Talk:Roulette

History of the Game and Pascal

Many Casino websites and other (popular science) sources claim that the mathematician Blaise Pascal invented the Roulette game. However this seems to be just an urban legend/common misinformation. While it is true that Pascal is considered as one of the founders of probability theory and that he had published 2 papers containing the word Roulette (small wheel): "Histoire de la roulette" "Suite de l'histoire de la roulette". However those 2 papers do not deal with the roulette game but curves created by rotating wheels (cycloids). Pascal possibly constructed rotating device with a number wheel for studying random distributions, however he did not use it in the sense of the roulette game either.

http://www.planet-wissen.de/pw/Artikel,,,,,,,CAD525356519CE9FE030DB95FBC30D8E,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.html http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette_%28Gl%C3%BCcksspiel%29#Geschichte

Note that the German wikipedia entry calls it an urban legend and Pascal biographies (wikipedia,mactutor,various) do not mention him as the inventor of the roulette game either. Maybe somebody having more detailed information of Pascal's rotating device and whether or how it may have influenced the roulette game could comment as well and incorporate the correct information into the article. For now i've simply removed the misleading sentence, that indicates him as the inventor of the game. --Kmhkmh 12:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

i too agree with above concept that there are misconcepptions in the invention/origin of roulette.The first theory that the Chinese invented the game and this game was brought to Europe by Chinese traders. The second theory that Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician, invented the game of roulette. Many support this theory since Pascal developed the concept of “probability,” and the word roulette is French for “small wheel.” Anoopnair2050 (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Maximum Bet

In 2004, Ashley Revell of London sold all of his possessions, clothing included, and brought US$135,300 to the Plaza Hotel in Las Vegas and put it all on "Red" at the roulette table in a double-or-nothing bet. The ball landed on "Red 7" and Revell walked away with his net-worth doubled to $270,600.

The Maximum bet usually refers to inside bets no?

This is unlikely since ALL casinos have a tabel limit, whitch makes sure that you cannot bet over ie. 10.000$ not having a betting limit or having such a high betting limit, that lets you bet 135k is suicide. if someone had a lucky day and was betting 1 million $ on a singel number and win, the casio would have to pay him 36 million $.

The maximum bet usually applies to any bet on the table (inside and others). However, often casino pit bosses have the authority to make exceptions. I recall reading a newspaper article (still looking for the citation details) about this event with Ashley Revell. In that article it mentioned that such an exception was allowed for him.

Correct, he was given a single chip notionally representing his total net worth. Also, the 00 was blocked off so that European rules applied. Markparker 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If this as filmed I think it is fake, especally if it was from some reality show.

I do not say that this is incorrect but just that its unlikely. ALL casinos have a betting limit and its NOT at 135K else they would go bankrupt.

The Horseshoe in downtown Las Vegas is on record as saying that they will take any single "even money" bet (including red at roulette) up to US$2M without hesitation (that was a while ago; perhaps the figure has gone up since then). Above that amount, they don't automatically accept; it has to go to higher floor managers and perhaps the casino's accountant to see if they can withstand the variance for the day. Casinos are in business for the long term, unlike most players. There is paperwork for every bet over about $10,000, but that's just a formality. So I don't think you can use the betting limits to cast doubts on this story. --Mike Van Emmerik 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The Max bet applies to outside bet position.ie.it covers multiple numbers, such as a split bet, street bet, corner bet, or six line (aka double street),in real the maximum bet is an aggregate of the numbers covered.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maximum bets are not only there to restrict massive one time bets, where players may get lucky and avoid the long term effects of house advantage. They are also there to restrict the number of times a player may double up. This number is usually around 6 or 7 times. If the house minimum is $50 on red the max would probably be $1000. This would allow the player to double up to $100 if he lost his first bet, in a effort to win back his $50 and still win $50. If he then lost again he could double up to $200, again to get back his $150 and win $50. The third double up would be to $400 to win back the $350 plus $50 profit. On the 5th spin he could bet $800, to get back the $750 with $50 profit. Due to the house limit of $1000 the player could no longer double up to $1600 and would need to win twice to get his money back. This is of course in favour of the house.

Betting only on red

There are 18 red pockets, 18 black pockets, and two green pockets on an American wheel. (One green on a European wheel, but let's stick to the American wheel for now). That means that the probability of winning a bet on red is 18/38, or 47.37%, rather different from the 42% given. Yes, you can use the binomial distribution to figure out what are the chances of 16 or more, or 20 or more wins, but on a 38 pocket wheel, the important number of wins is 19 or more, since that is the break even point (since "even money" bets like red pay 2:1). Perhaps you could figure out the probability of 19 or more wins, with p=0.4737, and N=38.

