Talk:Hole carding

Advantage

Only 10% advantage? This may be the old Thorp or Uston strategy or may exclude Insurance. Carlson's strategy has a gain of 12.8%. (I calculate it at 12.82% and Grosjean calculates 12.84%.) I have a strategy at http://www.qfit.com/holecard.gif that has a 13.0% advantage. (10.7% without Insurance.) Cacarulo has a strategy that has a gain of 13.09%. But it is composition dependent. Objective3000 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the Wizard of Odds number. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

All three of those numbers would be okay to include in the article, since we have the reliable sources to reference. Rray (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with Shack and like him. But his strategies and numbers are based on infinite deck. Also if you look at the paragraph at the end of the reference - it makes no sense at all. Objective3000 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it makes sense. Doubling against 5-5 is the same as doubling against a ten upcard in a no hole card game. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the link to http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix16.html in the article. But I just realized the link is incorrect anyhow. It is a link to DBX strategy, not hole-carding. This is completely different. The link should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a double exposure strategy. It says both cards exposed and ties push. Dealer wins ties in double exposure. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're right. But the paragragh at the end about 11v10 is still not correct. Objective3000 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes

This is getting sillier and sillier. Editor 2005 has a habit of making changes based on a complete lack of knowledge of the field. Whay are the gambling pages controlled by people that do not understand the gambling field? He is demanding now that I not add a statement that I didn't add in the first place but was in the original article. Something he wishes to remove because he doesn't understand how to do it. Look, you do not have to describe how Houdini did every one of his tricks to include the fact that he did them. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to book. This page should be removed it it cannot be corrected. Objective3000 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have no understanding of what an encyclopedia is, or for that matter what non-horrible writing is. Your own silly pronouncements about the gambling field is not the issue. The issue is bad writing. The sentence you want to put back in is literally laughable, as written. You think you know what the sentence is supposed to mean. You leave silly edit notes saying do you need to "spell it out", and the answer of course is YES. This is an encyclopedia that is supposed to explain things, not make nonsensical statements. You seem not care at all and just want to have this trolling arguments. Either contribute to making articles better or don't, but please don't just take absurd positions to be difficult. The text now does not include the factually inaccurate statement that hole carding is legal always. It's plainly obvious that hole carding is not legal if a person climbs over the table to look at the blackjack dealer's card, or a stud poker opponents' hole cards. A sentence saying any non-device hole carding is legal is nonsense. It's a simple matter to clear it up, like I did. 2005 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I could repeat back your first four sentences verbatim. That is because they are simply insults with no value. You clearly have no understanding of the issues in this page. I have rewritten much of this page. But it still includes your absurd pronouncement that "rubbernecking" is illegal despite case law. Nevada Statute clearly states that optical devices are illegal. Nevada Senate Bill 467 signed into law in 1985 clearly states that electronic devices are illegal. But find me one single law that says "rubbernecking" is illegal. Where is your reference for such an absurd comment? And why were Cagno and in a separate case Grossjean and Russo not convicted of this "crime?" If you are so certain this law exists, provide a citation. If you cannot, it is extremely bad form for an encyclopedia to claim acts are illegal without reference and it should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. The burden is on you to show a citation that says it is legal for a player to get out of his chair, look over teh shoulder of a blackjack dealer or a stud poker player and look at their hole cards. Or, that a player can just grab a dealer's hole card and look at it. The burden is on you to cite such nonsense. Please stop just arguing for arguments sake. You know it is not legal to do these things. Some types of hole carding without a device are illegal. Move on. 2005 (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless. The guy just makes things up. Objective3000 (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. The entire issue is: "Hole-carding, so long as it does not involve the use of a mirror or other device, is legal and is a form of advantage gambling." That line says it is okay to hole card by any means other than a device, like getting out of a chair or wildly craning your neck. That line is false and absurd. Of course it wasn't the original writer's intent to suggest you can get out of your chair, so we need to REWRITE AND CLARIFY the line. I did that. Now I have no idea why you wrote the rest of that stuff, but get a grip and focus on the topic. We need to not write lines that are patently false. We need to write clearly. And we need to not re-add obviously absurd statements. That is not hard, nor remotely controversial so please stop trying to pick arguments over that or other completely unrelated stuff. (Napoleonic law? My gosh... focus please). 2005 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please settle down. Do we both agree that a player may put his face on the felt to catch a hole-card, so long as he isn't using a device? And do we both agree that spooking (looking at the holecard when you are not at the table, and signaling) is illegal? And is there any case law regarding standing up and leaning over the table to look at the dealer's holecard? