Talk:Shuffle track

Unexplained terminology

Terms such as zone and subsection are used as if they are well-known.Autarch (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This discussion is taking place at Blackjack.Aabcxyz (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

The "Shuffling Treatise"

I removed link to a long text file that is titled the "Blackjack Shuffle Tracking Treatise." It is linked here: https://www.qfit.com/blackjackshuffletracking.htm. This is not the original publisher, nor is the document available elsewhere online. Can we verify this work by accessing it on any other database? The proprietor of this site published the following caveat:

"This paper was posted by Michael Hall on rec.gambling.blackjack in 1990 and later was copied to bjmath.com. Alas bjmath.com has disappeared and with it this valuable paper, one of the few documents on the subject. I am trying to locate Mike through mutual friends for permission to post it permanently. Unfortunately, he also disappeared from the scene in 2001. As I look, I'll keep the paper here. I can't imagine that he would mind as it has been posted publicly for nearly 20 years."

For our purposes, it might seem useful to track down this document where it might be available, unless we come to a consensus that this is an adequate source for it and that there are no concerns about permission/authenticity. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It is an extremely important document. It's a shame that you would deny readers of an encyclopedia this info. It has now been publicly available for a quarter of a century, at the original source and the current source. The COIN and RSN discussion trying to remove the cited source both failed. Why do you continue to try to remove so much valuable info? O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

What is contentious about the information in the document? It doesn't seem at all controversial, and the page the reference was on doesn't seem self-promotional, either. I, too, would like to know why this was removed. Rray (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite absurd. It was publicly posted 30 years ago. The cited page has no links, no ads, nothing but the comment posted here about the origin and the text. The site it is on has no links to it. The info therein is not controversial as the formulae are well known. The original author was also a creator of rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated on usenet, with another well known expert in BJ history. This precedes Wikipedia. This is not WP:MEDRS. There are no graduate level, or even undergrad level, courses in blackjack. So, let us stop this nonsense about demanding Google Scholar stuff. You won't find that for most WP articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Not the issue here. Re-read the above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As explained, the concerns about this are 1) the fact that it is an unpublished, dated work and 2) the fact that the link purports to provide the original version of this work, but in fact the work is not available anywhere else. If this were the seminal treatise on the subject, presumably it would've been reproduced somewhere. The fact that it isn't suggests we shouldn't be using it; especially not in this manner that may violate copyright. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Objective3000 This may or may not be valuable info, but 1) it's not published in a reliable source and 2) the fact that it hasn't been reproduced elsewhere suggests its use here may violate copyright. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you continue to claim the source is not RS when the lengthy RSN discussion has been closed and archived? Your continuing claims afterward are simply falsehoods. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "Falsehood?" There is no thread in RSN affirming the reliable of this source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The continued belligerence and total disconnect from reality here by Objective3000 is astonishing. This user has not disputed either of my observations -- that this source is not reproduced elsewhere, and that the website itself that they published admits permission was not obtained to reproduce it. Instead, they vaguely accuse me of "falsehoods" and, astonishingly, suggest an RSN thread exists (without linking it) affirming the reliability of this source. This is all just continued disruption from a user looking to promote their website. I'm not sure why the last COIN thread was closed, but I'll be happy to open the next one if this continues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And before I have to read another rant claiming either 1) persecution or 2) attacking me without merit, answer these two question: A) Was permission obtained to reproduce this work at QFIT.com? And B) Is it reproduced anywhere else? If not, I maintain this source is unusable for obvious reasons. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did dispute your claims. This is pointless. You just go 'round in circles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you keep repeating the same thing, and then devolving into personal attacks when it's clear that repeatedly bludgeoning your point goes nowhere. Let me know when you're ready for a reasonable discussion about the two questions I posed above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Round and round in circles, indeed. I'll restate the former two questions:

1) Is this work reproduced anywhere else?

2) Was it reproduced at QFIT.com with permission from the original author?

I'll await your response. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I already stated it was publicly available and on BJMath, run by Prof. Richard Reid. That site is now gone. But, what does it matter? It is now where it is. As for your claim of copyright violation, It has been on QFIT, with attribution, for a decade or so with no copyright complaint. You do not have standing to make such a claim. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a courtroom, and "standing" isn't an issue. Wikipedia cannot cite material violative of copyright law.

I already stated it was publicly available and on BJMath, run by Prof. Richard Reid. That site is now gone. So it's not publicly available anywhere else.

