Talk:Card counting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I came here to find out about the aspects of card couunting seen as cheating by the casinos and what countermeasures are being taken... Right now it's just a description of the technique itself. --Lenton 19:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is just utter drivel. It needs a complete rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.173.76.141 (talk • contribs) .

Well go ahead and do it then. -- Chuq 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have only a superficial knowledge of card counting but I sense it would be good to include info on how casinos counter card counting. Georgeslegloupier 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 MIT Blackjack Team 2 Hi Lo Count? 3 Typical traits of card counters 4 Remaining tasks

[edit] MIT Blackjack Team

In the history section, there's a lengthy paragraph regarding the MIT Blackjack Team. Does anyone agree that this information would be better placed in that article? Rray 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be good to take it all and put it there, and just leave a see also to that article. 2005 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Lo Count?

Is this clause missing jacks queens and kings?

the cards number 2 through 6 are counted as +1 and all tens and aces are counted as -1.

-if not, why are only tens and aces counted as high? 213.219.161.27 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jacks, queens, and kings are considered 10's, since that's the point value for the face cards. Rray 01:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typical traits of card counters

Please do not re-add this information without citing a source. Encyclopedic content should be verifiable and the Wikipedia has a policy against including original research. The official policy on original research can be reviewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research and the policy on citing sources can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. (This isn't the place for logical deductions; it's an encyclopedia, and it's meant to provide verifable, factual information.) Rray 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove it completely? What next I remove the whole article because none of its states any source for Verifiability? If You are going to trust the rest of the article (which was written by me anyway, not on this account) why stop at believeing part of it and not the rest? And logically deducing facts isnt research - its pointing out the obvious. I suggest you read the article and you would see clearly why such traits are common - because a counter would play that way to achieve maximum advantage.--Dacium 23:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it completely because you indicated that the source was your own logical deduction. That is original research, and there is a clear policy regarding original research in the Wikipedia. I also added a note to the rest of the article indicating that it needs citations and references. Just because there aren't citations doesn't make the rest of the article original research; it could (and probably does) just mean that no one has referenced any sources yet.

Thanks for your suggestion that I read the article, but as you can see in the history of the article, I've not only read the article, but proofread and copy-edited a great deal of it for grammar, style, and spelling.

If the policies regarding original research and verifiable facts aren't clear to you, perhaps you might read them again a little more closely, and ask for clarification from some of the more experienced Wikipedians here. I'm assuming you made the edits in good faith, but it seems like you misunderstand what a Wikipedia article is supposed to consist of, which is verifiable facts with references. Rray 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that am I am not trying to start a fight or anything. I am just saying that I wrote pretty much all the other sections too so you should probably remove them, because they are just as bad.

I've edited quite a bit of the article, maybe the first half, so if you see anything that seems mistaken or unclear, please feel free to help out with it. I've tried to add references and footnotes to a good deal of it too, but it's obviously far from finished still. You're obviously quite familiar with the subject matter. :) Rray 16:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining tasks

I've edited and cleaned up quite a bit of the article, and added footnotes where appropriate, but the following sections of the article still need to proofread and rewritten:

Expected profit from card counting Countermeasures against blackjack card-counters Detecting card counters History of blackjack card counting

Future appropriate articles might include individual articles about different card counting systems. If we decide to move forward with such a thing, it would be good to create a sub-category of the blackjack category for card counting systems. Rray 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is giving a full description of a card counting system relavant to an encyclopedia?--155.144.251.120 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to people looking for information on the subject, yes. It's certainly a notable gambling activity. In an encyclopedia that includes such far out subjects as the seven different forms of Light saber content, it's hard to say that something like card counting isn't relevant. Rray 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have subject-matter relevant expertise. Is your list of tasks still current? I rewrote and extended Detecting. Having skimmed the other three sections I don't see anything too terribly objectionable. It's all pretty straightforward and supportable other than that the "History of" part looks to be full of arcane trivia, possibly rewritten from a web source. (For instance, the aside mentioning that four people who wrote in 1957 are known among card-counters as "the four horsemen" - I'm a card counter pretty well-versed in the relevant literature and I'd never heard of these bozos. Why mention the nickname without some context to explain why anyone should care?) Okay, so I should take a scalpel or a meat cleaver to "History Of", but other than that: do you just want more footnotes and crosslinks everywhere, or are there specific assertions you find dubious? Blogjack 09:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think removing some of the "History of" section will make the article better, then by all means, cut away. The important thing is that the article be accurate, useful, and well-written. More footnotes would be appropriate in the lower part of the article; I think most of the top half of the article, or maybe even the top 2/3, is pretty well referenced. Rray 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)