F) Indian Casinos
    G) Congressional Action
     H) Further states permitting Casinos
        (i) Atlantic City
         (ii) Detroit
         (iii) others

The POV theories on why something is or isn't harmful don't have a place here, and are best dealt with by a sentence or two as they are in the article. Most of the other things have other articles. It seems like you may be wanting to dump the kitchen sink in here. For example, bookmaking has its own article. This article should not do more than mention it and then refer to the other article. In general we should be trying to move content from this article to more specific articles. 2005 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact that those POV theories have been expressed by others in books and articles. Accordingly they absolutely have a place in Wikepdia, as the fact of their expression is of interest to many. I said these things should be "somewhere," so I was not saying that they should necessarily be in this article. I have now noticed the article on "gambling in the United States," which is good and addresses some of my concerns. I feel that this should be part of a disambiguation, however. I just do not think that one should have to finish the article on gambling to get to that link and that most people would just not think of searching for "gambling in the United States" as a separate article.

In general, however, although I agree that the various forms of gambling are of interest to many and certainly have a place here, I think that the history of how society has dealt with the question of to what extent gambling should be permitted and the observations of the behavior of gamblers and effects of gambling are of even greater interest to those wanting to understand our world. I believe these facts should be treated in a coherent manner, rather than being broken up between many different articles. I think that when someone searches for "gambling," they should quickly be presented with the possibility of exploring these facts.

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. POV theories are for books that present philosophies. This is an encyclopedia. 2005 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did, and I am at a complete loss. How on earth did you reach the conclusion that I am not approaching this from a neutral point of view??? I am genuinely curious. It seems to me that I have taken a completely neutral point of view.

If I may expand, it would be a bizarre error to confuse the neutral point of view requirement with a nonsensical requirement that no point of view be repeated in Wikipedia. Such a rule would entirely eviscerate the telling of history. "The American Civil war appears to have been started due to conflicting points of view, none of which can be repeated here due to the 'no points of view rule.'"

All I did was respond to your outline which proposes that POV be added to the article. It should not. I didn't say you had one point of view or another so I don't know where that came from. 2005 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested in any way that POV should be added to the article. A discussion of various POVs is what I proposed. This is fuly in comportment with Wiki policy. That is why I am puzzled by your comment.

you make some very good points Tesint which would be easier to read if you signed your comments with tildes. in support of your arguement i quote here directly from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

This suggests to me that not only may published pov be included here but that they should be included to give the reader the full and unbiased information about gambling provided of course it is presented in a balanced way. Abtract 08:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As the above quote should make clear, but apparently doesn't, creating blatantly POV topic sections like "Victimization of the weak and attendent ripple out problems" and "Small number of problem gamblers should not ruin everyone's fun" is inappropriate. Such structures are clearly to be avoided. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Biased topics lead to the other side of the issue facing "do you still beat your wife" statements. The article can address topics where there is different POV in society, but that isn't the issue. Weasel word "Some people say..." structures must be avoided. Finally, while this article is already long, it would be tens of thousands of words longer if it attempted to seriously address the wide variety of opinion on "gambling". That scope is for books, not articles. We are better served by sentences like the first under legal aspects. Even in the choosing of what societal POV is presented would be wildly arbitrary. This article can handle sentences, not multiple essays. Of course if someone who thinks the article needs something were to write several sentences or a paragraph, then others could respond to that. 2005 08:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dice control