It has been on QFIT, with attribution, for a decade or so with no copyright complaint. This is not evidence of copyright permission. The website explicitly states no such permission is obtained.

You just answered both of my questions, in a roundabout way, but confirming this material is unusable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jerry Patterson

He might have claimed to have developed the technique in his book, but without corroboration from additional reliable sources, we should be less heavy-handed in our attribution of the technique. Other blackjack players were engaged in the practice before him, though, and that's a fact. The change I made to the text reflect this, and it also avoids the passive construction of the previous sentence. Rray (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Patterson's claim to coining the term is not new. If it were actually disputed, presumably a reliable source would have done so. Please provide such a source if it exists. We're not here to provide our first-hand knowledge or assumptions, no matter how valuable off-wiki. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For the third time, no one has disputed it because no one as ever heard of this before. The ONLY source for this is Wikipedia. And it was added originally by an WP:SPA that made 73 edits ALL glorifying Patterson projects. The onus is not on someone to prove something false. Can you find a single source that disputes that I created sliced bread? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Unlike your hypothetical, this claim exists in an independently published work. Provide a source that disputes this if it isn't true. Presumably one would exist--an op-ed, another book, ANYTHING--if it weren't. Anything else is a waste of time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I will ask you yet again. Where is the page number and quote? I can find no verification of your claim and I have an extensive bj library accumulated over 40 years. And yet again, what you always do is argue in a circular manner. You just keep repeating yourself, asking answered questions, and never responding to questions. WP:BLUDGEON O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wikied*, I just noticed your edit to the article. It is unadulterated vandalism with zero WP:V. You re-added challenged material without consensus. It may financially harm readers of this article. That it is at the top of the article is an obscenity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Since you haven't provided a source, there's nothing I can address here, unfortunately. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you not understand that I am not adding anything? I am not the one required to provide a source. You have provided no source for your addition. You have been here long enough to know that you must provide a source. Once again, what is the quote and page number? Why do you think there is a source? Do you even know what the subject of this article is about -- "shuffle tracking"? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you have it backwards. You are required to provide a source if you are saying that this claim is "disputed." Surely you don't mean "disputed by me," because that means quite zilch here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

So, you are saying WP policy is to make things up and leave them in if a source can't be found that says it's wrong? AGAIN, what is the source, quote, and page number? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my edit was reverted for "lack of a source." We don't need a source to remove contentious material. At any rate, let's try to find a consensus about Patterson's contributions (or lack thereof) to this technique. He certainly didn't invent shuffle tracking, although he might have coined the term and even popularized it. Rray (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rray: "Contentious claims" are not those disputed by editors. Whether an editor disputes something is irrelevant. What matters is if it's disputed in reliable sources, unless there's evidence that it's an exceptionally dubious claim. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

For the fourth time, it is not disputed anywhere because no one has ever heard this claim before. It was invented in Wikipedia. Why do you keep repeating the same claims and requests when they have been answered? ? Show me any independent source that makes this claim. Book, page number, and quote. I have requested this over and over, and you have still failed to present any such source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If the claim in Patterson's book is dubious in your view, then we can attribute it. Criticisms about Patterson from your blog are not adequate to include as a countervailing point. Sorry. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

What claim in his book? I contacted Don Schlesinger this morning as he has a more extensive library (185 gaming books plus at least that many magazines) and was a friend of Patterson and the owner of Patterson's New Yok franchise. I asked him if the book you cite discussed shuffle tracking. He responded that he looked through the book again and found nothing in the book about shuffle tracking. This is simply as false citation. That's why no quotes or page numbers are forthcoming. You are the person making this claim. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It was first claimed in his 1980s book, and presumably also included in later iterations. I have the page number from web archive for the 1980 version; I'll see what I can do about obtaining the newer book. In the meantime, I think attribution is fine if you want to qualify it with a "they said" or "they claimed."Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I ask yet again, what is the page number and quote? It's a simple question. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Objective3000: You wouldn't need to ask the same question over and over if you read my response. That might be a good practice to follow, along with avoiding calling other editors "dishonest" (a tough habit to break if you've gotten your way on it for a while, I know).

