So many different names
I just wanted to know if it was a name of a card game or a technique used in dealing or a profession. It took me a while to read to where it actually said what it is. Maybe there should be a separate place for all the different names. It looks bad the way it is now. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
monte/Monte... is it capitalized?
The name of the article conflicts with the introduction sentence. Request for clarification. Move may be needed. Tyciol 11:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I checked a few Wikipedia usages. Of scams, Shell game, Multi-level marketing, and even Snipe hunt all use just an initial capital. Of card games, the same is true of Contract bridge and Five-card stud. So, the consensus style certainly seems to be that Monte should not be capitalized. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, every usage, in books, I have seen on magic and the history of three-card Monte, it is with a capital "M." Soapy 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition: You mentioned other Wiki sites using the capital "M" in their articles. If you have changed them to small case, please revert to capitals once again. Thank you. Soapy 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have moved "Three card monte" to "Three-card Monte," which is the correct way according to all my books, and the Magic Castle. I have also taken the responsibility of changing the "What links here" spellings. Soapy 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Redirect madness and capitalization
OK, I think we've got this sorted out now (there was an interesting mess of double-redirects terminating in an endless loop, I think). In any case, I defer on the m/M issue. The other un-capitalizing I did was things like Queen->queen, which I think should remain. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-There are redirects. I don't think much can be done about these, as they had to do with other titles related to this article, such as Find the Lady. I changed what I could, and did not touch the userpages and such. I agree with the other changes you made (Queen/queen). Soapy 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
While there can be no doubt that this game is a con in the vast majority of cases, this article has weasel words galore and cannot claim to be written in an impassioned tone. This reads like a page from a law enforcement website devoted to warning the world about illegal gambling, not an encyclopedia entry. I added a neutrality tag to the page, and will add a worldwide view tag as soon as I learn the code for one. Sylocat 07:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Be my guest. But I think it a bit harsh to say it violates NPOV. The previous authors aren't attempting to weasel, but are describing the confidence scheme also called "Three-Card Monte." You seem to want to describe the game itself. I agree with both.
- My first proposed solution; a restructuring. First split off the information that describes how the game is played in an honest fashion. Then have a rather large sub-section on it's prevalent use in confidence schemes. I do question your claim towards it's prevalence outside of confidence schemes, but that should not stop us from describing the game rules objectively.
- As an alternative solution, maybe we should explore diverging into two articles?
- I wish it would be clarified some, maybe even with some diagrams. The descriptions of the sleight of hand movements had me confused. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's far too overreaching to say that it violates NPOV. I have changed the tag to cleanup, which encompasses a few different parts of the discussion page.Ab2kgj 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed a probability section that claimed the odds of winning a fair game were 1 in 3. While this might be true if the player chooses a card at random, in any actual fair game the probability would depend entirely on the player's ability to accurately track the movements of the target card with his or her eyes. Tmdean 07:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- By the same logic one could claim that the chance of drawing a particular card from a normal deck (e.g. naming the top card) is not 1 in 52 but depends on the ability to track the movements of shuffling the deck.
- The notion that you need slight of hand or a con trick to make money from this game is complete nonsense. Provided you shuffle reasonable well the payout is only 67% (for every $3 bet you pay out $2), which is far lower than any casino or poker machine. The house will almost always make lots of money from this game, no trickery required.
- That's the real trick -- the game is simply a very bad losing bet, and you will never catch the dealer cheating because they don't need to. Sgryphon (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In a fair game, the probability of winning is 1 in 3 if you guess, and 1 in 1 if you can follow the card correctly. If you assume the card is going to not be where you think it is, the probability is 1 in 2. The only reason anyone ever takes such a bad bet is because they think they can follow the card. after all there are only three, and they never leave your sight. If you do actually follow the right one somehow and guess their switching move, they will either a) have a shill bet bigger on another card, b) knock the table over, or c) pretend the cops are coming and leave, giving you back your money. If they have been doing particularly well (conned a lot of people out of their money), they may actually let you win once if you don't bet too much (after all, you won and aren't in on it so it must be legit), and if you are silly enough to play again, change their sleight of hand trick and fool you.22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think hatnotes usually get refs. The one I just added, saying three-card monte can be another name for three-card poker, is from Albert H. Morehead, Richard L. Frey, and Geoffrey Mott-Smith, The New Complete Hoyle, Doubleday & Company, 1964, p. 34. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Lack of continuity in "The Drop Move"
The rest of the article speaks of 'the dealer'. In the "Drop Move" suddenly the dealer is given the second person "you", making it read like an instruction manual to would-be con artists. Vynbos (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this really needs to be changed. The author of that section is clearly giving advice on how to defraud people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, this is how it goes!
I had the good fortune to witness this con being run in earnest by some Roma street people (from Romania .. gee) in Geneva four years ago. It was like watching an old movie, but it was real. I didn't know the con, but thought something was up. After watching for some time with a couple of people coming and going, I realized who was who and what was happening. I was so excited about it that when I new guy showed up I explained it all to him, pointing out the shills, how they were working together so the money won wasn't really changing hands, etc. and what the dealer was doing to remove the card. I was escorted away by another man who I had not recognized as part of the game and given a send off. I was probably lucky not to have been beat up. Another thing they were doing which you did not have in the article was constant talking, barker like narration, cheering etc, so that it looked like fun but I suppose also prevented the mark from concentrating.