Why is dice control not debatable? (I'm not being argumentative; I genuinely don't know and would like to be educated.) Flat Earth Society is "not debatable" because for every bozo astronomer who claims it to be so, I could point to literally 100 different sources of real astronomers who contradict. Is the same statement true for dice control? Has the physics community truly spoken as one that it isn't possible? If so, then reference to that fact should be in the craps and dice control article. But if not . . . then why is not debatable? (Again, not making any particular argument for it myself. I don't play craps and admit I truly wouldn't know, one way or another.) Mwelch 07:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles can mention crackpot theories, but we certainly should not lend credibility to anything that hasn't demonstrated any concrete evidence at all. It's not up to the physics community to "not prove" something. Craps is mathematically unbeatable. Anecdotes from scamsters doesn't change that. Absent the slightest proof, anti-mathematical assertions are not something to waste time on. The day someone has some evidence, a debate could begin. 2005 07:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps I'm not understanding the issue well enough. (And again, that's entirely possible because I don't play craps.) Certainly, there is no argument (I don't think) that craps is mathematically unbeatable if all six sides of each die truly have an equal chance of coming up. But, if I'm not mistaken, is not the whole theory behind dice control that you can throw the dice in such away that all six sides do NOT have an equal chance of coming up? In other words, it is supposedly a way to achieve the same type of effect as loaded dice, but just by setting combined with shooting technique, rather than by actually altering the dice themselves? Is that not the gist of it?

Craps certainly IS mathematically beatable if one operates with loaded dice. So IF it is possible to shoot them in such a way as to consistently achieve that same effect, then it's mathematically beatable in that way tpo. So the question then would be: is it really possible to shoot them a way that would achieve that effect? And that is indeed a question of physics.

So if there are books out there that purport to answer that question in the affirmative *through* the application of physics (which apparently there are), and if there are not other physics references that contradict that assertion (this is where the Flat Earth Society analogy fails to apply, I believe) . . . well then I don't see why there's no cause to debate.

Please note that I completely agree with you that no credence should be given to people who are obviously and demonstrably scamsters. And if that's the case with those who advocate dice control, then certainly no credibility should be given there. But if that is indeed the case, then again I think the references that support applying that "scamster" classification to them should be added to the articles about those theories.

Right nos, it seems to be just a matter of they say, "yes, you can" and you say, "no, you can't". Perhaps you're right, but if so, there should be some references that support that which we can add in to the craps and dice control articles, should there not? Mwelch 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to cite a credible source about anything for any entry, then do so. There are no credible sources regarding dice control making craps beatable, so I don't know why you are wondering about this. If you know of a till-now secret MIT study proving the scamster claims, please cite it and there would be something to talk about. 2005 10:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

8-( I really don't think there's any need for sarcasm like that. I wondering about it simply because I don't know of any credible sources on it either way — neither giving it credence, nor debunking it. Perhaps there are a lot of references out there that effectively debunk it. I'm just asking (and not necessarily by you specifcally, but by anyone who is reading this and has such knowledge) to be educated as to what those sources are. What is so very puzzling about that? If I don't ask questions, how am I supposed to learn?

You've said that it's not up to physics to disprove dice control theory. But if the theory is not scientifically counter-intuitive and one wants to declare the theory as definitely false, then yes, the burden actually would be on physics to disprove it, before making such an absolute declaration. So is dice control theory scientifically counter-intuitive, and if not, has it been disproven with physics? I don't know.

1) It's certainly not scientifally counter-intuitive at a mathematical level. The pure mathematics of the game say that if you can get the dice outcome to be more predictable than random distribution, then the game is beatable. Really no two ways about that.

2) So is it scientifically counter-intuitive that such predictability could be achieved at a theoretical physics level? If you had a "perfect" shooting machine — one that could impart, time after time, with perfect precision, the exact same force upon the dice on every single throw, same dice set, same release point, same rotation, same angle of release, same speed of release, same distance between the two dice upon release, everything that, in the real world, is legally under the control of the human shooter -- then under that scenario is it scientifically counter-intuitive that you'd get some level of predictability in your results that would exceed random distribution? The only physical forces that couldn't be reliably replicated would be the air currents in the room that flow over the dice while their thrown and any changes in the surface friction, angle and rigidity of the table and of the back wall. Would the slight variations in those from throw-to-throw be enough to deny one some decent level of predicatability beyond random distributions? I'll freely admit that I don't remember my college physics well enough to be able to answer that definitively. Intuitively, I'd be inclined to think "no". That the results would be, while not 100% predictable, still more predictable than random distribution. And that therefore, under point #1, the game would in fact beatable in the thought experiment world.

