Jump to content

Talk:Handicapping

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This page

The reason that this page was started...

  1. Someone proposed on the Requested Moves page that Handicapping be set up as a redirect to Handicap theory. Now, I have never heard of Handicap theory as it relates to biological evolution. I have only heard of it as it relates to sports and gambling. I proposed to the proposing someone that Handicapping should be set up to discuss the sports-related definition with a disclaimer leading folks to that biological mumbo-jumbo if that is what some folks sought (most likely they won't be looking for that obscure stuff, but who knows). That proposing someone never responded, so here is the result of my initiative. At that time I was surprised that no one had written an article on the sports-related Handicapping (or so I thought).
  2. I started Handicapping before I realized that Handicap (competition) already exists. However, it was just a stub with a two event edit history and only one decent line I could plunder and add to my introduction. So I just took it, pasted it, and reduced the Handicap (competition) article to a mere redirect to Handicapping.

So, if anyone is miffed that I destroyed their page (sorry to the Handicap (competition) contributors...all two of you) or destroyed your master plan (you crazy obscure theoretical biologists)...too bad. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 04:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

Handicapping → Handicap theory

Tried to redirect a new page I made "handicapping" to "Handicap theory" and made it FUBAR. Help. Handicapping and Handicap Theory should both redirect to "Handicap theory" THX --JPotter 00:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • NOTE: This requested move was inadvertantly placed beneath the February 11th request for Supercentenarian→Oldest person. Upon seeing this mistake, I took the initiative to separate it. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE STRENUOUSLY: Judging from the history, JPotter had started the article entitled Handicapping on 11 February 2005. And while his redirect can easily be fixed, I do not think Handicapping should be a redirect to Handicap theory as the primary use of the word "handicapping" is for the practice of (and mathematics behind) giving a scoring benefit in sporting events to lesser talented participants, not as a corollary to Darwin's biological theories. I expected this to be an article on the sports-related practice and its methods. As a former bookmaker in my college days, Handicapping should be an article about the scoring practice and methods, with a disclaimer at the top saying "if you are looking for Handicap theory, click here." —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given above. Isn't there an article about handicapping in sport? Kappa 19:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Unforunately there isn't, much to my surprise also. —ExplorerCDT 02:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: As the fix was simple...no Handicap Theory page really existed...I redirected that to Handicap theory. I've contacted JPotter to see if he'd agree to the use of Handicapping to discuss the sports scoring practice and its methods with a a disambiguation disclaimer at the top of the article. In the meantime, I have started to put together some ideas for a Handicapping article and will start it when (if) JPotter responds positively to my comments regarding a compromise proposed from the above concerns on his talk page. —ExplorerCDT 02:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As of last night, I hadn't heard from JPotter so I made Handicapping into a different article with a disclaimer at the top disambiguating it to both Handicap theory and Handicapped. This request can now be deleted, but I do request archiving on both the Handicapping and Handicap theory talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 14:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the way ExplorerCDT has set it up (with Handicapping as an article about the sports usage, and a typical "other uses" note at the top). JamesMLane 10:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Peter Tidmarsh

I have taken the liberty of reverting the recent edits to the article by User:Peter Tidmarsh. I firmly believe that his edits from 14 March to 17 March 2005 made the article hackneyed, anecdotal, and regrettably puerile in character, and I have stated such on the user's talk page. —ExplorerCDT 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that the reversion was made because you disagree with his explanation of the origins of handicapping, which is in disagreement with your own. I'd suggest that if there isn't a clear etymology or original use that both be given. Emotive terms such as hackneyed and puerile are not helpful, especially if they are there to disguise disagreement with the actual content. --Simon Lucy 16:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • My disagreement is precisely with the content. Some of it was amateurishly immature (especially the Golf write-up). The etymology is clear in the sources I've run into, and his alternative etymological origins were woefully unsubstantiated...despite my best efforts of tracking down the claims he posted in good faith before deleting them from the article. Lastly, his style was hopelessly hackneyed and anecdotal and not up to the standard of an objective encyclopedia. In fact, his additions to the article smacked of tongue-in-cheek smuggery. Sure, the adjectives I used may not be helpful, and they may be pointedly hurtful, but they are amazingly accurate when describing what I feel his additions did to the tenor of the article, it's accuracy, and furthermore they in no way disguise my disagreement. In fact, they are the crux of my disagreement rather overtly stated. —ExplorerCDT 18:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any citations for your original etymology. --62.49.30.152 08:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record I didnt make any claims on etymological origins, which are rarely clear. I did point out that the current use of the word cast doubt on the claim made by ExplorerCDT.