The text you objected to is not in the article. I have the source material for an earlier edition but not the later, so I'll leave it be until I can pinpoint it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I object to any mention of Patterson. He has never been known for shuffle tracking and sending naïve readers to this book is like sending them to a book on progression betting. Snyder is the most commonly associated name, although his book doesn't cover NRS. Very little is available, and you've deleted two actual sources, one of them is one of the few discussions of NRS that I know of. (Well, my book discusses it -- but you claim it's not RS.) Funny thing is that you seem fine with the other three self-published cites in this article, as well as the blackjack article, where most of the cites are self-published. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I affirmatively don't care about your bone to pick with Patterson, based on your rantings here and off-line. I suggest you adhere to WP:BLP and save the WP:SOAPBOAXING for another outlet. This issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I am getting damned tired of your lies and goofy accusations. I have absolutely no "bone to pick" with Patterson. None at all. I hear he's a nice guy. What I said is simply true. He doesn't belong in this article because he is not known for ST. It's as simple as that. And how is this resolved? I have asked you over and over and over for a page number. Instead you evade by making false accusations and personal attacks. You have NEVER provided a single reason for inclusion of this cite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Here, I'll quote my comment again for you again: I have the source material for an earlier edition but not the later, so I'll leave it be until I can pinpoint it.

Translation: I have the page numbers for his 1980 book, not the revised version.

You just said Patterson pushes naive buyers to his products. On your website, you call him and his method a fraud.

Again, so my "goofy accusations" actually turn out to be plain statements of fact, and the denials and insults continue to be disconnected from reality. I've made the changes to the article I see as appropriate. I am happy to discuss these in a reasonable manner, but I'm not going to respond to any more kicking and screaming. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment I have a copy of the Patterson book ordered. When it gets here, I'll read it to see what it says (if anything) about shuffle tracking. I've also ordered a couple of books by more reliable authors like Arnold Snyder, who's written an entire book on the subject. I'll update the article accordingly then. Rray (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Removals

Wikieditor, you have just made two removals, one claiming RS and the other COI. This is after the filings at RSN and COIN both failed. Your edit summaries are, simply put, dishonest. You are not above the noticeboards. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The only thing accurate in your post, as usual, is that I made two removals. Your claim that my edit summaries are "dishonest" is absurd. Neither COIN nor RSN have produced any consensus on this material, or even remotely addressed it. You cannot provide links to any such discussion because they don't exist. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you actually denying the filings exist? You are claiming that sites are violations of RS and COI despite the fact that filings at the COIN and RSN noticeboards making the same claims about the same sites failed. These were general filings about the sites. You are not above the noticeboards. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I am telling you that there was no consensus for these sources or COI at either of these noticeboards, and if you say there is you are patently lying. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)falsely

The fact that the filings failed means that your claims are not supported. Yet, you keep making these claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you double check, or better yet, link to a consensus at these noticeboards.Neither of these discussions produced a consensus, they were closed apparently for reasons unrelated to the substance (which is a shame, because resolution of the substantive complaints would have been ideal). Again, you just claimed I was "dishonest." I take exception to that, especially from someone who purports to have consensus from the noticeboards but is apparently unable to back their claims.

