Talk:Sharp betting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sharp betting is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

[edit] Also known as "handicapping"?

I'm not sure this is correct. One can be handicapping a game and not sharp betting, so it seems to me that saying "sharp betting" is also known as "handicapping" is stretching things. Do we have a reference from a reliable source to indicate that these terms are synonymous? Rray (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the terms are synonymous, why the new article? We already have a handicapping article. Rray (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several usages of the term handicapping. The handicapping article refers to the handicapping that bookmakers do. This article refers to the handicapping and advantage betting that sharps do. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to cover both subjects in the handicapping article? I did a Google search for "sharp betting", and it doesn't seem to return enough results to warrant its own article? Rray (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the citation you added to justify your statement that "sharp betting" is also known as "handicapping". Nowhere on the page you cited is the phrase "sharp betting" even mentioned, much less explained as being the same thing as "handicapping". I haven't reviewed your other citations on the page, but I'm concerned since we had the same issue with citations that didn't support statements in the dice control article. Rray (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It says on the front page: "free picks from our team of handicappers". There's a sidebar that says "handicapping resources". It doesn't even need a citation, because it's so commonly used. And don't even get me started on that dice control article. I gave multiple citations that supported verbatim what I was saying, re-phrased it 3 times, and you guys were still reverting. Do you just follow me around wikipedia and try to mess up all of my articles, and add spam links to your own sites? This is getting obnoxious, and if you pull that spam thing again, I'm gonna ask someone to ban you. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that "sharp betting also means handicapping" though? The phrase "sharp betting" isn't even used on that page? And yes, it needs a citation. Anything that someone challenges warrants a citation. That's Wikipedia policy. Review the policy, please: Wikipedia:Verifiability. You're not supposed to draw conclusions from your references; you're supposed to reiterate what the references say. Big difference.
  • I watch your edits because a lot of them are bad edits, and we're interested in some of the same subjects. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, and I'm sure your intentions are good, but bad edits are still bad edits. I've never made an edit to one of your articles that wasn't an attempt to improve the article.
  • You're supposed to assume good faith and be civil. Accusing me of spamming and deliberately trying to mess up articles is a personal attack.
  • Also, you need to understand that they're not "your" articles. This is the Wikipedia. Anyone can and will edit the articles here, regardless of who originally wrote them. This is written across the bottom of every page here: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You might also benefit from reviewing the official policy regarding ownership of articles.
  • I'm not going to discuss the dice control article with you here. We've already discussed it on the talk page there.
  • And believe me, if my intention were to spam the Wikipedia, you would never know what sites I owned or who I am. Rray (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I write an article, you come in and demand that every common sense thing be cited explicitly by some magical source that doesn't exist, and even though nothing you write is cited in this way. The site I linked to is about the subject I'm writing about, which is skilled bettors who are trying to beat the bookmakers at their own games. And the site refers to those people as handicappers, and refers to that skill as handicapping. It's also common knowledge. Quit following me around, and reverting edits without any cause. It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I ask for citations as a courtesy. It's policy to delete uncited additions, but it's polite to give the person who added it the chance to add a citation before deleting it. If a source "doesn't exist" as you put it, then the material shouldn't be added to the article. The site you linked to doesn't even use the phrase "sharp betting". How can it possibly be used as a citation for the statement that "Sharp betting is also known as handicapping"? Rray (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not having a semantics argument with you. Both terms are commonly used, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And this is certainly one of the more ridiculous arguments you've started an edit war over. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There's your citations for both names. Why don't you actually contribute to an article now, instead of following me around and deleting things? GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a copy of Wong's book, and I don't think it states that the two terms ("sharp betting" and "handicapping") are synonymous. And for this to be an edit war, I have to be reverting your edits, which I haven't done. I'm not disrupting the Wikipedia to make a point; I deleted a citation which didn't support your statement. That's a reasonable edit, not a disruption. Rray (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You changed the article back to exactly how it was before I edited it. That's a revert. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
One revert isn't an edit war, especially not if it's a reasonable edit. Removing a citation that doesn't support a statement is reasonable. I'm not changing it again, therefore, I've started no edit war. Rray (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation that refers to handicappers as being sharp bettors. GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So I moved the content and redirected this article to Handicapping. We don't need separate articles about the same thing. 2005 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)