Jump to content

Talk:John Scarne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

scarne and card counting

[edit]

I won't revert what you added, as it appears to be more complete (and cited) than what was there before. That said, the reference that you pulled did indicate that there was a falling out of Scarne with the gambling community at the time over that comment. With respect to keeping WP fair and balanced, is removing that citation proper? SpikeJones (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference in the deleted citation to Scarne was that he criticized Thorp's system. Since this is already covered in Scarne's books, and in the "The History of Card Counting" web site in a later reference, I do not believe the citation is still required. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize your comment, but the text you removed indicated Scarne's *motivation* to offer the challenge, and there were *two* citations presented. The first one referenced that Scarne contradicted himself by first saying that he could count cards while also saying that Thorpe's strategy was flawed. It may be something that is implied in the wp article, but the inclusion of this specific observation was cited in an article by a knowledgeable writer. As for the second item, it refered to Scarne's loss of credibility (not just the "nobody took him up on the offer" part of the sentence). I'm just saying that you removed two cited items and in rewriting the paragraph changed the tone from a neutral point of view to one that doesn't necessarily address Scarne's flaws. I can certainly understand your rewrite if there were no citations in the original text, but that was not the case here. As to your other point is that while the info on Scarne's criticism of Thorpe may be in the Scarne book, it is certainly allowable here as well. SpikeJones (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were asking about the cross-reference link that I removed; I didn't realize you were referring to the statements that were taken from "The History of Card Counting" article. The problem is that the statement about Scarne contradicting himself omits the context of the story with Bugsy Siegel; Scarne was referring to blackjack as it was dealt at that time (without restrictions added later by casinos as barriers to card counting), and Scarne used his chips as an aid to track the undealt cards. Since this contradiction was used as the basis for the statement on Scarne's credibility, without it, the statement lacks a foundation as a neutral point of view. I believe a more definitive source should be cited regarding Scarne's reputation on card counting. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I *think* I agree with you about there being something missing to fully support the statement. But the way the article reads now with many references being pulled from the same book (The Odds Against Me), there lacks a NPOV secondary resource. Your edits are obviously more complete than what was there before, but removing the other valid references seems to sanitize the article more than necessary. SpikeJones (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bugsy Siegel story is widely considered a fabrication. The "History of card counting" article was put together by a guy looking for traffic for affiliate sites and was just pulled from Scarne's own blarney. The simple fact is that Scarne claimed BJ could not be beaten and that Thorp was a fraud. His "challenge" to counters WAS accepted, but as often occurs in such cases he kept changing the conditions. He also claimed to be the first to calculate basic strategy advantage, even though the Four Horsemen did so years before. In my mind this article is now a whitewash. Objective3000 (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the article at http://www.blackjackhero.com/, then I can understand your opinion. The article by Henry Tamburin, however, should carry a bit more weight, should it not? And what's your opinion on having more than a single resource for article reference? SpikeJones (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least Henry has a "name." But, no I don't trust him as a source. I certainly agree that multiple resources would be good. Just don't know where to find good ones in this case:) I'll ask around. Objective3000 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't trust him as a source? Seriously, Henry Tamburin is a recognized gambling expert and author. Even if you believe his writing is slanted one way or the other, he at least has some credibility in the industry, doesn't he? SpikeJones (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a popular writer -- not an expert. His books are easy to understand. But, he has published many articles showing his weak understanding of BJ. And IMO his credibility has been damaged by his participation in the Speed Count scam. Objective3000 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except "popular" doesn't always equate to "not an expert", especially when talking about historical items as opposed to the BJ item you find irksome. You have more resources available to you than I have; I'm curious to see what other references you can dig up per your earlier comment. There has to be (some) element of truth to what was in those deleted references that some other ref could point to, right? SpikeJones (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was using another definition of "popular." "Suitable to the majority: as a: adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority <a popular history of the war>" That is, specifically not "expert," but shallow. Anywho, I sent out a couple e-mails. Objective3000 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, must be why I like reading his stuff, although I don't know what that says about me. :) It's so nice to discuss an article's content with sane folks without resorting to calling each other an idiot. What a pleasant change from the normal WP craziness. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only statement about Scarne in Tamburin's article is the following:
John Scarne, who was a well-respected gambling expert and author during this time, publicly criticized Thorp’s “unbeatable winning blackjack system.”
Agreed there is no harm in keeping the cross-reference, but it isn't suitable as a source for a statement on Scarne's lack of credibility on card counting, since it makes no mention of it (if anything, the sentence gives credence to Scarne). I don't believe the previous statements should be kept without a better source than the Blackjack Hero site. I also look forward to seeing any additional sources; the best information I have found to-date on Scarne has been his own writing, which is subjective. For example, in his books, Scarne states that the other prospective participants were constantly changing their demands for suitable conditions for his $100,000 blackjack challenge; it would be nice to see a neutral record of the event (if one exists, which unfortunately seems unlikely). Isaac Lin (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the Blackjack Hero article can also be found in Snyder's The Big Book of Blackjack, I believe. (I don't have my copy of the book handy at the moment to look it up, but maybe one of you have a copy.) Rray (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does appear it was copied from Big Book. Epstein told me today that he believed Scarne was not capable of a point-count system, but that he did use a rough Ace-Ten count for single-deck, end of deck play a la Greasy John. He also suggested that you shouldn’t believe Scarne as a source of a story. That’s the general consensus. The statement that no one ever took him up on his challenge is certainly misleading. The Siegel story is not at all credible in my mind. But, there is no way to prove this. I think someone with better wordsmithing abilities than I should connect the two paragraphs about Thorp and Siegel in a manner that shows the motivation in telling the story. Clearly he was attempting to explain why he had been so emphatically and maliciously wrong for so long. Objective3000 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not "copied". Snyder's book was *one* of the sources used to research the article. Other sources were also used when researching the article. Rray (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound cynical, but do you have a reason to believe this? All the "articles" on that site appear to be reworded articles from other sources. In fact, most appear to come from one or two sources. In other words, a casino affiliate site built upon the research of others with zero attribution. Certainly there is no way that this site could ever be used as a "second source." Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that multiple sources were used for the articles at the site because I wrote most of them myself. (The ones I didn't write were researched and written by my one of two freelance writers, and I edited those articles myself before publishing them.) The consensus is clear that the article isn't sufficiently authoritative to include as a reference for the material presented here, and I haven't objected to that. But accusations of plagiarism are just rude. I was trying to be helpful and point toward another source for the material in this article. Try to be civil and assume good faith in the future.
Well, I don’t remember using the word “plagiarism.” But, there is info in this article that I have never seen in any other source but Big Book – and yet there is no attribution at all. As I have been told many times, this is an encyclopedia. I believe I have been civil – but that does not mean that I should automatically assume good faith from casino affiliate sites that popup with clearly regurgitated, but unattributed, information. Look, I’m trying to be polite. But, what is wrong with providing sources for information and vetting independence? Why should the onus be on me to assume a casino affiliate site is an original source? Of course you are welcome to cite the “multiple sources” as that is the subject of this thread. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word "copy" and "plagiarize" are roughly synonymous. Internet articles don't generally include citations; they're not usually scholarly or academic works. I already said that I have no objection to the article being removed as a reference; that's fine. What I object to is the nonsensical and rude accusation of "copying". It wasn't necessary to make your point or achieve your goal of providing a better source, and it was extremely rude. The only request I've made from you is to not make nonsensical accusations about "copying". The only input I made until that point was to point out another source that you didn't seem to be aware of. Rray (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my wording. Continued on my Talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sites that actually sell a product (like blackjack software, for example) are generally considered less authoritative than websites that carry advertising. But accusations of plagiarism are uncalled for here. Rray (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More authorative than online casino portals? Objective3000 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sites have varying degrees of authority. Sites that are directly selling a product are generally more likely to be less objective than a site which is merely displaying advertising. Sites which provide information about who owns, operates, and writes the content on the site are generally more reliable than sites which are written and published anonymously. Being an online casino portal has nothing to do with it. Michael Shackleford's Wizard of Odds website is clearly and obviously authoritative. John Grochowski's articles in Casino City Times carry a certain amount of reliability. Both sources are "better" than some anonymously written banner farm, but it's the content and the attribution which lend a degree of reliability, not the absence of advertising. Rray (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that this discussion got derailed. I was just trying to suggest a source (Snyder's book) for a statement here when the article previously being used as a source was determined to be insufficient. I'd ask Objective3000 to continue this discussion with me at his talk page or mine if he wishes, or offline if he'd like to email me. Rray (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarne/Thorp