I do not believe these sources are reliable as self-published sources, and I think there's a COI with the author (you) pushing inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You do not have consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Objective3000 I provided a policy basis for my concerns, and they're open for discussion here on the talk page. Discussion means policy and content, not claims of consensus on talk pages where there is none and personal attacks, which are about all you've contributed to the discussion so far. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, let's take another go at this: Since you claimed there was consensus at COIN/RSN and suggested I was being "dishonest" for saying there wasn't, please provide those links. Here. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Umm, that was a personal attack on your part. And you were the main arguer at the RSN filing. An attempt was made to have sites ruled not RS. It failed. There is no such ruling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. You just claimed a consensus at RSN/COIN. Please link to said discussion. Accountability for your remarks is not a personal attack. Provide the link to your claim or don't spew falsehoods. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. I will no longer respond to your false statements. You always do this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Objective3000, I don't know what the difficulty is with taking responsibility for your words and actions, but apparently this is an area of difficulty. Let me remind you: 1) you just said there is a noticeboard discussion that dictates the outcome here and 2) you suggested I lied by saying there wasn't one. Since you are calling me a liar, presumably you have evidence of this discussion, so please link to said discussion. A report being dismissed on some procedural ground does not speak to the substantive issue raised in it, so again, I'd like you to provide the discussion that produced the result you claim here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The extremely long discussion where you and a blocked sock attempted to claim QFIT sites were not RS is here. The attempt to get RSN to state they are not RS failed. You are now removing consensus text claiming RS violations with no backing from RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Overlong thread started by a harassing sockpuppet. There is nothing more to discuss here, further discussion should be on the article talk pages.. Only someone lacking in reading comprehension would interpret this as instructing that these sources are reliable. And yet, your comment above calls me "dishonest." This is absurd and embarrassing behavior, and I'm inclined not to entertain it further. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that you've cited the thread, the fact that you've been misrepresenting it from the beginning is clear. And to clear up this new line of nonsense: No, there is no "consensus" for including an unreliable source that hasn't been challenged in a low-activity page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a lie. I misrepresented nothing. You continue to call the source unreliable despite the fact you heavily argued this at RSN and failed to get that ruling. In fact, after I presented refs, only you and the indef blocked OP continued this claim. Indeed, you actually stated several times that cites to these sources can be used. If you want to continue trying to get the cites ruled non-RS, you may do so. BUT, you must restore the text in the meantime as it is long-standing text. WP:HOUND WP:PA WP:BLUDGEON WP:NOTHERE O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, self-serving, and backwards. There was no "fail to get a ruling." The thread was apparently closed due to an issue with the filer, not with the substantive issue -- exactly as I already explained to you. I don't know if repetition is the only way you'll learn here, but I don't have the energy for that. Secondly, I am challenging the material for its reliability. I don't care what you think is "longstanding." There is no policy for maintaining unreliable sources in the article that no one's previously addressed. That's called cleanup. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And don't call me "dishonest." Everything I've said here is 100% true to the filing. Screaming "fake news" when the opposite of what you claim is true is a curious behavior for someone who's accused me of being "[[Talk:Blackjack|Trumpian]." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there was a failure to prove what you and the sock tried to prove. And yet, you have taken actions as if you succeeded. And I see that you have now declared that the Patterson cite has been resolved in your mind even though you have never provided a page number or any rationale behind it's inclusion. The question below remains unanswered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not what occurred. Read the header to the closure again. Learn to back down and admit when you're wrong without calling names. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I still await your citation for Patterson. Why do you think it is valid? Have you ever seen it? Where did you hear it? It is an invention. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Type shuffle tracking books into Google. Every hit on the first page mentions Arnold Snyder. ONE hit mentions Patterson. That hit is this article. Wikieditor19920 got Patterson on the front page for shuffle tracking books. I looked at the first 100 Google hits, ten pages. No mention of Patterson. My book's on the second page. The only hit for him in ten pages is due to Wikieditor's insistence on including him in this article. That makes WP look pretty bad. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe because Wikipedia is the first result for nearly all web searches because we share data with Google. But please, go on with the conspiracy theories. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yet another goofy insult. I said absolutely nothing about any conspiracy. My point is obvious. The ONLY Patterson hit in 100 hits is one you are forcing into the article. That is, Patterson in this article is totally out of place. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The other hit is his book. Which is cited in the article, and merely says he published information about the technique. Try again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I see only one hit for him in 100 hits, this article. Realize that Google uses as input your prior searches and you may have searched for him. I keep one of my browsers always in incognito with zero history so I don't get biased searches. No one thinks of him when talking about shuffle tracking. Clearly that includes Google searches which don't see any connection between him and ST. I cannot imagine why you have decided to include him here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:GHITS is not our guidepost. Patterson wrote a book in which he discussed shuffle tracking, it's published, and it appears perfectly valid for inclusion. Your bone to pick with Patterson (calling him a "fraud" on your site and suggesting he's a huckster and taking advantage of "naive" readers) is not relevant here, nor is your scientific assessment of what "most people think." You have dishonestly denied any axe to grind here, even as your own words are presented in black and white attacking this author. Like I said at the RSN filing, i'm not here to advocate for Patterson—I'm here to advocate for a reasonable process of determining reliability that isn't driven by one editor's desire to turn Wikipedia into an extension of their personal website. My advice is to drop this issue with Patterson, and strike your comments about him on these related pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not all published books are reliable sources. Nonsense gets published every day that doesn't warrant being used as a reference in an encyclopedia. And there is more than just one editor objecting to Patterson's inclusion here. I commented on this on the talk page here and at the RSN discussion. There is NOT a consensus that any of Patterson's books constitute acceptable sources. Filling the talk page with words (and personal attacks) won't create a consensus, either. This isn't the place for personal attacks or filibusters. Rray (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Rray, what specifically is the issue with the Jerry Patterson source? What is your objection? Also what "personal attacks" are you referring to? Where Objective3000 called me "dishonest" for pointing out an obvious fact, like there was no consensus at RSN for his books, or that he wrote negatively about Patterson on his blog (and on this page) and that presents a COI? Or where he called me "goofy?" What a joke. I suggest you approach this conversation differently, and not with a one-sided take for your pals, if you genuinely want things to move forward.

