Talk:Gambling mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article is a bit loose[edit]

The article is a bit loose with describing the sample spaces in all games of chance as finite -- e.g., the sample space for a round of craps is infinite, and the most important probability questions in craps (e.g. the odds of winning on a pass line bet) involve such an infinite sample space. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

External links section[edit]

I've added an external links section with relevant links multiple times. If you have objections to the links, this would be the place to discuss it, but it would be inappropriate to delete a link to a website you haven't even seen. You're assuming that I'm either acting in bad faith or don't know what I'm doing by deleting a link to a site you haven't even seen, and a look at my edit history should make it clear that I'm not just some spammer. I also have no affiliation with any of the sites in question. I did leave the Discover magazine article out per your last edit, as it might be more appropriate in the card counting article, like you said.

(For clarity, I should probably mention that much of the above is directed at the editor who keeps deleting the links I've added.) Rray 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So far, none of the links I've been able to check have been relevent. Why should I assume that the links I have not been able to check ARE relevant? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Because one of the guidelines here is to assume good faith. Since you can't access the page in question, you can't really make a judgment to its relevance. I disagree that the other links were irrelevant too, but the project is supposed to be collaborative and work on a consensus. And just because in your opinion the other 2 links weren't relevant doesn't mean that the 3rd link is irrelevant too.
I'll admit the other 2 links might have been borderline, but this link is in no way at all borderline, and Shackleford's site is used as a source for multiple articles here on gambling related subjects.

I'll ask another editor or two to weigh in on the appropriateness of the link. Rray 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not mean a free pass for edits which are wrong, even if they are in good faith. But perhaps WP:3O might be a better choice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't assume an edit is wrong if you can't view the web page that's under discussion. You don't have any way of knowing whether it's an appropriate link or not. Getting additional opinions does seem like a better choice, yes. Rray 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In a brief Google search, I could not locate any other sites containing independent, positive commentary about the intellectual content of the site. In any case, since this does not appear to be a site published by a recognized authority, under WP:EL it is among the 'links normally to be avoided.' EdJohnston 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Michael Shackleford is a published author of a book on gambling math. He is a recognized authority on the subject per WP:EL. See He was interviewed by Midwest Gaming & Travel here: A search for "Michael Shackleford" in Google might provide better results than a search for "Wizard of Odds", since multiple people have used that particular moniker. He's also used as an example of a gambling math consultant in this article, and no one has objected to that. Rray 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
My last edit was eaten in an edit conflict so the short version.... Thewizardofodds link obviously meets WP:EL as it is written by the most respected authority in the field by far. Removing it because someone could not read it was totally inapproriate. A card counting link should go on that article. 2005 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, criteria 1,4,6, 12 and 14 may apply here. I see this link as a blog and advertising. So I would lean against it. Vegaswikian 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a blog, and the comment about advertising is simply hard to understand as the site is chock full of original content. None of 1,4,6, 12 and 14 apply, and in fact show why the link is appropriate. the only possible issue is 14, and that is because this articel is a disater area, chock full of original research written by an editor who was promoting his own gambling math books and website. I'd be tempted to afd the whole thing, but without doing that, a link to the most recognized authority in the field (the article even ALREADY SAYS THAT!) should be there. 2005 23:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec x4)
Under the circumstances, it appears the proper thing to do is to reference his book, rather than his web site. If you feel the book is relevent, I'll trust you on that. (The web site is indexed in DMOZ, but I can't tell from there whether it is mathematical.)
Except for the possiblility of getting a {{laundry}} tag, I'd also add How to Gamble if you Must (ISBN 0486632830) to the references section. It doesn't handle the more complex options, but it's certainly mathematical. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea. Arthur, can you access the cache of the page in Google? Or does your firewall block that too? I would say that the entire website is appropriate to this article, but the page on the website that I linked to is particularly specific about gambling math and probability. Rray 00:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, the cache is blocked, also. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A different google cache shows promise. I'm not convinced he's a recognized authority allowing the exceptions at WP:SPS to apply, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The books section is the first thing that should be removed here, not added to. The article is a whole mass of text that has no sources or (until now) even external links to verify or further explore anything. The link is from the leading authority in the field, has plenty of content and is obviously appropriate in terms of EL, so can we move on? 2005 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this -- "Therefore, after 10 rounds betting $1 per round, your result will be somewhere between -$0.53 - 3 x $3.16 and -$0.53 + 3 x $3.16, i.e., between -$10.01 and $8.95. (There is still a 0.1% chance that your result will exceed a $8.95 profit, and a 0.1% chance that you will lose more than $10.01.)" --- it simply doesn't make any damn sense. I mean, I understand the statistics, but if you bet $1 per round for 10 rounds, the maximum you can possibly lose is $10. There is NOT a "0.1% chance that you will lose more than $10.01". Period. Karichisholm (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

bernollie trial[edit]

a box contain m white and n black balls.balls are drawn at random one at a time without replacement.find the probability of encountering a white ball by the Kth draw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Gambling mathematics[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Gambling mathematics which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bbjmath\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)