It seems more sensible to think in terms of the expected value of a bet; in almost all roulette bets (on a double wheel), the expected return is 36/38 or 94.74%, giving the house a 5.26% edge on every bet. It's like a change machine, where you put in a $100 note and it gives you back 94 dollar coins, and 74c. Only it's intermittent, so 47.37% of the time it gives you 200 dollar coins, and the rest of the time (more than half), it gives you nothing. On average, you get $94.74 for every $100 you put in. --Mike Van Emmerik 09:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an even better way to think about this is to move up a level and consider the casino to be a bank with a negative interest rate... mdf 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regular banks as well have a negative interest rate, they charge a higher interest rate on loans than they provide for your savings. Every company has to make profit and the profit has to come from someone. At a regular bank the sources are the loans and mortages, at the casino the higher chance of winning. 82.92.243.35 23:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to point this out.

I basically follow your first paragraph, but I don't really understand the second at all.

I understand your point about using 47.37% instead, so I shall work it out at 19 rolls as you suggested. I anticipate that the percentages will be slightly higher, but we shall see.

--ElephantForgets 10:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I could have been clearer: you are focusing on how often you have a winning session (of say 38 spins). Many players feel that if they have more winning sessions than losing ones, then they are automatically ahead. But this is not true if you lose more in the losing sessions than you win in the winning sessions. So it's important to consider "how much" as well as "win or lose". That's what expected return does: it measures how much you are ahead, on average, for every play; if this is more than you bet, you will win in the end, regardless of the win/loss result for individual sessions. --Mike Van Emmerik 11:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, before I read your reply, I began to put together what the second paragraph meant. I wasn't certain about where your data came from or what exactly it meant. Thanks to your newest reply, I now understand what you mean.

Thank you again for your interest in this topic and my posts, and for helping me improve the article. --ElephantForgets 17:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The section on betting on red (or black) seems rather pointless. The bottom line is that the expectation from betting on red is 47.37%, and the number of times you bet has no bearing on it.

The discussion of the distribution is somewhat interesting, but again not really relevant, and not needed to explain why it does not work. In addition, the figures are wrong. The probability of getting 18 or more reds is 56.3% not 50%, and the chances of getting 19 or more (to break even) is 43.4%.

All bets have a negative expectation of 5.3%. That's all you need to dismiss any strategy. Instead of explaining why the system does NOT work, the article should explain why people THINK IT WORKS. Only Martingale needs more discussion. 66.159.208.10 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation from book

I removed a sentence: Despite the claims in some books (for instance "Beat The House", by F* L*). The author is unhappy that his book was cited inaccurately and made legal threats. Please do not insert any reference to this book. Thank you. David.Monniaux 15:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Legal Threats??? These so-called gaming expert authors make me laugh. Who is he going to sue and for what??? Tell him to go get a life.

European vs American Roulette

In fact many European casinos (all the ones in Ireland that I know of, for a start) use roulette wheels with a single zero, but use dedicated roulette chips for wagering.

I noticed someone modified the page that early american wheels have a 3rd "losing" # as an american eagle. I can find multiple sources on google--some claim the eagle replaced the double-zero; some claim it was a 3rd. Maybe both are right, but until one can be certain I had to revert it to the prior version because among other things I don't know if it's always a "losing" number, and it should also include information about the different layouts (i.e. only 31 numbers back then).

• • • • ref The American Eagle on early wheels. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING REVISIONS> YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ THE EARLY HOYLE BOOKS> LEAVE THE REFERENCE TO THE EAGLE ALONE _ IT WAS ON THE WHEELS AND CHANGED THE ODDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.133.144 (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

roulette wheels

why are the numbers in different places on the wheel example the 32 is surounded by the 17 and 20 and on another wheel the 32 has the 0 and the 15 please tell me why if possiable?

