This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rray(talk | contribs) at 23:55, 4 March 2008(→scarne and card counting: It was not "copied". Snyder's book was *one* of the sources used to research the article. Other sources were also used when researching the article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:55, 4 March 2008 by Rray(talk | contribs)(→scarne and card counting: It was not "copied". Snyder's book was *one* of the sources used to research the article. Other sources were also used when researching the article.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
scarne and card counting
I won't revert what you added, as it appears to be more complete (and cited) than what was there before. That said, the reference that you pulled did indicate that there was a falling out of Scarne with the gambling community at the time over that comment. With respect to keeping WP fair and balanced, is removing that citation proper? SpikeJones (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference in the deleted citation to Scarne was that he criticized Thorp's system. Since this is already covered in Scarne's books, and in the "The History of Card Counting" web site in a later reference, I do not believe the citation is still required. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize your comment, but the text you removed indicated Scarne's *motivation* to offer the challenge, and there were *two* citations presented. The first one referenced that Scarne contradicted himself by first saying that he could count cards while also saying that Thorpe's strategy was flawed. It may be something that is implied in the wp article, but the inclusion of this specific observation was cited in an article by a knowledgeable writer. As for the second item, it refered to Scarne's loss of credibility (not just the "nobody took him up on the offer" part of the sentence). I'm just saying that you removed two cited items and in rewriting the paragraph changed the tone from a neutral point of view to one that doesn't necessarily address Scarne's flaws. I can certainly understand your rewrite if there were no citations in the original text, but that was not the case here. As to your other point is that while the info on Scarne's criticism of Thorpe may be in the Scarne book, it is certainly allowable here as well. SpikeJones (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were asking about the cross-reference link that I removed; I didn't realize you were referring to the statements that were taken from "The History of Card Counting" article. The problem is that the statement about Scarne contradicting himself omits the context of the story with Bugsy Siegel; Scarne was referring to blackjack as it was dealt at that time (without restrictions added later by casinos as barriers to card counting), and Scarne used his chips as an aid to track the undealt cards. Since this contradiction was used as the basis for the statement on Scarne's credibility, without it, the statement lacks a foundation as a neutral point of view. I believe a more definitive source should be cited regarding Scarne's reputation on card counting. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I *think* I agree with you about there being something missing to fully support the statement. But the way the article reads now with many references being pulled from the same book (The Odds Against Me), there lacks a NPOV secondary resource. Your edits are obviously more complete than what was there before, but removing the other valid references seems to sanitize the article more than necessary. SpikeJones (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bugsy Siegel story is widely considered a fabrication. The "History of card counting" article was put together by a guy looking for traffic for affiliate sites and was just pulled from Scarne's own blarney. The simple fact is that Scarne claimed BJ could not be beaten and that Thorp was a fraud. His "challenge" to counters WAS accepted, but as often occurs in such cases he kept changing the conditions. He also claimed to be the first to calculate basic strategy advantage, even though the Four Horsemen did so years before. In my mind this article is now a whitewash. Objective3000 (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the article at http://www.blackjackhero.com/, then I can understand your opinion. The article by Henry Tamburin, however, should carry a bit more weight, should it not? And what's your opinion on having more than a single resource for article reference? SpikeJones (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least Henry has a "name." But, no I don't trust him as a source. I certainly agree that multiple resources would be good. Just don't know where to find good ones in this case:) I'll ask around. Objective3000 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't trust him as a source? Seriously, Henry Tamburin is a recognized gambling expert and author. Even if you believe his writing is slanted one way or the other, he at least has some credibility in the industry, doesn't he? SpikeJones (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a popular writer -- not an expert. His books are easy to understand. But, he has published many articles showing his weak understanding of BJ. And IMO his credibility has been damaged by his participation in the Speed Count scam. Objective3000 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except "popular" doesn't always equate to "not an expert", especially when talking about historical items as opposed to the BJ item you find irksome. You have more resources available to you than I have; I'm curious to see what other references you can dig up per your earlier comment. There has to be (some) element of truth to what was in those deleted references that some other ref could point to, right? SpikeJones (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was using another definition of "popular." "Suitable to the majority: as a: adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority <a popular history of the war>" That is, specifically not "expert," but shallow. Anywho, I sent out a couple e-mails. Objective3000 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, must be why I like reading his stuff, although I don't know what that says about me. :) It's so nice to discuss an article's content with sane folks without resorting to calling each other an idiot. What a pleasant change from the normal WP craziness. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only statement about Scarne in Tamburin's article is the following:
John Scarne, who was a well-respected gambling expert and author during this time, publicly criticized Thorp’s “unbeatable winning blackjack system.”
Agreed there is no harm in keeping the cross-reference, but it isn't suitable as a source for a statement on Scarne's lack of credibility on card counting, since it makes no mention of it (if anything, the sentence gives credence to Scarne). I don't believe the previous statements should be kept without a better source than the Blackjack Hero site. I also look forward to seeing any additional sources; the best information I have found to-date on Scarne has been his own writing, which is subjective. For example, in his books, Scarne states that the other prospective participants were constantly changing their demands for suitable conditions for his $100,000 blackjack challenge; it would be nice to see a neutral record of the event (if one exists, which unfortunately seems unlikely). Isaac Lin (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the Blackjack Hero article can also be found in Snyder's The Big Book of Blackjack, I believe. (I don't have my copy of the book handy at the moment to look it up, but maybe one of you have a copy.) Rray (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does appear it was copied from Big Book. Epstein told me today that he believed Scarne was not capable of a point-count system, but that he did use a rough Ace-Ten count for single-deck, end of deck play a la Greasy John. He also suggested that you shouldn’t believe Scarne as a source of a story. That’s the general consensus. The statement that no one ever took him up on his challenge is certainly misleading. The Siegel story is not at all credible in my mind. But, there is no way to prove this. I think someone with better wordsmithing abilities than I should connect the two paragraphs about Thorp and Siegel in a manner that shows the motivation in telling the story. Clearly he was attempting to explain why he had been so emphatically and maliciously wrong for so long. Objective3000 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not "copied". Snyder's book was *one* of the sources used to research the article. Other sources were also used when researching the article. Rray (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