Secondly, what, specifically, is the issue with the Patterson source? It is published independently in a book with multiple editions over several decades. What specifically is "nonsense" about Patterson? Who are the other objectors who don't have a clear COI here? Patterson is a market competitor of Objective3000 and he has written negative, sharply critical reviews about his books and products publicly—and on this page. Anyone remotely objective would note that COI is an issue here. I really don't have any interest in discussing this if you're just going to push for one side without adding a substantive take. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to tag me; I'm watching the discussion pages I participate on. The issue with Patterson is that he writes and publishes inaccurate information. The number of editions and being published independently don't have anything to do with whether the information in his books is accurate. And, to answer your last question, I am one of the other objectors, and I have no COI.

Finally, accusing me of just "siding with my pal" skates right up to the edge of being another personal attack. I'd prefer to discuss content. Besides, there's a wealth of blackjack literature to draw upon for references. I don't understand why you're so insistent on including references to Patterson. You could easily find a dozen blackjack books that aren't full of inaccurate information. Rray (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, listen, when you read a thread like the above -- where I try to reasonably engage on a source and get called "goofy," "dishonest," and accused of lying about things that are provably true—astonishingly, when that same editor denies those same facts—it's sort of difficult to see how your immediate conclusion is to lay the blame on me. That said, I would appreciate an overall lowering of the temperature. If you had said that, instead of coming for me right off the bat, I would have responded differently. I think it'd be wise for you to consider that (in turn, I'll consider what you said).

If Jerry Patterson has published inaccurate information, that can certainly be filtered out. But what is the source for saying it's inaccurate? Is it that he published information later discredited or laid claim to strategies proven ineffective? That can also be included, if reliably sourced. As of now, the article merely notes that Patterson wrote about shuffle tracking. I'm not sure what the controversy is over this limited mention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine as written. If I'm not mistaken, I was the editor who re-worded that part. Rray (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see a problem with this. You did make the change. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the page number? And even if so, why pick Patterson of all the writers? Everyone refers to Snyder. Many to Blaine, Ted Forrester, George C., Michael Hall. No one refers to Patterson on ST, which is why there are no hits in the first 100 Google search results (except for this page). O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"Everyone" and "no one" are not great quantifiers. If there are published authors whose expertise is missing, we can add them as well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Patterson has no expertise in ST. No one ever mentions him in that arena. His connection to ST has escaped Google. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920, retract your false accusation that I am a market competitor of Jerry Patterson. In no way, shape or form have we ever been competitors in any market. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not retracting anything, Jack. Don't even bother asking me again in the future—I'm careful about what I write.

  You're in the market for blackjack strategies and related software, he's in the market for books and strategies, and you have blog posts calling his strategies fraudulent and also promoting your own wares. I don't have a dog in that fight, but it's an issue when it plays out here on WP. I think we've settled the Patterson issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have never marketed strategies. That is a goddamn lie. They are free. My books are free. And, I never ran schools like him. My phone number is public and ALL my advice is 100% free. And, I often tell people not to buy from me because they are gamblers, not advantage players. Yes, I sell software. It in absolutely no way competes with Patterson. They support strategies developed by the BJ greats, all with permission. It has nothing to do with him. Besides, he retired before I started selling software, never sold software, and as far as I know, never developed a counting strategy. As for his TARGET strategy, everyone, including his old partners, know it's voodoo. Of course I agree with them that you don't pick a "winning table" by looking at the number of cigarette butts in ashtrays. And we also put down the hundreds of mainstream books pushing gambler's fallacy. That so many people have pointed this out is a public service. I don't make any money doing this. We just get grief. I have been giving free advice online on BJ long before the Internet existed and will continue to do so. Even though a few people like you make false accusations. As usual, you never respond to arguments. You just make foul, false accusations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Cut the charade and stop feigning offense and ignorance. You are not running a charity. And if you are, you better inform your publisher, who is still selling books (Oh, wait, that's you.). And even if you were running a charity, promoting your strategies, writings, or works over another author, and using this page to critique them, is a patent violation of COI. COI covers financial and personal interests, and you have a personal interest in promoting the credibility of your work and apparently, in bashing the credibility of this other person offering similar services in the same market, to the same consumers (blackjack players). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I already responded to this bull. I put my book on the 'Net for free. After some time passed, people asked for hardcopies. So, I created some hard copies. I also put it on Kindle. I tried to make it free there, but was told it had to be at least $1. So, it's $1. I make about $20 a month in book sales for a 700 page book because it's free online. That's almost enough for a glass of wine where I live. I already told you this elsewhere -- but you just ignore and keep repeating your lies. I have NEVER sold similar services. NEVER. That's another lie. ALL of the things we have in common I do for free. I have zero interest in bashing Patterson in this article as I don't see why he should be in this article. I am interested in having accuracy in this article. You have shown absolutely no reason for inclusion here. You claim you saw something, but can't come up with page numbers.

