Talk:Trente et Quarante

message: Some of this information says that at Monte Carlo bets are made in a certain number of Francs, which are not used in France anymore.  We need an update for Euros.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevv (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Need an Update 

message: I just read the entire article in full and still don't have the slightest idea how this is played. Rewrite please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.174.191 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Jamesa7171 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the article's fault.  It's a really difficult game to understand regardless of who's explaining it.  I've read explanations in no less than three books, plus this article, and, as best as I can grasp, it's something like this:  There's a specific layout for the game, which is played on a table with two layouts, one at each end, like craps or baccarat.  Two hands are dealt, like in baccarat, but instead of being called Player and Banker, they're called Red and Black.  You can bet on either, or on a the possibility of either hand (both hands?) totalling exactly thirty-one.  If you choose the latter bet, you can withdraw half of it and forfeit the other half at any point.  After that my understanding gets fuzzy.  I'm not sure how either hand beats the other, and, according to the author of one of those three books I looked it up in, neither do most players.  Insurance can be purchased against the possibility of a total of thirty-one being reached, and it's possibly underpriced by the house in terms of expected value, but I'm not sure which hand you're insuring against what.  That the possibility of one hand (both hands?) totalling exactly thirty-one provides the only house edge reminds me of the doublet in faro, which would suggest that the game's only source of house edge occurs when there's a tie (of thirty-one), but I'm not sure if that's right or not.  Anyway, that was as close as I got to understanding it.  Heather (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: has undertaken to add a "Simple explanation" above the prior text in the "Gameplay" section. I reverted the addition, with the explanation "simple explanation is not needed." Ortus has chosen to restore their version, with a rather grandiose (and, I believe, comically tilted) edit summary asking me to explain myself, so I will:
# The added content may have been written in simpler language, but it did not serve to further clarify the gameplay. As has been noted earlier in this talk page, Trente et Quarante is a notably complex game that is apparently not completely understood even by many of its afficionados. Any attempt to "simplify" the explanation will only result in loss of meaning, not improved comprehension.
# The added content is unsourced, and appears to represent the editor's own understanding of the game, on which we cannot rely to be correct.
# The added content is improperly formatted, but that would be a simple matter to fix if the first two problems didn't exist.
Ortus has also ignored the basic collaboration rule at Wikipedia: WP:BRD. They made a Bold edit, it was Reverted; their next step should have been to Discuss the matter rather than restoring their version. In order to avoid an edit war, I will not revert again until this discussion is completed. , I invite you to explain why, given the reasons I have laid out above, your version should be preferred? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified explanation