Talk:Blackjack

Template:WP1.0

Double Down on Natural

I do not see information here in the rules about the player choosing to double down when receiving a natural. It is my understanding that this is allowed by casino rules. And this makes some of the statements in the article slightly inaccurate because they assume there is no player decision possible when you receive a natural. Should I add this information? FishDawg1 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Many, if not most, casinos don't allow this. There's no info on how many as it's never a correct play outside of tournament blackjack and no one has looked into it. I've only done this once, over 30 years ago. Probably not worth mentioning. O3000 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Payout ratio for win

In the section Rules of play at casinos it says that Wins are paid out at 1:1. Since the player is receiving 2 dollars for every one dollar bet then shouldn't it be a ratio of 2:1? Tellurium128 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It's 2 for one or 1:1. You only win one. They mean the same. O3000 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It get what your saying, but in the section Rule variations and effects on house edge - Altered payout for a winning blackjack, it says that paying 1:1 for blackjack is a way to increase the house edge. This is clearly different to the ratio of 1:1 mentioned earlier so there is inconsistency. Tellurium128 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally, hands pay 1:1. BJ is supposed to pay 3:2. Although, numerous casinos now pay 6:5 -- which is highway robbery, IMHO. Paying 1:1 for a BJ without a balancing rule would certainly increase the house edge -- enormously. O3000 (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Picture of Video Blackjack machine?

Can anyone contribute a picture of a video blackjack machine? If not, I will try to take one the next time I'm at a casino. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Added.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Rule Variation.

I was taught this game by some gambling addicts in high school in 1970. THey had a variation where 5 cards under 21 paid 3:1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:BD8F:53B6:5B46:1CED (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Informal Motion to Remove All References Placed by Objective3000 in Blackjack, Card counting, and Shuffle track and Wherever They May Also Appear in Wikipedia Articles to His Self-published Commercial Websites qfit and blackjackincolor

Informal Motion to Remove All References Placed by Objective3000 in Blackjack, Card counting, and Shuffle track and Wherever They May Also Appear in Wikipedia Articles to His Self-published Commercial Websites qfit and blackjackincolor

1. Qfit and blackjack in color are self-published websites (henceforth “Websites”) created by Objective3000.

2. The Websites contain much alleged original research by Objective3000.

3. The Websites contain large banner advertisements for Casino Verite software created by Objective3000, as well as links including instructions for purchase with prices.

4. Citations to the Webpages have been found on Blackjack, Card counting, Hole carding, Martingale (betting system), and Shuffle track (henceforth “the Articles”) either currently or in the past. See Exhibit A for evidence.

5. Objective3000 began working on Wikipedia on 8/31/2007.

6. Before that date, no citations to any page of his two Websites existed on any of the Articles, as evidenced by their wikipedia history.

7. Beginning on 11/15/2007 through 3/2/2008 Objective3000 placed eight citations to his self-published Websites in the Articles (Exhibit A).

8. None of Objective3000’s works in the gambling field have been published by a third party. They are all self-published. Active book publishers have published numerous gambling books, including Cardoza (Las Vegas) and Huntington Press (Las Vegas) and Random House.

9. On December 23, 2010, user QFIT deleted the two citations to the self-published websites inserted by Objective3000 in the article Hole carding. On December 23, 2010, Objective3000 reversed it. On December 24, 2010, user QFIT again deleted the two citations placed by Objective3000 on Hole carding with the comment, “Removed spam links.” On December 24, 2010, Objective3000 reversed the deletion, with the note rvt edit identified as vandalism by user barred for WP:U violation. Objective3000 had entered a complaint for vandalism against the user QFIT, and the user was banned for life on December 24, 2010 (Exhibit: 02:26, 24 December 2010 Orangemike talk contribs blocked QFIT talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite). On December 24, 2010, a user identified by his computer ID deleted a reference inserted by Objective3000 with the note: Removed self linking spam to co. On December 25, 2010, Objective3000 reversed it. On December 27, 2010, the ID’d user deleted the references by Objective3000 with the note “Removed spam links. Objective3000 is linking to his own commercial site as a reference.”