I have a tentative theory about the construction of the French Roulette (Copyrighted), which was designeg or perfected by B. Pascal. I started my quest on the idea that if Pascal had been involved in this process, it must had been done on geometrical/mathematical reasonings. (Be noted : The ZERO (0) had not been in at this stage). It will be published in a book form, shortly, and posted in due course. However, if you send a Non-Disclosure Aggreement to tamaslevy@bigpond.com ; subject : frenchroulette, I FAX over the chapter to you free of charge. However, I shall state that knowledge (if true) of the construction of the layout of the numbers cannot help to devise a STRATEGY to beat the house advantage in the game.Tamaslevy 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If the numbers were in sequence it would be a lot easier to watch the wheel and ball spin and guess that it would fall on a certain range of numbers. To do this with the current layout requires that you bet on individual numbers to make up a sequential portion of the wheel, which is very difficult.--155.144.251.120 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to get the best possible distribution of high and low numbers, the sum of each two successive numbers of the same color must equal 37.so the numbers are in different places on the wheel example.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Famous Bets

In the 1942 film Casablanca, Rick's Café Americain has a trick roulette wheel. The croupier can cause it to land on 22 at will. Rick (Humphrey Bogart) urges a Bulgarian refugee with whose case he becomes sympathetic to put his last three chips on 22 and motions to the croupier to let him win. After the man's number dramatically comes up, Rick tells him to let it all ride on 22 and lets him win again. Although the details are not mentioned in the film (the croupier only notes that they are "a couple of thousand" down), it appears that Rick has given the man 3675 (3*35*35) francs.

If a player bets 3 chips on a single number and lets it ride, his payout would be 105 for the first hit + 3 chips original bet (that's what "let it ride" means). The player lets it ride (or in other words parleys his winnings) and his bet is 108, hits it again, his payout is 3780 plus 108 from his bet so the player walks away with total winnings of 3888 (3*36*36). --Dice yo11 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nov-29-06. I noticed that Tendancer has changed my correction back to the previous payout: 3*35*35=3675. Maybe you didn't have a chance to read my explanation here. Consider that the next movie example from "Run, Lola, Run" is correct: 1000*36*36=129600. Buttom line is: if you bet $3 on a single number and you let it ride the first time and then hit again, you'll walk away with $3888.--Dice yo11 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I understand what you are saying and I think the main issue is the interpretation/phrasing of payout. I would be fine if it's phrased as "walk away with $3888" by the way...Otherwise there's a pedantic argument/case to be made about what she was given and what was the original principal. Tendancer 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way 3*35*35 is always wrong. If you bet 3 then you win 35:1 on your money, which means you have 35*3 plus your original 3 = 36*3. Now you bet 36*3 and win 35*36*3 plus you still have your original 36*3, a total of 36*36*3 money you are left with. The money won is 36*36*3 - 3. Walked away with $3888 or won $3885--Dacium 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of "famous bets", should the South Park reference really be here. It wouldn't even be classified as a "famous fictional bet" were such a catergory added TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "dopey experiment"

Am a bit confused. The article states that the 'dopey experiment'--betting your money in 35 increments--is "not a strategy to win money". But it seems like it is: if you play that way you have a 61% chance, according to the article, of at least breaking even. You have the advantage, rather than the house. Am I wrong? Is this not the best way to play roulette? What am I missing? Vidor 01:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What he means is if you bet 35 times on a single number, you have a 61% chance of that number spinning up once in 35 times. This doesn't mean you win money over all. For example the average situation will be the number spinning up on the 17.5th spin, so 16.5 bets already lost, and 35 bets are won, making it a net result of 18.5 won. But this only occurs 61% of the time. The other 39% you loose all 35 units. So the total won is 0.61*18.5 - 0.39*35 = -2.365. So if you play like this, on average you will loose 2.365 of your 35 bet units each time you attempt to play. This whole article requires clean up, I don't know what silly strategies like that are even mentioned. Making 35 individual bets gives the house 35 times the edge than making one massive bet. A much better strategy is to simply bet all ones money on spin one an even money bet (this why when people make massive bets this is all they do, they don't make many bets, just one).--155.144.251.120 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"This doesn't mean you win money over all". But it does, doesn't it? Payoff is 35:1, so if you hit on any of the first 34 spins you win money, and if you hit on #35 you break even. I don't see how betting all on one roll is a better strategy to win money, since your odds are 1/38 that way. (BTW, I tried the "dopey experiment" once in Reno and hit on bet #19). Vidor 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you don't hit on the 35th you are down 35 units. Which is why it doesn't work. Go try it if you don't believe me.--Dacium 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I posted above, I did try it, and it did work. And I don't understand how a 40% probability of failure means a scenario "doesn't work". There is always a risk of failure. That's why it's called "gambling", and not "putting your money into a Treasury bill". The dopey experiment puts the odds in your favor, by a pretty healthy margin. How many other Vegas stratagems that don't involve cheating can say that? In any case, what I was getting at in my original comment is that this stratagem, which takes a game with very bad odds and turns the odds into 3:2 in favor of the bettor, actually is "a strategy to win money", contra the article. Vidor 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are taking just the Win/Loss percentage and forgetting about the actual amount won and lost. As stated above when you win, you will win 61% of the time your average win is 18.5 bets. You will loose 39% of the time and your loss is always 35 bets. Therefore on average all up the 'stratagem' results in: 0.61*18.5 - 0.39*35 = -2.365. What this means is that while a win is 60% likly, when a loss does come, it looses much more 3/2ths of the win. Thus if you keep doing this strategy you eventually loose money. And on average if people do this strategy the average person ends up loosing 2.365 bets of there 35.

