Talk:Hole carding

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: In most jurisdictions

message: 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)
replies: text: Editor continues deletions and does not take part in discussion. [WP:3O} requested.Objective3000 (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. Although I don't see why they are iffy.Objective3000 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Wikipedia policies WP:SOURCES and, especially, WP:SPS. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thank you for the response. Under that criteria, unfortunately, over 70% of the cites in the WP gambling pages fail. Many of them are simply casino-affiliate sites that have grabbed info from other sources. I rarely remove these cites as there are so many and good sources few. But, in this case, as the author’s work has been published in, and mentioned in the acknowledgements section of, books on gaming research published by established third-party publications, including the highly respected Blackjack Attack and Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic, I believe the source is acceptable. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites

message: Please refer to the Cites two sections above.  The discussion of the Informal Motion occurs at Blackjack.Aabcxyz (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sock belonging to this sock farm:  O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  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