However compare Chamber's Online Reference "Probably" - with our authoritative ExplorerCDT's "sources are clear". [1] ETYMOLOGY: 17c: probably from hand i' cap an old lottery game in which money was deposited in a cap and forfeits were drawn from it.

Not much has changed, punters agree to enter the lottery, or bet on a sporting event or "put their hand in" (the cap) beforehand, and afterwards the forfeits or winnings are drawn from the cap or bookie. ExplorerCDT's dubious claim - that the looser (or a representative of the looser !) puts the forfeit in - is backtofront which is fascinating for those interested in etymology of the word.

As it stands I will trust Chambers above Wikepedia.

For the sake of accuracy ExplorerCDT should withdraw his lit. crit. and focus on substantiating his claim and for the sake of readability he should respect the different voices of its contributors. --User:Peter Tidmarsh 10.45 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Word origin history

A full discussion of the origin of the word "handicap" is here: http://www.snopes.com/language/offense/handicap.htm

An even more detailed discussion by Ron Amundson, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Hawaii at Hilo, is here: http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/HandicapDefinition.htm

It might be good to add such links to the article. -69.87.199.157 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a stub article for the original trading "game" Hand-in-cap. Please help to expand it. Roger (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

The articles that were merged were talking about handicapping from different sides of the coin. This article seems to be about bookmakers, while that one was about sharps who tried to beat them. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what encyclopedia articles are, articles that cover the scope of something. If we were going to write an article about the baseball world Series, we wouldn't write one from the perspective of one tema another from the perspective of the other. We'd write about the whole game, the entire picture. Bookmakers and bettors both handicap a game, but at different times. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about an article on bookmaking and oddsmaking, and a separate article on sharp betting. The sharp betting article would include things like arbitrage and middles? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See arbitrage betting and Mathematics of bookmaking. How would sharp betting differ from advantage gambling? Maybe you should take a look through Category:Wagering and the Category:sports betting subcategory. Again, we don't want to content fork. Existing articles should be expanded to include synonyms or related concepts, rather than create parallel articles that say the same thing in different words. 2005 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sharp betting could be covered in advantage gambling. That sounds good. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sharp betting is a type of advantage gambling, so it makes sense to include it there. At the same time, if there's as much in depth information about sharp betting as there is about Card counting, for example, a separate article could also be justified. I'm familiar with Stanford Wong's book on the subject, but I think there need to be multiple reliable sources which cover the subject of sharp sports betting before it would be considered notable enough for an article of its own. (Just like card counting has multiple sources covering that subject.) Rray (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know there was some debate about whether or not "handicapping" and "sharp betting" were synonymous before, but I'd suggest that the two terms are not synonymous. Someone can handicap a football game without actually betting on it. And someone can handicap games and bet on games without getting a mathematical advantage. (I can handicap a game and agree that the line is close enough that I'm willing to be on it even though I don't have a mathematical advantage. I'm still "handicapping", but I'm not "sharp betting".) The phrase "sharp betting" implies that the person is actually a bettor, and also that the person is good enough at finding value in the bookmakers' lines that he can gain an advantage. Those implications aren't necessarily true of someone who is just a handicapper. Rray (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The terms sharp betting and handicapping can be synonymous. The term "handicapping" is often used to describe when a skilled bettor attempts to pick winners, directly against the line (as opposed to using arbs or middles or bonuses). It can also refer to bookmaking, but it is used as a verb to describe skillful sports betting. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Can be" synonymous and "are" synonymous are two different things. Since one word has a broader meaning than the other, it doesn't make much sense to equate them as synonyms. Especially not in an encyclopedia, which is aimed at explaining things to laymen. Rray (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I think it's the primary word used to describe skilled sports bettors. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think they are synonyms, but if they are then it is a content fork, so we have a dilemna. If User:GusChiggins21 can be persuaded to not label them synonyms, then we could move sharp betting elsewhere... however that is a problem too. Sports betting is an article. It's more than a little odd to have a different article that is basically "effective sports betting" or "smart sports betting". I don't see why anything having to do with sharp betting on sports not be in the sports betting article. Everything else works similarly. A card counting advantange gambling blackjack player is covered in those three articles; we don't need another one saying the same thing, that a player can beat blackjack if they bet properly. 2005 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but we have an article about Poker and about Poker strategy, so articles about Sports betting and Sharp sports betting could make sense *if* we can find multiple reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Poker strategy has been covered by multiple reliable sources. I'm not convinced that sharp sports betting has been. I'm not as familiar with the subject as I am with more card game related gambling subjects. This is where GusChiggins21's input might be valuable. Rray (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if it has plenty of sources, and if it the focus is substantially different than the sports betting articles, then a new article is called for like with poker. But just restating the sports betting article and saying making good bets is the point of sharp betting, well that says nothing so it could just be one sentence in the main article. I don't see the need at this point, so I don't think a new article needs to be done till a large section in the xisting article exists to move out separately. 2005 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

horse "handicapping"- an equivocal term?