If you had simply betted 35 units on a single roll of black, you would win 35 units 18/37% of the time, and loose 35 units 19/37% of the time. Average from this 'stratagem' is 18/37*35 - 19/37*35 = -0.945. Therefore, on average betting all 35 units just on black looses just 0.945 units.--155.144.251.120 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bet Odds Table

The table does not include odds or payout for Corner or Sixline bets. 74.38.67.189 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. And as to the bets on the rows, I believe these are called "streets" and that the sixline bet, which I assume is the bet placed on two rows, is called "split streets"?Ddgun 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Website suggestion

www.online-casinos.com/roulette/

I have recently done some roulette related programming and it interested me enough to set up a section on my site with some valuble and unique (I think) content that might make it eligible for an external link on the roulette page. It has a Roulette training game that allows players to test their roulette strategies, systems and chip spreads. The player can watch statistics on hit numbers, hot spots, auto-spin and more. Rather than being seen to spam the roulette page, I will leave it up to long term maintainers to determine if this site is appropriate to be added to the external links.

Thanks Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.91.110.207 (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

The problem with that link which I have is that it encourages things "hot spots" which have no value what so ever in determinines the outcome of the next spin. The site promotes use of the gamblers fallacy.--155.144.251.120 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The website does not promote gambling systems at all - on the contrary. The tool offers an easy way to test roulette strategies AND will show people that no system can win in the long run. Showing people that a system does not work would be a really really bad way of promoting a system in my opinion. No systems are promoted in any way, the "Hot Spots" feature inside the training tool are in place for those who's system is based on betting on "sleeping numbers" or "Hot spots" and as such usefull for testing those kind of systems. No where is is suggested that "Hot Spots" should have any value at all in regards to determining the outcome of the next spin. However it is a fact that many roulette players place their bets on hot or sleeping numbers, many systems are beased on this. To be able to show these people that their system is worthless the tool needs the "Hot Spots" feature. Here is a quote for the websites main roulette page: "If betting systems were a way of getting rich, there would not be any casinos left". In my opinion my website offers a free and very use full tool for those interested in roulette. Furthermore the roulette section on my website offers visualized roulette instructions - in my opinion yet another usefull any unique thing for those interested in roulette. I am not going to start any arguments, just suggesting a external link for the roulete article. If the longterm gambling editors don't find my roulette section usefull I will respect that - but I am defenitly not promoting gambling systems for sure :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.53.195 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The site is just a spammy link drop and shouldn't be included in the article. Rray 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the distribution is somewhat interesting,but again not really relevant and shouldn't be added in the article.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Savannah Strategy?

I just saw the tail end of a show on Discovery (Canada) that talked about the successful "Savannah Strategy" in Roulette, but I didn't catch how it's done. Anybody know? The great google only led me to the guy (who was on the show) whose book contains the strategy.

Savannah is not a strategy, it is our-right cheating and will get you jail time. What you do is you bet say 4 red chips with the top 3 slightly forward so the dealer can't really see the colour of the bottom chip. Then if the bet wins you extremely quickly change the bottom chip with a different coloured chip while the dealer is looking at the wheel or punching in the result on the computer displays etc. Obviously savannah 'strategy' is extremely difficult to pull off and very dangerous.--155.144.251.120 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Computers predicting spin outcome

The section on betting strategies and tactics talks much about people who were allegedly able to predict the outcome of roulette wheels using computer models. But this section is not referenced very well. For example, Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo is mentioned. I could not find much on this, but what I did find stated: "Working with a group of colleagues, Pelayo's trick was to write down the winning numbers of myriad roulette games, then have a computer digest them."[1]

I find it very hard to believe that you could collect enough data that way to reveal tendencies of roulette wheels. It is much more likely, IMO, that this group of individuals and the casino both falsely believed that the number crunching strategy worked when in fact all that happened was a run of good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ddgun (talk • contribs) 00:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Inappropriate External Link

The external link labelled "Encyclopaedia Britannica, Roulette - full-access article" is to a site which appears to be intermittently launching dodgy ads concerning detection of spyware. I suggest deleting it. Jim 14159 11:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Even Money Bets and the En Prison Rule

There is a brief mention of some European casinos returning half your bet if you lose an even money bet.

