Talk:Bringing Down the House (book)

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Gambling Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Opening comment

Does anyone know how true-to-life the story is? Did they just change names, or events too?--DoctorWorm 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive there were some real liberties taken for dramatic effect. The black chip on the table. The beatdown in the islands. I've corresponded with some of the principles and this is what they say. But of course, the basic point of MIT blackjack team existing, is factual.TCO 05:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info on doubts about veracity, citing recent articles in Boston magazine and The Boston Globe. The story is true-to-life only in a very broad sense. Card counting is "real" -- it works, and people do it, and some are successful at it -- and the MIT Blackjack Team existed. Beyond that, Mezrich took tremendous liberties. He made stuff up. He didn't just change events, he created them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleoriffic (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your contributions is now the MIT Blackjack Team *itself* seems like fiction. The team did exist and they did take down the casino for *millions*. To me, that point alone makes the story very compelling, and I don't see why we need to add so many quotes that seem purposed to sully the entire story, calling into question the veracity of the MIT Blackjack Club itself. Supertheman ^(talk) 06:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current edits don't do what you say. Wherever possible they identify the real individuals who actually lived and breathed their way through the underlying story. If we've edited things in such a way as to call the existence of the team into question, please correct the tone of those edits.

The team existed. But that doesn't give so-called non-fiction authors the right to say anything they want to about it.

It did win millions, yes. If that were the thrust of Mezrich's opus, we wouldn't be having this conversation. He thrusts elsewhere. He created a bestseller by imagining violence, intrigue and danger that never happened. That is a smart thing for a greedhead author to do but it does have its consequences, including the ignominy of having his bullshit enumerated -- complete with bullet points -- in online community-based free enyclopedias. He weeps for this, no doubt. --Paleoriffic (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality

This is the first time I read this article - and it strongly comes across as a platform to attack the book; containing almost nothing but references to how false and exaggerated it is. Specific examples:

the book contains significant fictional elements ... others were exaggerated greatly ...

As far as I can see, these highlighted parts reveal a strong partiality on the part of the Wikipedia editors, rather than being sourced passages.

The passage "This disclaimer allows broad leeway to take real events and real people and alter them in any way the author sees fit. But Mezrich went further, both articles say." puts a finger on something that the articles could be left to say for themselves. Please don't put words in the mouths of your references.

There is a long (complete?) list of events described that did not occur. Either it is trivia or it is a kind of instruction manual. Wikipedia is not the place for this. But most importantly, to maintain neutrality, one or two examples should be sufficient. After all, there is no list of all the events described that did occur.

"Despite heavy marketing, Busting Vegas did not do as well as Bringing Down the House" How is the heavy marketing relevant? In fact, how is the relative sales figures of the two books relevant? And sources, people, sources!

In summary, I found the article heavily partial to the view of somebody who takes affront to the way the author wrote this book, which earns the article the neutrality disputed tag. CapnZapp (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bringing Down the House (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bringing Down the House (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bringing Down the House (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214083925/http://www.blackjackinstitute.com/ to http://www.blackjackinstitute.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]