10. On December 27, 2010, in discussing the issue of the repeated deletions of citations noted in paragraph 8 above at the article Hole carding, TransporterMan on the talk page of Hole carding wrote, “links [to the citations]. . . appear to me to be very iffy as reliable sources,” and cited violation of WP:SPS and WP:Sources. TransporterMan suggested posting an inquiry at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Objective3000 let the issue die, with the citations having been removed by the user noted in paragraph 8 above. Daily average pageviews for Hole carding is currently about 55; it is rarely viewed. Daily average pageviews for Blackjack is about 1500. Daily average pageviews for Card counting about 800. The citations to the Webpages remain in Blackjack and Card counting, among others.

11. On 19 June 2021 Objective3000 posted a message asking that Blackjack and Card counting be given protected status (Special:Contributions/Objective3000: 14:20, 19 June 2021 diff hist +317‎ Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). The action of protected status is taken to cease inappropriate editing on controversial articles, articles about celebrities and political figures, and the such, not to ensure that Objective3000’s citations to his self-published webpages with commercial content be preserved. Both Blackjack and Card counting have the lowest ranking of completed articles, C-class, the editing needs of which are described as “Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.” Yet, Objective3000 wanted both protected.

Wherefore, we pray that the appropriate administrators provide the following relief:

1. Find that Objective3000 is in violation of WP:SPS, WP:SOURCES, WP:PROMO.

2. Find that Objective3000 silences those who attempt to remove the citations to his Webpages by filing inappropriate vandalism or other charges against them, and seeks inappropriate protected status for articles.

3. Order that all citations to Objective3000’s Webpages are allowed to be removed by the judging administrator or any other editor without retribution from any source, including the filing by Objective3000 of charges of vandalism or other charges.

4. Other remedies found appropriate.

Exhibit A. Evidence Objective3000 (now also using O3000 and O3000, Ret.) began at Wikipedia 08/31/2007. Here are ten times he inserted his self-published webpages with commercial content as references into multiple articles in his first few months on Wikipedia.

1. 11/15/2007 inserted into Blackjack first of his qfit references, with banner ads at top and bottom

Over 100 variations exist.100+ Blackjack variations

2. 12/24/2007 inserted into Hole carding at 23:13 http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-odds-calculator.htm

3. 12/24/2007 inserted into Hole carding at 16:49 The advantage can vary substantially depending on the rules, the percentage of cards seen, and+ the strategies used. http://www.qfit.com/blackjackholecarding.htm

4. 1/19/2008 inserted into Card counting

The following table illustrates various ranking systems for card counting.Card Counting Strategies

5. 1/26/2008 inserted into Card counting

Another interesting aspect of the probability of card counting is the fact that, at higher counts, the player's probability of winning a hand is only slightly changed and still below 50%.[1] The

6. 1/26/2008 inserted into Card counting

Blackjack played with a perfect basic strategy typically . . . 10%-30% of the time depending on rules, penetration and strategy. BlackjackinColor.com True Count Frequencies

7. 1/28/2008 inserted into Blackjack

Techniques other than card counting can swing the advantage . . . since the shuffle tracker could be, at times, betting and/or playing opposite to how a straightforward card counter would.Shuffle Tracking Counts

8. 3/2/2008 inserted into Martingale (betting system)

As with any betting system, . . . of how many previous losses.http://www.blackjackincolor.com/useless4.htm Martingale Long Term vs. Short Term Charts.

On a whim I also examine Shuffle track. Sure enough, the self-published banner ad-full citations were inserted by Objective3000. 9. 12/29/2008 inserted into Shuffle track

Shuffle tracking is an advanced form of card counting. There exist many types of shuffle tracking.http://www.blackjackincolor.com/Shuffletracking1.htm Blackjack Shuffle Tracking Charts

10. 1/28/2009 inserted into Shuffle track

Blackjack Shuffle Trackers Cookbook: How Players Win (And Why They Lose) With Shuffle Tracking] http://www.qfit.com/blackjackshuffletracking.htm "Blackjack Shuffle-Tracking Treatise".

Aabcxyz (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

Are there any diffs to support your claim in #1? How do you know the editor named Objective3000 owns or created those websites? Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, Schazjmd. If you go to any of the qfit and blackjackincolor webpages and scroll to the bottom you will see the name of the person who owns the site. It is probably a violation of some Wikipedia rule to publish names and I want to avoid falling into a trap where I will be suspended, so I respectfully will not produce that name here. The identify of Objective3000 and that person is well-known, and can be verified, for example, by user Rray.