There is a large problem with this page- in that the process of handicapping horses (in the general sense of the word [via the method of increasing or decreasing the weight they bear]) has become confused with the American English term- "handicapping" which is something of a misnomer as it refers not to handicapping in the orthodox sense at all - but rather to the whole process of assessing racehorse performance. Handicapping (its true rather than colloquial American English meaning) is only undertaken by the official handicappers who work within the sport (i.e. those who actually allot weight to animals' saddlecloths)- not by fans or "horse players" as they are known in the U.S.


=

I agree with the above unsigned comment. I was very confused by the wiki entry Handicap (horse racing) which went the same as this article way by discussing the handicap system and then going on to discuss the betting processes in USA known as 'handicapping' and I was very confused. I now accept that 'handicapping' is a USA expression and so I suppose this article reads fine until we get to 'Outcome predction'. The article should be split into two wikis. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Would anyone object to me creating a new article Handicapping (horse racing)? This current article works well on the general principle of handicaps in sport, but I think the process of handicapping is so important to horse racing it merits an article on its own that covers both the British and American English senses of the term as mentioned in the unsigned comment above. Peaky76 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directory

Does anyone think there should be a link or reference to the largest Sports Handicapping Service Directory currently available online right now on the Wiki Handicapping page? They have listed every single sports handicapping service in existence in an easy to find directory format.

No per WP:NOADS. Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was hand-in-cap?

Here's the text from the OED entry:

handicap, n.
(ˈhændɪkæp)
[A word of obscure history. Two examples of the n., and one of the verb, are known in 17th c.; its connexion with horse-racing appears in the 18th; its transferred general use, esp. in the verb, since 1850. It appears to have originated in the phrase ‘hand i' cap’, or ‘hand in the cap’, with reference to the drawing mentioned in sense 1.]
1.1 The name of a kind of sport having an element of chance in it, in which one person challenged some article belonging to another, for which he offered something of his own in exchange. (Also fig.)
On the challenge being entertained, an umpire was chosen to decree the difference of value between the two articles, and all three parties deposited forfeit-money in a cap or hat. The umpire then pronounced his award as to the ‘boot’ or odds to be given with the inferior article, on hearing which the two other parties drew out full or empty hands to denote their acceptance or non-acceptance of the match in terms of the award. If the two were found to agree in holding the match either ‘on’ or ‘off’, the whole of the money deposited was taken by the umpire; but if not, by the party who was willing that the match should stand. (See Notes & Queries 23 June, 1855).
This sport is described under the name of Newe Faire, in Piers Plowman A. v. 171, B. v. 328, C. vii. 377, where ‘Clement þe cobelere caste of his cloke’, for which ‘Hikke þe hakeneyman’ wagered his hood, and ‘Robyn þe ropere’ was named for ‘a noumpere’, to ordain how much ‘who⁓so haueth the hood shuld haue amendes of the cloke’. For reference to a similar sport in Scandinavia and Germany (where called Freimarkt), see Germania XIX. (1847) 1, Engl. Stud. V. 150. A recent example occurs in R. S. Surtees ‘Mr. Sponge's Sporting Tour’ ch. xlv, in which the challenge is between a gold watch and a horse. In later times the result became the subject of further betting on the part of the bystanders: see The Sportsman 17 April 1897, 5/5.

This was not, "a popular 17th-century lottery game," as this article had described it. A lottery involves people, "drawing lots for a prize," which did not happen in hand-in-cap. Nor is it from the 17th century, as it is attested in a 14-century source. It is instead, "an old English trading system for determining the relative values of two objects," as I have described it in my edit. The WP article on the game describes it a bit more clearly than the OED, but consistently with the OED. Jbening (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough as to the "lottery" concept, but clearly involves putting stuff in a cap. I'll tweak it a little, feel free to refine. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Handicapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Handicapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Handicapping&oldid=1201790780"