3) If I'm right about that (and again, I'm freely admitting that I may not be; that's where I'm looking for a reference that would set me straight), then the final question would then be: can a human shooter in real world conditions re-create the repetition of primary forces created by the perfect machine in the thought experiment world? Certainly not. So they certainly aren't going to get the same predictability that we had in #2. BUT . . . is it really so counter-intuitive to theorize that certain humans, with good coordination, good concentration, and who have put in many, many hours of practice, could get close enough to being able to consistently repeat all of those forces that they could achieve at least a little bit more predictability than random distribution (because really, a little bit is all that would be needed to turn the math and make the game beatable)? And naturally, if I couldn't answer the question at the end #2 effectively, I definitely can't answer this one. 8-) So again, that's where I'm looking for anyone reading this to point the way to something solid which answesr it. That's really all I'm getting at.

And the reason is that because if there is no intuitive answer to the question, AND there is no non-biased scientific study on it (that I know of--again, if there is one, please do enlighten me; I genuinely welcome that) either way, then it just seems a little inappropriate to declare the theory as absolutely true OR to declare it as absolutely false. In that case, it would seem perhaps more appropriate to acknowledge the theory's existence and state that there is no current scientific evidence either supporting or refuting it.

On the other hand, if there is in fact a study that refutes, or even absent an actual study, just a basic flaw in the purported physics of it (e.g. the air flow changes really do have a greater effect than I might expect, or something like that) that someone can quickly point out, then that fact, I think, would make a good addition to the article on the theory itself.

Does that not seem reasonable? Mwelch 23:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The source for the claims on dice control that I included is http://wizardofodds.com/craps/crapsapx3.html, while the source for beating slot machines is "Robbing the One-Armed Bandits (2nd Edition): An Encyclopedic Guide to Finding and Exploiting Advantageous Slot Machines (Paperback) by Charles W. Lund, 2000 ISDN #0910575134. The references in the main article seem pretty streamlined so I'm not sure if the referenced should go there or here. Toonces 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I found Darwin Ortiz' book Gambling Scams: How They Work, How to Detect Them, How to Protect Yourself[[4]] quite informative on all forms of gambling cheats, prop bets, and con games. On pp.140-142 he specifically discusses dice control in private games, and at least renders it plausible. Unfortunately, I don't have access to my copy of the text, as I left it in the U.S., and I currently reside in Korea. I'd note that, from what I recall, he examines methods used by dice cheats in private games, not casino cheats, and the casino setup is expressly designed to foil attempts at dice control (whether out of genuine need, or simple overprecaution can be debated). It should also be noted that Ortiz is not personally a dice cheat, so he is mainly giving annecdotal evidence, which has cheats as its source, and may not be as reliable as his extensive knowledge of card cheats. But in any event, he describes specific techniques and alleges their effectiveness.

I can only now report vague notions based on what I read years ago, but there exists plausible theory. It should be noted that, if a player in a private game can "freeze" one die so that it is statistically more probable to come up on the number he wants than pure randomness, this amounts to a significant edge. Simply using the top die to freeze the bottom die as they strike the backdrop and fall together can increase the likelihood that the bottom die will fall as desired, without tumbling, but giving the impression of a fair throw (especially as, the times he fumbles his freeze, the toss really will tumble randomly). If it was possible to toss the dice so that the bottom die "freezes" a five 1/3 of the time, meaning the five comes up say 1/3 times on that die, instead of 1/6, this would significantly alter the chances of winning. I expand upon this possibility with some non-wiki-permissible Original Research below:

When rolling randomly, the shooter rolls a natural 7 or 11 on the come out 22.2% of the time. If he can freeze a 5 on the bottom die 1/3 of the time, then he rolls a natural 24.4% of the time. Similarly, a random roll craps out 11.1% of the time, but freezing a 5 on the bottom die 1/3 of the time reduces the chances of crapping out to 8.9% There's a very slight offset in the fact that the shooter is more likely to get a point of ten on the comeout, and less likely to get a point of five which is more favorable, but still this converts -1.4% disadvantage to the shooter, to an approximately 3% advantage to the shooter... and the shooter can presumably choose to freeze one die (with the same odds of success) to the most advantageous number when rolling his point.