Now, if you want to know what a real COI is, here is an WP:SPA that made 73 edits[1] in a three week period ALL adding Patterson’s name and projects to multiple pages in Wikipedia. That was 14 years ago and that editor hasn’t made an edit since. That is how Patterson ended up in the BJ article related to ST. It also appears that the real COI fooled you into thinking Patterson invented ST and you copied the COI's addition here. You clearly do not know anything about him or ST. Most of this should have been reverted long ago. OTOH, 96% of my edits are to articles unrelated to gaming. Incidentally, the user who created the Patterson article was banned for using 45 socks.

If you believe I have a COI related to Patterson, go to COIN. It is improper to make such false accusations on an ATP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no distinction for materials that are free or not for the purposes of COI. Go back and re-read COI before you call someone a liar and post another one of these unnecessary, long-winded "defenses."

The material you referenced about Jerry Patterson is no longer in the article. In fact, I'm no longer the original author of that text—it's been subsequently revised. So you are complaining about an issue that is moot. However, I'm curious why you allowed material that was patently false to stand in the article for so many years, despite your stance here? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

AGAIN, you ask a question already asked and answered. Circles and circles and circles. I already stated that I do not remove non-SPAM refs like this in these articles. And, the text should be removed as you have shown no reason for its existence here. You were fooled by the real COI. And claiming he is a competitor is silly. The LLC, Jerry Patterson Enterprises, is listed as "dissolved" and his website [2] is gone. I am in no competition with him and never have been. Don't even know if he's alive. Your false accusations are improper on an ATP. And again, you cannot come up with a page number or quote. You just evade by making ludicrous accusations - and ironically, mocking someone on Wikipedia for giving away free information. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't keep a list of your self-imposed rules. The text is fine where it is; no one was "fooled" by anyone, but you are fooling yourself if you want to pretend that Jerry Patterson isn't a competitor. Nor am I "mocking" you for giving out "free information" -- what a load of nonsense, and it's as laughable as you acting like someone saying you are selling something is a "false accusation" and an insult when you are in fact selling a product. There is nothing wrong with that. But you are in the market of offering advice and strategies on blackjack, you are in the same arena as Jerry Patterson. You've written web pages criticizing his methods. And COI rules suggest you should back off and stop being such a belligerent advocate for excluding people you've been critical of publicly and including your own works. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Incredible. You lied in that edit three more times. The worst in when you stated: "are in the market of offering advice and strategies on blackjack". NEVER, not once, never. He sold in "schools". I gave away for free. It's a fucking lie and you must retract this. And you avoided the entire subject yet again. And, I have stated at least eight times that I welcome anyone to replace cites with better cites. Instead, you replace cites with utter garbage with absolutely no valid RS rationale other than a claim you saw something once, but can't find it now, but it must exist in more places. You STILL haven't provided a single bit of evidence of your claims of RS. You have zero experience in this arena. You have no idea how insulting it is for you to call me a system seller or a competitor of this man. I have never been a system seller, which he was. NEVER. System sellers are the bottom of the barrel, like pushers. That's why I have hundreds of links to the National Council on Problem Gambling on my site. And you yet again claim there is a COI violation, a lie, when you know this should be on COIN, not an ATP. I had my third Pfizer dose today and will be quiet for a time, so you can post more lies. When I feel OK, I will take it to the appropriate venue since you won't do the right thing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This thread has become an absurd waste of time and is no longer even relevant to the article content. It is now just about you defending your reputation from some perceived, imaginary insult and attacking an author who's source material is used in the article. If you want to shop this "tale of woe" around to various noticeboards, be my guest, but I have no interest in addressing it here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that I wouldn't have to defend myself from outright lies if you stopped posting outright lies? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)