According to Wizard Of Odds and some other sites, there are casinos in Atlantic City that use this rule on 00 wheels (but not single 0 wheels). If its mentioned on Wizard Of Odds, chances are it's not just an isolated case; but I've never been to Atlantic City to attest to it. As the site states, if this rule is in effect in a 00 wheel, then the house edge for even bets is reduced to 2.63% (18/38 chance of winning, plus 2/38 chance of losing half your bet).

Also stated is a modification of this rule is the 'en prison' rule used in some European casinos (such as France) where you don't get back half your bet, but your bet is "imprisoned". If your bet wins on the next spin, then you get your original bet back (no winnings). This results in a slightly greater house edge (1.389% versus 1.352%).

Worth elaborating on in the article?

Prothonotar 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Expected value?

What is the meaning of the "expected value" column in the Bet Odds table? Values like -$0.053 suggests to me a loss of ~5 cents on a $1 bet, when you should win $35 plus get your $1 stake back. And shouldn't there be more variation in these "expected value" figures anyway? Astronaut (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no variation because every bet except for a couple have the same expected value. Rray (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? What is "Expected Value"? Astronaut (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Expected value is how much you can expect to win or lose per bet over a statistically significant series of trials. Rray (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So, just to check I understand this correctly... If, over a session, I play 10000 $1 bets anywhere on the table, I could expect to leave the casino with $9470 and the casino would keep $530 (unless I played that 5 number bet). Astronaut (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Expected value. 2005 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think standard deviation can kick in easily with that number of trials, but yeah, basically. The more trials, the closer you should come to the expectation. Rray (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rray.

As for the link to Expected Value, that was less useful. I thought I was of at least average intelligence and I know quite a bit of mathematics. Could something be done to make that article more accessible to the average reader?

Astronaut (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't really edit a lot of math-related articles here. Glad I was able to help though. :) Rray (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

French Tarot and French Roulette

French Tarot and French Roulette can be corelated as follows:

 0-+
 1-1
 2-2
 3-3
 4-4
 5-5
 6-6
 7-7
 8-8
 9-9
10-10
11-V
12-C
13-D
14-R
15=1
16=2
17=3
18=4
19=5
20=6
21=7
22=8
23=9
24=10
25=11
26=12
27=13
28=14
29=15
30=16
31=17
32=18
33=19
34=20
35=21
36=*

That permits to use French Roulette as random modifier while playing French Tarot. Zero can be used as special modifier. CBMIBM (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Odds table

Isn't the odds on American Roulette 38 to 1? Why does the the table say 37 to 1?

Rickyar (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

37 to 1 is correct. There are 37 ways to lose on a single number bet, and 1 way to win. Rray (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested External Links

1. Roulette simulator: http://www.lonniebest.com/Roulette/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.154.55 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Live Roulette TV Learn here how to play the game live and on TV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonziee (talk • contribs) 10:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Image:EO Wheel.jpg

Question: I added EO wheel picture. I own the picture copyright and took a photograph of it and uploaded it. Then I got a message saying they can't determine the copyright licence etc. I put that I own it - when I uploaded the picture. Where do I ask or who do I inform of this again.?? Also, where do I add the copyright tag

 ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronshelley (talk • contribs) 02:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That you "made" the image file (scanned it, etc.) does not mean that you "own" the copyright. For one thing, the modern text caption is probably still under copyright by the author or publisher of the book you scanned this in from. The two illustrations in the scan (the wheel and the gambling scene) fall have expired copyright, not GFDL. However, the wheel illustration is very damaged and fragmentary. And the caption is wrong anyway, because the gambling scene is almost certainly 18th century, not 17th century. Churchh (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphans vs, Orphelins

In the title of that section, as well as the accomponying image, it is suggested that these are the same thing, but in the text of the actual article, it calls one set of numbers Orphelins, and another Orphans. Does anybody have an answer one way or another? And might that person be abletomake the appropriate edits?72.221.122.158 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Orphelin" is just the French-language word meaning "orphan". Churchh (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)