A cheat would not have to be even this accurate to get an advantage in the game. But, if he was able to freeze a die even more reliably, and reserve his freeze attempts for only "important" rolls, such as when he has an unusually high amount of money at stake, he could make an edge and conceal his actions. Keep in mind, as this is the kind of play a crooked player might incorporate into other shady actions, a dice cheat in a private game might try to freeze a die while rolling to help an undisclosed accomplice who has placed a side bet against some mark... anyway, you see where this all leads. It's not a "sure thing," and presumably faces some risk (but less than shaved or loaded dice which can be proven if revealed), but it adds up to a significant edge for a professional gambling cheat.

I can't establish verifiably that such cheating is possible, and I would presume that even if it were possible, the very few dice controllers who are successful would be in a small minority among the wanna-be sharps who don't really have the skills. It's also possible that dice control could work in a private game setting while not being practical in a casino. At least it's presumably a lot harder in such a setting, if not impossible. Someone would have to do some serious further research to find verifiable sources on something like this. But at least in the context of talk pages, it's fairly debatable, though it will probably never lead to a reliable article.zadignose 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect

Given the increasing number of reverts from vandals, should we semi protect this article and limit changes to established editors? Vegaswikian 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You could but there was only that one day that was a real problem. Maybe if there are any more incidents in the next 48 hours you could do it, but not leave the protect up more than a few days. 2005 02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Concensus for re-directing pages

As the author of the pages Mathematics of bookmaking and Glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers I am trying to do some (in my opinion) badly-needed housekeeping of some relevant Gambling pages which are either stubs, not exactly well written, not fully accurate or ones that are now basically redundant as the info contained in them has been integrated within my own pages to be in a more relevant environment. Pages I am referring to include Heinz (bet), Trixie (bet), Treble (bet) and Double (bet); there are probably others as well.
If a few of you involved in the Wiki:Gambling Project or any others with a possible vested interest in improving the presentation of information in this area could add a few words below supporting (or not) the re-direct of the pages I would be grateful (I have already got on the wrong side of an admin for criticising his very quick removal of Speedy Deletion tags without him taking the time to suggest alternatives to me (a novice), although now he has responded to my request). I would like to do this the correct way without upsetting anyone further! So... looking for support. Cheers. AirdishStraus 10:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One issue is that as a glossary, the definitions are not really a complete article. So if the new articles are short and really cover the material then this may not be an issue. I'm not up on Mathematics, so I can't really comment on the specifics. I will note that if you use headings for terms, then a redirect can point directly to the section rather then the top of the article. Vegaswikian 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hole-carding

If hole-carding puts 3 card poker into the "beatable" category, then Carribean Stud, 4 card poker, Let it Ride, and Texas Hold'em Bonus all belong there too. They can all be hole-carded. Although hole-carding is actually slightly controversial. I've heard a few sources claim that it almost never occurs (although I disagree with them).

And while we're at it, why is roulette considered beatable and craps isn't? You can beat craps with short throws (although you'll get stopped pretty quickly), and dice control is probably just as controversial as wheel bias in roulette. Especially in America with the double zeroes. Maybe you can find a biased enough wheel in Europe with 1 zero and en prison.