[edit]

Sorry if starting over is bad practice, but I thought it might help. The Tamburin reference doesn’t do anything for the article as it contains only a passing reference. I think it was correct to remove it in the first place. And I agree that a ref to Big Book would be much better as the sole source. But the main problem is that it talks around the controversy. It sounds almost like Scarne was doing everybody a favor by attacking Thorp. In fact, he was dead wrong in his calculations, his comments on counting, and his attacks and his credibility was seriously damaged. This is most likely why he later backtracked and claimed to originate the very method he earlier claimed was fraudulent. Don’t get me wrong. Scarne was indeed an established expert in gambling -- particularly non-casino. But he badly blew this one and it was at a critical turning point in casino gambling history. Thorp, OTOH, maintained a dignified silence in the face of Scarne's attacks Objective3000 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over is completely appropriate in this instance. Rray (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being rather old and having known lots of people who played blackjack at the time, all I can say is that Scarne was widely believed to be a shill for the casinos. But I have no more sources than you guys have. Will in New Haven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.37.144 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

greatest card manipulator

[edit]

Is there actually a credible source for the statement that John Scarne was referred to by many (including authorities) of his time as the great card manipulator ever? That's what Scarne wanted people to believe, but it's clear his contemporaries didn't really think that... I suppose it's possible he somehow got this reputation at large, but it seems fishy to me. --C S (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Scarne. 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) 20:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Scarne&oldid=1205210254"