Furthermore, this man has self-published a book, and is available at amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0044KMPMS/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

If you go to that page you will find this description:

Highly detailed information on casino Blackjack as played worldwide, including over 100 variations, modern basic strategy, modern card counting systems, casino heat, current casino conditions, strategy comparisons, scams and myths, casino comportment and stories from the road. See the preview at www.qfit.com/book. . . .

That establishes the identity of Objective3000 (aka O3000 and O3000, Ret.) and the author of that book. To summarize,

1) qfit and blackjackincolor webpages provide the real name of the author

2) amazon.com page establishes the identity of the book author and the webpage author.

Aabcxyz (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

I don't see anything at any of those links that say that person is Objective3000 (or any other account name) on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(I guess the colons establish a continuation?) This is not a court of law, Schazjmd. Please reread my paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. The connection is clear. Furthermore, if you read the longer of the two Cites discussion at Hole carding you will see Objective3000 referring to Don Schlesinger, and the amazon.com page noted above similarly refers to Don Schlesinger. IF you "look inside" his Modern Blackjack Edition II you will see in the front matter the word QFIT in large font. The author of Modern Blackjack is clearly the author of QFIT.

BUT THIS IS BESIDES THE POINT. Let us call that person, Mr. W. The creator of qfit and blackjackincolor is advertising Casino Verite software. https://qfit.com/ provides the name of the author as Mr. W. That software is prominently posted at the pages TO WHICH Objective3000 has placed links and which he protects by reversing attempts at deletion. The burden falls on Mr. W to establish expertise via WP:SPS and WP:SOURCE. He is reading these posts. He tried to establish expertise at Hole carding and you can read that discussion at the talk page of Hole carding, courtesy of TransporterMan. In summary,

1. Whoever Objective3000 is, he has placed repeated citations to self-published webpages.

2. Whoever Objective3000 is, those webpages have commercial content.

3. Whoever Objective3000 is, he has failed to establish expertise by the criterion of publication by a third-party.

4. None of my allegations above provided the actual name of Mr. W. That is irrelevant. Points 1, 2, and 3 establish the basis for removal of the citations.

Respectfully, Aabcxyz (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

Not a court of law, yet you word this as an "informal motion" and include ridiculous legalese such as Wherefore, we pray.... You based your whole tirade on your accusations against Objective3000, yet fail to show that Objective3000 and anyone associated with those websites are the same person.

You've gone about this all wrong. You should have put together your arguments about qfit and blackjackincolor not being reliable sources and simply focused the discussion on that issue. If you have evidence to support that Objection3000 had an undeclared conflict of interest, that's a task for the conflict of interest board (although it's meaningless to start anything as the editor is retired). Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Schazjmd, I'm new here and greatly appreciate your guidance. But to clarify, first the editor is not retired. When I deleted the citations to his self-published commercial webpages at qfit and blackjackincolor, he posted a vandalism notice, as is his practice (please see commentary at talk page of El C). Second, he still sells the software as you can verify by calling the phone number at the qfit and blackjackincolor webpages. Despite any retirement status, the existence of those citations in Wikipedia to his commercial webpages remain.

Third, here's the smoking gun. If you go to

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Objective3000&diff=404456459&oldid=169284509

you will see that Objective3000 is the author of the Casino Verite software in question to which his self-published website refer. He is without doubt Mr. W. That establishes the COI to which you refer.

User:Objective3000: Difference between revisions From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Browse history interactively Revision as of 01:41, 5 November 2007 (edit) UnqstnableTruth (talk | contribs) (wrong user) ← Previous edit Revision as of 13:15, 27 December 2010 (edit) (undo) (thank) Objective3000 (talk | contribs) Next edit →

Line 1: Line 1:

	+	Author Casino Vérité and some other stuff. Editor here since 2007, if my ancient mind recalls correctly. (bold mine)

________________________________________ Revision as of 13:15, 27 December 2010 Author Casino Vérité and some other stuff. Editor here since 2007, if my ancient mind recalls correctly.

Languages • This page was last edited on 27 December 2010, at 13:15.