Maybe a separate section for possibly beatable games? Or move the discussion of what games can be beaten to "advantage gambling"?GusChiggins21 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A section on games that can beatable if you have an edge like hole carding is a good idea. Then we can get rid of the normally non-beatable games that some editors have insisted are beatable theoretically. It could be a good idea before adding such a section to put it first on this talk page. 2005 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A brief and non-constructive criticism

I'm sorry, I haven't looked at this page in a long time, and have little energy/enthusiasm for heavy editing at the moment. But it seems to me that this page reads like the product of a series of POV clashes. It immediately starts hedging, and struggling for ways to assert *something* about gambling while appearing not to assert anything. It seems a feigned attempt at "neutral." I don't think it approaches the subject in the right academic style to appeal to a reader seeking answers to basic questions. Rather, it launches quickly into topics of legality, moralizing, moral justification, and discussion of what games are/may be "beatable." Shouldn't it start out directly with a discussion of the history of gambling, the origin of popular gambling variants, their social/cultural associations, and a basic description of the different classes of gambling games? I don't know, maybe I could muster up some energy to tackle this, or maybe my critique might prompt someone to try to point this article in the right direction.

There should be a mention of Senet, knucklebones, the evolution of modern probability theory, an indication of the huge volume of money involved in sports betting worldwide, and several such topics which can be explained and cited without any strong assertions or evidence of POV. Meanwhile, separating modern casino games into beatable and unbeatable categories is ill-conceived at best.zadignose 11:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing that section deleted either, but I'm interested in other opinions. Rray 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ill-conceived is a good word. Nearly any game is 'beatable' under the right circumstances. Defining the word beatable for the purposes of the article is a debate in itself. But worse, the table of beatable games, assuming commonly beatable, was way off. I made some corrections but it's still incorrect since table bias is not related to the modern methods used to beat Roulette. Better for it not to exist at all. Objective3000 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd buy anybody a cookie if they took a stab at rewriting the page, especially deleting or reimaging that beatable sextion. The article is very much a mishmash that has resulted from "one agenda" editors stuffing something in without considering how it effects everything else, or how obscurely you you have to read something for it to be true. This article should be simplified, with some history, some definition (the explanation that gaming refers to the business of offering gambling games for instance is very important) and some short paragraphs that lead to main topic articles. It seems we do have a sense here that such a generalized/simplified/less contentiously worded article that refers to other articles where we deal with something in more depth is called for. I'd rather someone else would take a stab at it, but otherwise I could take a stab at this idea on the next week or so -- UNLESS someone now wants to say "we gotta have that beatable games section", because a rewrite will be probably just a waste of time if more than one person wants to fanatically keep that section as it is. 2005 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me take one last shot at describing the problem. WP, at least on the gambling pages, is based on the concept that a reference somehow legitimizes a statement. The problem in the gambling field is that 99% of what is written was written by con men attempting to separate ploppies from their money. There in fact exist numerous truly excellent texts on gambling theory and practice. (References to them seem to be missing in the WP articles.) But the vast majority of gambling books are based on superstition, gambler’s logic and simple dishonesty. Websites are stranger yet as references. WP uses as references affiliate sites that are compilations of what the authors heard and copied from random sources solely to gain Google hits. For all you know, they are run by children too young to have ever entered a casino. And yet they are used as encyclopedic references. Oddly, they are probably more accurate than the popular authors and long time scam artists that are referenced throughout the gambling pages. The choices for references are appalling. WP editors then slavishly protect the resulting nonsense from modification as if unreferenced content that arrives on a page first is somehow self-legitimized. Objective3000 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we need to add some print citations. Does anyone have Steve Forte or Bill Zender's books? Those guys are from the casino side, so they're a little more reliable than the system sellers. GusChiggins21 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Steve was arrested this year. That does not imply guilt but also doesn't suggest him as a more reliable source. Bill (the ZMan) is a long-time client of mine and I like him. But, as you say they are both casino employees. How would that make them good sources:-) At least you're trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-did Casino games section

Reorganized it into table, electronic and other games. GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Poker

It's a nit; but Poker is not a casino game. Albeit Poker rooms are often co-located with casinos. 3-card poker, 4-card poker and Caribbean Stud Poker are carnivalized variations and are casino table games. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gambling as a crime

