Talk:Cee-lo

Wikipedia is not...

"Submitted by Noah?" Wikipedia is not a place to announce your contributions on the face of the webpage, we're not competing for notoriety or props; we can see the edit history perfectly fine. Removed.

Pulling a Rich Hanley

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" [1] 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)

what are you talking about "wikipedia is not a slang guide"???

that ENTIRE SECTION is devoted to slang terms buddy, and pulling a rich hanley is a very well known term in the tri-state area and i am launching an official protest against against your supression of this addition

i would like tro know how you can tell me that my entry was removed because it is a "slang term" and you allow these other slang terms to be listed

either remove ALL slang terms or allow all to coexist

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)

yes, thank you sir

Hold up! I don't understand why Slang isn't allowed to be listed. It's part of the game of Cee-lo! You can't look up that kind of thing on google, it's the same reason why we can't cite our references for it. You can't cite or google the streets or the stoop. This isn't a game you play in a tux, slang is very much a part of this game and it certainly deserves a section. There are so many different rules for Cee-lo in so many different neighborhoods and I'm sure the slang is just as different as the rules. I don't see why it shouldn't documented, as it's such a large part of the game. I mean, I'm from New York and I've never heard of "pulling a Rich Hanley" but, if some people are using it, I don't see why it can't go under sland terms/variations. It's not going under "RULES: 456 IS A RICH HANLEY," you know?

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)

Thank you, those pages were very helpful! I understand the point but, at the bottom of the page for Slang, there are lists of pages on Slang. I just don't totally understand why those are okay and this is not. Should those pages not be on Wikipedia? I can understand that if everyone started posting regional slang, it could get a little out of control, so maybe that makes sense. Thanks again!The adversary

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)

Merge

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)

Opposing The Merge

I recently added the See-Low page. This was done intentionally, for several reasons. I had originally considered an edit to this page, but found the descriptions vastly different. Searching the web for Cee-Lo and Dice, I found that the majority of "Cee-lo" spelled links actually refered to the Rap Artist. Those which described the game used almost the exact text used on THIS PAGE, and THIS PAGE was most likely the source of the information contained.

The rules described are very different. The rules described here, and pretty much all the information including the spelling of the name, are without attribution. The rules described here also make no mention of the rules of banking, which is a very significant part of the game, with a long history.

Books such as Skip Frey's "Complete Book of Dice Games" and "Hoyle's Rules of Games" all contain reference to a game known as "See-Low." I don't find any evidence that the spelling "Cee-lo" is in any way standard, though it's possible that a new generation of players MAY have started referring to it this way. Do you have any citations or evidence that the mainstream newsmedia, or gaming press, refer to the game this way?

If, in fact, people are mainly playing by the rules described on this page (I'd like to see some evidence first), then perhaps it's sensible for both games to be described, with See-Low being the historical version, and Cee-lo remaining it's independent status, simply referring each to the other as a set of alternative rules. However, if the pages ARE to be merged, I'd say this would require a major overhaul of this page, with extensive references and citations... and not just citing other web pages such as Rap Dictionary which clearly contain the same text as this page. zadignose 00:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A major overhaul of this page is fine. That's what wikis are for, and this has been a pretty crappy article for a long time. But two articles on a very similar game (which you yourself admit, here) just because you don't agree with the spelling? That's simply not how Wikipedia works. What we need to do is decide the most common spelling. CBS news isn't exactly an authority on urban street games. In a situation like this, where the name was spoken before it was spelled, we try to use the most common name because that's what people will search for and link to. This merge discussion may help figure that out. Then again, it might not, because this page isn't viewed by all that many people anyway. But it's worth a try. So don't take it personally; no matter what happens, your work on the other article will not be wasted. Kafziel ^Talk 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I guess my opposition to the merge wasn't very vigorous. Perhaps my approach was not Wikipedia standard procedure. I appreciate your points, and I'm sure you have more experience with such matters, as I'm new here. However, I'd like to at least explain the reasons for the way I approached this.

