Talk:Cee-lo

message: Pulling a Rich Hanley is an expression that has been in use in the NY area for some time now.
:Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Google shows zero hits for "a Rich Hanley"  and since it's evidently someone's name, I'm going to treat further additions as attack vandalism. Please stop adding it. Kafziel Talk 12:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by "an official protest". I already gave you the link to the page that explains that Wikipedia is not a slang guide. But I don't want you to feel singled out, so I've removed the entire slang section. Better? Kafziel Talk 13:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a whole list of things Wikipedia is not supposed to contain; one of those things is slang. You can see the entire policy here, and the specific note about slang here. Another very important policy (possibly the most important policy) is Wikipedia:Verifiability. In brief, it states that everything in every Wikipedia article must be able to be independently verified. Slang terms are quite often unable to be verified that way; that doesn't mean they're not valid terms, but it does mean that they can't be included in Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Kafziel Talk 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the guidelines make a distinction between pages about slang and pages about other things (like cee-lo) that include slang sections. Pages about slang terms (like jumping the shark or pwning) still cause a lot of problems, but the problems are more manageable because they're in a central location. There are slang terms that can be applied to almost any topic, though, and they can get out of hand very quickly. That's why slang terms need to be especially important and well-known to be included; otherwise the section on slang could easily overwhelm the rest of the article. Kafziel Talk 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulling a Rich Hanley 

message: Evidently a duplicate article was created at See-Low. I would say it was done accidentally, but since the author has made a lot of changes to link other articles (including this one) to his, it seems it was intentional. If you don't like the spelling of an article, the way to fix that is not to write a new one with the spelling you like. In this case, Cee-lo is by far the most popular spelling of this game. Compare about 500 Google hits for "See-Low"+dice with more than 48,000 for "Cee-lo"+dice. 
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of new information on the other article, other than some additional citations (which may or may not be reliable sources; I have not checked) so the effort to merge the two should be minimal. The other article should redirect to this one. Kafziel Talk 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Alright, I went ahead and boldly merged the See-Low material into this page, restructured things, eliminated some ambiguous or contradictory passages (e.g., the description of a variation called "opposites" actually described exactly the same game that was already described as the "basic game," and another "variation" turned out to simply repeat a rule stated above).
I also redirected 4-5-6, See-Low, and Chinchirorin here.
I'm sure more editing, and searching for references, citations, etc., can be done.  Honestly, though, if anyone can point me to some other source for info about the non-banking variation of this game, or really anything else to support what's been written, I'd be glad to read about it. zadignose 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: The recently added description of a North East version of the game seems to be merely an amalgamation of already described variants, with the addition of some slang terms.  In fact, it seems identical to the "West Coast" variant that I left intact, except that it reverts to the standard rules regarding triples and 1-2-3.  
It is formatted in such a way as to take up a lot of space to describe a ranking of rolls that has already been made explicit.
It also doesn't make clear what it means for triples to be a "winning roll," if they can be beaten by higher triples or 4-5-6.
The slang terms added face the same difficulties described above regarding slang and verifiability.
To economize,  it could easily be reduced to this:
"One variation assigns a point based on the pair rolled, rather than the singleton.  I.e., a 5-5-2 gives a "pair of fives" (also known by various slang terms such as "fevers"),   which beats a 3-3-6 "pair of threes" (a.k.a. "treys")."
and then modify the text slightly to mention the version of "catch up" where players are able to try to tie a 4-5-6.
There are already so many possible permutations and combinations of possible rule variants, that it's not necessary to describe every one.  And I'm not even sure about the inclusion of these couple of slang terms.  They're sort of a concession, and should be evaluated further.zadignose 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other variants, and slang 

message: In the "Other Variations in Rules for Non-Banking Games" section, we currently have
 Some Non-Banking Games treat 1-1-1 as a losing roll, just as in the standard Banking variation
But the closest thing in the description of the standard Banking variation is
 If he rolls a pair and a singleton, then the singleton becomes his "point."
 A point of "1" instantly loses all bets
which means that the losing roll is x-x-1, not 1-1-1.
75.36.177.100 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal contradiction 

message: "Point" 
    Rolling a pair, and another number, establishes the singleton as a "point". A higher point beats a lower point, so 5-5-3 is better than 3-3-2.
So... in this example, one is clearly higher all around than the other.  What about this scenario?  Does a 2-2-4 beat a 5-5-2?  If yes, I think this example provides a much clearer picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.181.99.196 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear example. 

message: I have been thinking about how the banker could have an advantage. If the dealer goes first of course he has a better chance at hitting the 4-5-6 and getting the automatic win, but he has equal chance of getting 1-2-3 for the automatic loss. Am i missing something? the link provided doesn't lead to anything (actually and AOL page, might be slightly worse than nothing). I am just assuming they were thinking of the 4-5-6 on the first roll because the percentage comes out about the same (3/6 * 2/6 * 1/6 = about 2.5%). Dealer does not have any possible moves that the non-banker players don't have.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.80.253 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banker Advantage