In case someone decides to edit that page, I have taken a photograph of it. I hope you and those reading this will go to it to verify the statement "Author Casino Vérité and some other stuff." Aabcxyz (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

It's helpful to discuss content on article talk pages. It's not helpful to discuss editors on an article talk page. As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't hold "trials" and enforce "orders." Even if it did, the article talk page wouldn't be the appropriate venue.

Regarding the content, specifically, the references in question: If better quality references can replace the references in question, then, of course, they should be replaced. The fact that external sites display banner ads and/or are commercial sites is irrelevant; almost all the websites being used as references on Wikipedia are commercial sites and carry advertising -- including The New York Times. Rray (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the issues is self-published webpages used as references. As TransporterMan pointed out in the discussion at Hole carding, you have to have established expertise by publicatioon by a third party. That's the test that Objection3000 fails. Aabcxyz (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

Rray, you gave me good advice to carry the discussion at the talk area rather than in edit post comments, and Schazjmd directed me to make sure that Objective3000 is the exact same person as Mr. W. who is the author of Modern Blackjack and the qfit and blackjackincolor webpages that Objective3000 links to. We have established that identity, and I am grateful to Schazjmd for pointing out the need for establishing that identity. Now I need more advice. There are three issues identified by TransporterMan, Schazjmd, and I think Orangemike or QFIT. How long is the protocol to let the talk continue here before I post to noticeboards or ask for third party or in general to proceed to the next step? Your guidance would be much appreciated; I do NOT want to be banned for inadvertently violating some guideline of which I am not aware. Thanks in advance. On your NYT comment, I come to wikipedia to get references for my research. They are 100% scholarly articles and have not a tidbit of advertising. I have NEVER run across a reference that contains an ad, overtly or covertly. In contrast, qit and blackjackincolor have OVERT BANNER ADS as well as links to purchase prices! So your comment that "almost all the websites being used as references on Wikipedia are commercial sites" does not stand up to at least my extensive scrutiny. As obviously a veteran user who has read many, many articles and contributed greatly, can you provide me ONE citation other than qfit and blackjackincolor in which a banner ad is placed? And besides, "two wrongs don't make a right"; that is, in the equivalent statement quoted from the web: "the fact that someone has done something unjust or dishonest is no justification for acting in a similar way." N'est ce pas? To be careful, I am not implying the citations in question are "unjust or dishonest"; those are words taken directly from the web.

Other issues you brought up. It's not a question of "better" references. Many articles have NO references. For example, Hole carding. And much of the material to which qfit and blackjackincolor citations are added do not require references. In addition, in my looking at the edits on Card counting and Blackjack I found that Objective3000 removed dozens of references when they displaced ONE of his, and he removed another excellent reference with the comment to the effect "two references aren't needed," but of course he retained the one to qfit.

RE trials and orders, you said the talk area is not the proper venue for trials and orders. Again, can you suggest what are the proper venues, in particular for the issues being discussed here? I really look forward to continued input from you and Schazjmd and others who find these issues important. Aabcxyz (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

If you feel like you need to go through the dispute resolution process, you can learn more about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests.

You might also find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources helpful. Newspapers and websites are both listed as examples of possible references.

Look at the other references in this article for yourself rather than asking me to look them up for you. At least 6 or 7 of them are for other commercial websites, including one newspaper site. The fact that you're only concerned about websites owned by one individual makes it look like you're on a crusade against a specific individual rather than trying to improve the article. Stop discussing what a retired editor added to or deleted from an article. This isn't the place for you to try to "build a case" against another editor. Please, focus on doing something to improve the content. Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass might also serve you well. Rray (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for the advice, Rray. Re improving the article, my only experience with Blackjack other than those deleted citations was an improvement (as an multiple-award winning essayist) to I think the first sentence and you yourself reversed it, so I basically said forget it. Re retirement. He's not retired. He posted the protection request for Blackjack and Card counting as a means of preventing deletion of his citations, and that to C-class articles which you spent much-appreciated time in trying to remediate. Re crusades. I couldn't care less about the individual; I do care about violations of COIN and SPS and SOURCE and PROMO. There's a reason such prohibitions exist. It is clear that only experts can refer to self-published webpages and just because a few friends of his refer to Casino Verit software doesn't make him an expert. I won't comment on the content of his qfit and blackjackincolor pages other to say there's a reason he had to self-publish his book. Two publishers specialize in gambling books, Cardoza and Huntington, so they are out there. As you suggested, I will look at citations at Blackjack to look for banner ads. Thanks again for all your time. I'm trying desperately to avoid falling into a trap to allow me to get banned, but there's a lot of mudslides and tar pits in all the wikipedia rules and that's why I so greatly appreciate your advice.