My first inclination was to edit this page, with a reference to alternate spellings, added rule variations and clarifications, and any citations I could find. However, I realized that the game described here is more than superficially different from the game I described on the See-Low page. The way the bets are placed, and how the contest is decided are different. There's no discussion of this as a banking game, which is a significant part of the way the game has been played.

That doesn't mean that the game described on this page isn't "correct," or that it isn't some kind of contemporary standard... however, I can find no evidence or references to suggest that it is so. Perhaps the people who edited this page are intimate with the game from experience playing it by the given rules. My lack of a similar experience doesn't invalidate their claims, and I hesitated to walk all over this page by trying to "standarize" both the rules and the name of the game, at least until some discussion takes place and some references can be given.

I can't find any independent sources that describe the game as being played as it appears on this page. However, there are a great many webpages that have used this article as a source for their description of the rules, most if not all of which have simply lifted the text verbatum. Wikipedia is a big and growing force, and information/misinformation spreads quickly. Some examples of sites that took their description of the game from this page are at answers.com,[2] reference.com,[3] and playcrapsonline.[4] So Google hit counts don't decide much, as this page has spawned countless clones and backreferences that only seem to "verify" it by referring to the game in identical terms.

I also think it should be acknowledged that the game of See-low/Cee-lo/4-5-6 predates the Hip-hop phenomenon, whatever it's current association may be... and that it is not at it's root an "urban street game," any more than it is an old sailor's game, or a game of chinese origin. This can be confirmed by reference to any old edition of Hoyle's Rules of Games, which described the game decades ago. This is besides my personal experience of having played See-Low (for insignificant stakes) 25 years ago, at a time when rap did indeed exist, but even artists such as Big Daddy Kane had not yet begun to record or make any reference to dice games.

As for the spelling, I agree that it's difficult, if not impossible to standardize it. But again, text references to the game as "See-Low" exist, and arise from different sources. Whereas it appears that a tendency to standardize the spelling as "Cee-lo" may well have come about as a result of this page, and the pages that reference it, combined with the influence of the rap artist's name Cee-Lo.

Rappers are notorious for word play. Word play is entirely acceptable, I have nothing against it, and I know that both languages and games tend to change and evolve. But should the influence of a single music artist necessarily establish a standard? We have not yet embraced "ludacris," "thugz," or "alkoholics" as standardized English spellings. Or, to step out of the hip-hop genre for a moment, the same could be said of "leppard," "deth," or "kult." So, just to be clear, I'm not rejecting "Cee-lo" on these grounds, but rather suggesting that such a spelling might be a more modern contemporary spelling... and that "See-Low" is by no means a misspelling.

Anyhow, I wouldn't mind helping to create a merged page, but of course I'll want to help get it right, and it may be contentious. Maybe I'll dabble a little in my sandbox, and let you know if I can propose anything. zadignose 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that this article is missing important information (like that this is a banking game) or that it makes numerous mistakes (including, possibly, the spelling of the title). As I said, this is a pretty crappy article. You don't have to worry about me defending it, because I didn't write any of it. I'm here on a strictly technical basis.

With any game like this there are bound to be regional differences as well as evolution over time. A game of spades in Los Angeles is quite different than a game of spades in New York. So there are going to be variations in rules, spelling, etc. and neither one is necessarily "correct". (In fact, since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, complete sets of rules should not be included; only enough to give the reader a basic understanding of the game.)

Anyway, what I'm saying is that you should feel free to give this article a complete rewrite, because it's unsourced and I have no reason to believe any of it is correct. After that, if you still feel that the other spelling is important to you, we can discuss that. We can't just turn this one into a redirect to yours, because it's been around for a long time and has been worked on by a lot of different editors; we can't lose the page history. In order to move this to "See-Low", we'll have to initiate a move request and have an administrator make the change.