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As originally written the line was: "...but can apply to other games with hidden hole cards such as poker. Hole-carding, so long as it does not involve the use of a mirror or other device, is legal and is a form of advantage gambling..." This was plainly incorrect. You can not lean over to see a seven card stud player's hole cards, or get out of your seat and look at the dealer's in blackjack. It's a simple fix to clarify the language. I have no idea why Objective3000 objected to that, or then went on and on about other things. As it reads now, using examples of three casino games rather than poker, and stating spooking, that's clear enough. 2005 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Case law clearly shows that "rubbernecking" is perfectly legal despite the fact that '2005' tried to claim it illegal four times. As he said "And we need to not re-add obviously absurd statements." My attempt was to remove the "obviously absurd statement" that he kept re-adding. People have gone so far as to use wheelchairs as an excuse to "put his face on the felt" without breaking any laws. I don't know why '2005' keeps going on about getting out of your seat and why he insists that HC must occur after the deal is complete. This is no more a part of hole-carding than pulling out a gun. The current statement focuses on spooking. No one does this. The main area of illegality used to be in Vegas and still is outside of Vegas, dealer/player collusion - formal or informal. Peaking devices were invented to prevent collusion - not to thwart hole-carders. I should add that the device law is a US thing and an encyclopedia should not be US-centric. Devices are completely legal in many countries. But all of this is off focus as it has nothing to do with hole-carding as it is actually performed. 99.9% of the time HC is simply taking advantage of a weak dealer. Hole-carding is legal. And an encyclopedia should not comment on legality except in an historical context anywho. Objective3000 (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to case law: There is now a DVD available about the Tony Dalben/Steven Einbinder case. Tony Dalben and his partner, Steven Einbinder, were playing blackjack at the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas in 1983. A sloppy dealer was checking the hole card under aces and 10s in a way that Dalben could see it. Dalben signaled his knowledge of the hole card to Einbinder, who was betting large. Rather than correcting or replacing the dealer, the casino chose to involve the Gaming Control Board, whose agents arrested Dalben and Einbinder. The two were charged with various felonies. After the case was dismissed, the prosecutors appealed. The case went to the Nevada Supreme Court, which vindicated Dalben and Einbinder. The Nevada Supreme Court said: "... the evidence showed that respondent Dalben was lawfully seated at his position at the blackjack table, that he did not use any artificial device to aid his vision, and that he was able to see the dealer's hole card solely because of the admittedly sloppy play of the dealer. Respondent Dalben then communicated his information to respondent Einbinder. The District Court ruled that respondents' conduct did not constitute a violation of the cheating statutes. We agree." This is the third case that I have stated on this page. Hole-carding is legal. Rubbernecking is legal. Please stop falsely accusing people of crimes in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop going on and on about irrelevancies. This has nothing to do with the law so why do you keep going on about it? You seem to not care, but for the fifth time, the issue is WORDING A SENTENCE. No matter how many times you avoid it, players are not allowed to pick up the dealers cards and look at them in blackjack. They aren't allowed to push someone out of a chair and look at opponents cards in seven card stud. So please stop adding text says says it is okay. There is no issue that certain types of straightforward hole carding is legal, so stop going on and on and on about that when NO ONE DISAGREES. The issue is writing a sentence that is not idiotic. Now I suspect you understand that picking up an opponent's cards is against the rules, and that hole carding in stud poker is different than blackjack, so would you please stop this. It's not "funny" to put nonsense sentences into an encyclopedia. If you want to say that hole carding has been held to be not illegal in nevada blackjack, then for pete's sake say THAT, don't make a sweeping statement that covers all games and all actions. 2005 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No one said anything about stud poker. No one said anything about picking up the dealer's cards. No one said anythung about pushing someone out of a seat. You keep making things up. These have NOTHING to do with hole-carding. Pointing a gun at the dealer and taking the chips is also illegal. This also has nothing to do with hole-carding. Hole-carding is LEGAL. 100% legal. Spooking is LEGAL. I gave you a case settled by the Nevada Supreme Court. If you can find a law that says it is illegal, then cite a reference. Ohterwise stop accusing innocent people of crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the article says "various card games"! It talks of games with hidden hole cards. You think just because YOU are only talking about and thinking about blackjack means you can add any nonsense text you want. These articles are not written for you. they have to be clear and distinct, so the ONLY issue is picking up cards in blackjack, or signaling with a confederate in poker. We need to make the article show the distinction between what is within the rules in one game that is NOT within the rules in another. If you want to say something about ONLY blackjack, don't put it in a paragraph that says "various card games"! Now I've clarified the paragraph to state more clearly that the same practices don't apply to all games. Please move on. This going on and on about something NO ONE DISPUTES is tedious. 2005 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I am not talking only about Blackjack.