Aabcxyz (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

Rray, I looked at the Blackjack references as you suggested. There are 29. There are 11 from books, government posts, gambling magazine, or newspapers, lacking ads. There are 6, numbers 4 through 9, which have page citations, so are books. Three are citations inserted to his webpage by Objective3000, possessing banner ads. Four are to the wizard of odds. That leaves 5 webpages. #11 has no ad. #16 has no ad, just a link to gambling addiction services. #19 has no ads, just lengthy tables of numbers. #27 has links to gambling casinos, but no ads. I assume the casinos pay for advertising space which would I guess cover part of the web hosting charges of the website owner. The wizard pages have links to casinos as does #27. No banner ads appear for products developed by the website owners on either the webpages of the wizard or those of the other five.

Because they are four in number, I should address the four wizard of odds posts. 1. The wiz’s ads, as noted, are for third party casinos. 2. The wiz and #27 earn no money other than toward the web hosting fee. 3. The wiz, according to his Wikipedia page, is in fact the renowned Michael Shackleford. His credentials are vast. His book Blackjack102 was published by a third-paper publisher, the distinguished gambling publishing house Huntington Press. He is a professor of mathematics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a licensed actuary, a frequent consultant to casinos, and his wizard of odds webpage was purchased from him for well over $2 MILLION. So he doesn’t even earn money for the ads! He has appeared before the Nevada Gaming Board and consults in various capacities, e.g. to game developers. By all criteria, he is a bonafide expert. 4. The 10 citations I noted to Objective3000’s qfit and blackjackincolor were made by Objective3000, including all that were made in the first 6 months of his editing. None were inserted into Blackjack by others before he began editing or during this 6 month period. In contrast, none of the citations to the wizard of odds were inserted by Michael Shackleford. In other words, there is very little in common between the citations of the two. For your benefit as well as to answer the concern of Schazjmd, here is the direct and intimate connection. Objective3000 is Mr. W (not his name, as I don’t want to run afoul of some Wikipedia rule), as shown on his talk page as the author of Casino Verit software. Qfit and blackjackincolor have banner ads and price lists for Casino Verit software, and those webpages note Mr. W as the owner of the webpages. The only citations (that I found) to those webpages came from Objective3000. Most of those who, like myself, found those citations troublesome as new users and deleted them were banned upon action by Objective3000 on claims of vandalism and Objective3000 reversed the deletions. Thank you for your consideration of my Informal Motion. Please let me know if any of my comments here are in violation of Wikipedia rules and I will eliminate them. I try to present only objective, verifiable facts. By the way, my name turns up in RED, and yours turns up in BLUE. Do I have to have a certain number of posts before my name shows up in BLUE? Thanks. Aabcxyz (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

@Aabcxyz, is there any reason you didn't just go add to the assertions in question? Did someone object to you doing that somewhere? Sorry if you explained that in the above, too long, didn't read. —valereee (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and to make your name show up in blue, you just have to go create your user page. If you have trouble, someone will be happy to do that for you, but it's not considered polite to just make the assumption someone wants that. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” The majority of the WP:SPA’s posts here are false and littered with WP:AGF and WP:PA violations, in particular the IP edit summaries (oddly with no notice of these attacks). And they go back 14 years to try to make some sort of case. I’m certainly not about bore everyone with point-by-point refutations of these screeds. But, I will make one comment because it is an example of irony – and I adore irony. The editor, in eight (8) sentences, writes about how much they respect Mike Shackleford‘s knowledge and how he is an acceptable source in this field. Well, Shackleford references the work of “Mr. W” on many pages of his sites. (A few: [2], [3], [4], [5]) Indeed, trusting Mr. W’s results over his own. So, Aabcxyz thinks Shackleford is an acceptable source – but as unacceptable a source who Shackleford has gone to for answers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

qfit: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This is a bit tldr for me, but qfit seems questionable to be used as a WP:RS here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)