Gambling is not a crime. Illegal gambling is a crime. So if someone wants to add an article with that as the focus feel free to do so and then it can be placed in the crimes category which is not for legal activities. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about gambling

While not particularly relevant to the article itself, there is a question I have that the article did not answer, are buy-in tournaments considered gambling, namely video-game-based buy-in tournaments? You pay to participate and if you win you get whatever was there to get. According to the economic definition provided, it is, but it is still rather unclear to me. DarkHelmet 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the World Series of Poker gambling? Probably the biggest buy in game around. Vegaswikian 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

<spam redacted>

WP is an extremely poor source for gambling info. That is not an insult to WP. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Gambling

Is it just me, or is the discussion on the history of gambling a little thin (especially given its rapid growth in the last 40 years)? Would this be significant enough to merit a separate article? Fahrenheit452 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It might well merit a separate article, but usually what's done is that we wait until the section is too long to be a subsection of the article before breaking it off into its own article. I know a couple of references about the history of gambling exist, but I don't actually have copies of the book to properly expand and source that section myself. Rray (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need an expansion of our coverage. Here's a start: "In 1190, Kings Richard I and Philip of France jointly issued an edict regulating gambling with games of chance by members of the Christian crusading armies. No person under the rank of knight was permitted to play any game for money; knights and clergymen could play for stakes lower than 20 shillings per day and night; the monarchs could, naturally, play for whatever stakes they chose, but their attendants were restricted to stakes of 20 shillings. If any exceeded this sum, they were to be whipped, naked, through the ranks of the troops for three whole days." See Ben Schott, Schott’s Mischellany Calendar 2009 (New York: Workman Publishing, 2008), November 18. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chess

Is Chess gambling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.74.81 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 September 2008

Rarely is chess played for money these days. Although around 100 years ago it was not uncommon. SunCreator (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Legallity Section

Whilst interesting, this is not an article about gambling in the united states. The vast amount of information about the US in this section should be moved to a 'Gambling Laws in the US' section, and the content replaced with information about the legality of gambling worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.75.155 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The "vast amount of information about the US" that you mention is contained in 1 paragraph. According to one estimate, US-based gaming operations represents about half[5] of the global industry. I think this is sufficient justification for the 1 paragraph, which also already includes a link to a separate article about gambling in the US. Simishag (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no problem with the US legality stuff now. If it or the section was dramatically bigger it might need breaking out, but at this point it's so small there isn't any need. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Gambling versus Investment

I have a problem with the article where it tries to differentiate between 'gambling' and other activities. If you go by the definitions supplied with any dictionary, it's not the market itself (financial markets, insurance industry, casino games etc) that decide whether the activity is defined as gambling, but the mathematical expectation of the participant and of the action. Technically, a card counter betting with a positive count is making an investment, while an average Joe buying some stock may often be a gamble. The card counter knows he has a mathematical edge and expects to make money over the longrun. The average Joe buying stock often only assumes he has an edge and in reality is only hoping that the stock rises in value. The financial markets are full of people who invest or trade with negative expectation, and by definition they are gamblers. The gambling industry has thousands and thousands of positive expectation gamblers and by definition they are investors. Remember, it's the individual and action, not the market.

Jj448 (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the section is to clarify the colloquial use of the word "gambling" to describe activities which have some similarities but which are widely considered as separate endeavors. Card counting is a special case that applies mainly to a single game (blackjack). It is really an application of skill to improve the expectation, but that improvement comes at the cost of increased volatility. Also, I'm not aware of any financial market players who trade with negative expectations (other than perhaps limited short-term plays). I don't think that assertion is justified by any rational or game-theoretic explanations. The definition of "(to) invest" is: "to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value."[6] With a few narrow exceptions (e.g., card counting, poker, sports betting), gambling, by design, does not offer profitable returns. Simishag (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)