2. I absolutely dispute the statement that you kept adding.

3. You may find it tedious - but accusing people of crimes is a serious issue.

4. My name is not 'Dude.' Objective3000 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No one accused anyone of crimes. Bad sentence structure is not a crime. Changing blackjack to casino table games is fine, and an example of making a sentence more clear. 2005 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bull. You repeatedly added a statement claiming that actions of numerous advantage players are illegal. This is an extremely sensitive matter in the AP community and why APs always carry the card of one of the lawyers known for coming to the rescue of falsely arrested players. The casinos have spent decades claiming that AP is illegal. Don't be surprised when an AP gets upset when an encyclopedia makes the same disgusting claim. Try spending a night at the Clark County Detention Center and you will better appreciate the sensitive nature of the subject. Objective3000 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Back on subject, how can we edit this so we're all in agreement? And can we please stop the insults? 65.24.116.252 (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes can we please stop the insults? The current statement is off-topic and redundent. It is off-topic because Stud Poker has no more to do with hole-carding than Chess. Hole-carding is a technique used in casino table games: Blackjack, Three Card Poker, Carribean Stud Poker, Spanish 21 and SuperFun 21. The article states that it is a form of 'advantage gambling.' Click on the 'advantage gambling' link. It is, by definition, legal. If it were not legal, it would be criminal - not advantage gambling. Since advantage gambling is defined by WP as legal, and hole-carding is defined by WP as advantage gambling - hole-carding is also legal by definition. Having said that - I don't really care. All I care is that the page does not falsely state that hole-carding can be a crime. It no longer states that. Objective3000 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It says it is a form of advantage gambling with table games NOW. You kept trying to force nonsensical language about "various card games". As for crimes, why do you keep mentioning that? It's like you keep insisting the Earth is round just to be difficult. Move on, and please next time focus on the issues involved in writing encyclopedia articles, which is almost always wording text that states things accurately. If you believe "Hole-carding is a technique used in casino table games" then for pete's sake see that the article SAYS THAT! The article has not said that. The first sentence talks about card games with hidden cards. That is far more games than casino table games. We are here to write clear, well-sourced sentences that are almost impossible to misinterpret. Please focus on that, not trying to have arguments about things not in dispute or not in the article. By the way, there are no hidden cards in Chess, nor is it one of the "various card games". that again is the only issue here, clarity of writing. 2005 (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Again making things up and churlish insults. I didn't try to force ANY language at all. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, I was removing an incorrect statement - not adding a statement. You kept trying to force a patently false accusation of criminal activity based on a misunderstanding of the term. ALL advantage play is legal by definition. Start reading your own insults. You are the only person here that kept trying to add unclear, false statements. Objective3000 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, gentlemen, let's please focus on the article! Should we re-phrase it to say something about hole-carding being a technique for table games? 65.24.116.252 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did that. Objective3000 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions

I noticed that the words "in most jurisdictions" were added to the passage about hole carding being legal. Is it illegal in some jurisdictions and legal in others? No citation was included for the change, so I was curious what this is based on. It seems like a vague addition. Rray (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites

Two of the three citations in the article were twice removed by a new user violating WP:U in an apparent attempt to suggest that he/she was someone else. After the username was banned, an IP was used to again remove the citations calling them SPAM, in an apparent WP:3RR violation. These citations were added three years ago to satisfy cite requests. Although I see nothing wrong with the original cites, I have replaced these with two more complete cites. Please discuss before removal.Objective3000 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor continues deletions and does not take part in discussion. [WP:3O} requested.Objective3000 (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Your request for a third opinion has been removed because 3O's are only available when two editors have come to a stalemate after discussing their dispute on the talk page of the article. Let me suggest that you ask Orange Mike, the sysop who blocked the other user's account to semi-protect this page since it does appear that the blocked user is still continuing to edit through an IP address. Let me note in passing, however, that the links being removed appear to me to be very iffy as reliable sources to support the assertions in the article. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I don't see why they are iffy.Objective3000 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia policies WP:SOURCES and, especially, WP:SPS. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I've read that. I don't think it applies as the book has been vetted by Don Schlesinger and the author is mentioned in 22 books on Blackjack. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mere vetting is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of WP:SOURCES that:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Mere private vetting simply doesn't have the necessary reputation; that reputation comes from a history of publishing which establishes such a reputation or from the academic nature of the publication. The fact that the author (or actually, more accurately, the author's software) has been mentioned or reviewed 22 times is also insufficient to meet WP:SPS, which says that:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Reviews and mentions of a person's work does not constitute publication of that person's work; publication of work means having ones writings themselves published by others. The way to be certain, however, is not to take my word for it, but to post an inquiry at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about these sources. Would you like for me to do that for you? I'm fairly certain of my analysis and the probable outcome, but I've certainly been wrong before. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)