I know there's a lot of technical Wikipedia stuff that you're not yet familiar with, and I'm here to help. Feel free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to this article, and let me know if you have questions or need help with formatting or when it comes time to make the move request. I'll keep an eye out and jump in if I see something wrong. Kafziel ^Talk 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

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)

Other variants, and slang

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)

Internal contradiction

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)

Sorry I haven't visited this page is a long time. I've resolved the conflict by removing the text "just as in the standard Banking variation." I believe this is a non-standard rule, and can find no source to suggest otherwise. zadignose (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move completed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Cee-lo (dice game) → Cee-lo — in conjunction with a move of the current disambiguation page to Cee-lo (disambiguation). The dice game is clearly the primary meaning, as the rapper's stage name is derived from the game, and his article is already disambiguated by his last name. Assistance needed due to potential redirect trouble with existing articles.oknazevad (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support both moves per nom. Cee-lo (disambiguation) can then be deleted and Cee-Lo Green can be linked by hatnote. — AjaxSmack 06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that said hatnote already exists on the dice game article. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support — IAW WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  — V = I * R (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unclear example.

"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)

your example is correct the two matching dice do not matter it is only the point that counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.80.253 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Banker Advantage

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)

The banker has an advantage due to the fact that they go first, and win also on trips. So they have slightly more probability of winning on the first roll then losing on the first roll. I would like to include an analysis of the game to replace the missing link, as I cannot find any reference. However, that would violate Wikipedia:No_original_research I believe, even though it is just a trivial computation. Rjljr2 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the 2 1/2 % advantage figure, so the article remains with "slight advantage." I haven't looked at this article in a long time, I may have even been the one to place that figure in the article years back, or maybe it was there when I arrived. But reconsidering, it looks inaccurate. As Rjljr2 stated, the advantage of going first comes from first chance to win with triples. I probably should not do the original research on the calculation, so I won't add a new unattributed figure. But right now it looks to me like the advantage is actually slightly less than 1%. The logic is: for every 108 times the banker throws, he wins 12 times outright, loses 6 times outright, and the other 90 times the player throws, winning 10 times and losing 5 times. All other results, point vs. point, equate to no advantage. So, from the banker's point of view, win 17 times (12 + 5), lose 16 times (6 + 10), the other rolls are all a wash... net expected value is to profit by ONE BET per 108 plays. = 0.00926, or slightly less than 1%. [If anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it here on the talk page, but obviously it wouldn't be suitable to play it out on the article page. zadignose (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

→Oh hell... there was a flaw in my method... recalculating and I'm back at 2 1/2% I should have left it alone. My error was that I forgot of the 90 times that the banker rolls a point, only 60 times give the player a chance to roll (the other 30 times are a point of 6 or point of 1, they balance out, but player doesn't roll). So, 108 rolls, banker wins outright 12 times, loses outright 6 times, and 60 times the player rolls, winning on average 6 2/3 times and losing 3 1/3 times... with all the other plays being a wash. Total advantage to banker is 15 1/3 wins - 12 2/3 losses = 2 2/3 bets per 108 plays = + 2.47% expected value. Ha! But we probably still need a source... years back I had a detailed description of the game in an out-of-print Hoyle's Rules of Games, printed in the early 80s or earlier... I don't own that volume anymore.zadignose (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I mathed this out. I will ignore in all cases the 108 possible reroll combinations, so all odds are out of the remaining 108. On their roll the Bank wins 27/108, sets a point 60/108, and loses 21/108. On the player's roll, it depends what the set point is, but since each is equally likely, we can take the average. The Players loses 43.5/108, pushes 15/108, and wins 49.5/108. This gives final odds of a Bank win as (27/108) + (60/108)*(43.5/108), a Bank loss as (21/108) + (60/108)*(49.5/108), and a push as (60/108)*(15/108). Win 47.38%, Lose 44.91%, Push 7.72%. So there's a 2.47% advantage, if you're including the push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordQwert (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)