Miscellaneous desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 10

Casino chips

In the 2006 film version of Casino Royale, the poker players use both round chips and larger rectangular chips, which my research suggests are called "plaques". At the end of the poker game near the end of the movie, Bond gives the dealer one of the red plaques as a tip for dealing the game. To keep from having to re-watch the scenes at the poker table and watch carefully what bets are made and such, can someone tell me if there is a standard value for what this red plaque would have? Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While chips have standard colors in USA, plaques don't AFAIK. Possibly if the casino reused the same color schedule, considering the red chip is worth $5, the red plaque might be worth say $50,000 or $500,000. Presumably a very high amount since it hasn't been colored up by the end of the game. The bigger problem with Bond tipping is the fact that poker tournaments essentially use "funny money". Special otherwise worthless tournament-only chips are given to players and then real money is given to them once they're eliminated (or win the tournament). This is to avoid the problem of players pocketing chips. Since the tournament in Casino Royale was a high-roller single-table winner-take-all affair it could be that they decided all players were trustworthy enough to use money chips, but that isn't usually done. 93.136.121.193 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood blockbuster industry is full of shitty errors like this, it could've just been they didn't care if poker players would notice mistakes, especially ones trying to find mistakes on home video. Hollywood made me think Princeton got tree leaves a month before New York lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that last hand was a joke. Everyone all in with monster hands? If that happened in real life, the cops would have been called in immediately. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't just about everyone involved in that game gangsters and terrorists? If so, they probably would have made sure that the police either were not present, or were looking the other way. Iapetus (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They still wouldn't be amenable to being cheated. I imagine the dealer, the casino mgmt and certainly Bond too would be made to answer quite a few questions (possibly by Le Chiffre!). Only someone who has only played a few hours of poker in their life could believe that this hand could happen by accident even once over the lifetime of Texas hold'em. 93.136.17.85 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chance of a random poker hand being a straight flush (under high rules, in which an ace can rank either as highest or lowest) is 40/2598960, which is one in 64974.^[1] With 200 hands being dealt each day, you can expect one to appear within a year or so. --Lambiam 11:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holdem doesn't give you 5 random cards then bet then show, it doesn't work that way. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly real life: I used to play online poker. The tables were $100 to sit, Texas hold-em. I got a pair of 2's in my hand. Then, the first better went all in. Everyone followed suit thinking it was a joke. So, I did as well. After the cards went down, I had three of a kind with 2s and won. While it wasn't real life, it was real money. I made $700 on that hand, which I lost over the next two months. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside to the discussions above, it's perhaps interesting that the original novel and the previous TV, film and comic strip adaptations all involve Baccarat rather than poker. One wonders why the 2006 version made the alteration, since it's otherwise acknowledged as amongst the most faithful adaptations of the original novel, as these things go. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.158 (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The producers probably thought that a modern audience would be more familiar with poker than with baccarat, with the additional point of "realism" that baccarat is purely a game of chance, whereas poker is much more dependent on skill (at least over the long term). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The World Series of Poker was really popular in the early 2000s (with names like Chris Moneymaker dominating sports news) and producers sought to ride off that wave of popularity.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highest score in losing effort, various sports

I've always thought a kind of interesting statistic is the highest score by the losing side in various sports, because it means if you score more than that, you really ought to win. Do we have a list of these anywhere, by any chance?

Some seem to be much easier to search for than others. In the NFL, it seems to be the Kansas City Chiefs, who put up 51 and lost in 2018. In Major League Baseball, on the other hand, I just get hits for the highest total score, which isn't exactly the same thing, although in this case it probably is, because that turns out to be when the Chicago Cubs beat the Philadelphia Phillies 26–23 on August 25, 1922. If the highest score in a losing effort were more than 23 it would have to be at least 24, which would mean the other team could have scored at most 24 (I'm pretty sure the 49 total has never been equaled), which would mean it's not a losing effort. But I can't seem to find the game mentioned in those terms.

"Most runs in losing cause" brings up lots of hits for cricket, though. Cricket and baseball are very similar in their obsession with stats, but for some reason this particular one seems to resonate more with cricket fans. --Trovatore (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-scoring NFL games states the Rams/Chiefs game was the only one in NFL history where both teams scored 50 points, so 51 it is. In the NHL, it seems to be 9 goals. According to this article, this happened several times:

Vancouver Canucks (10) vs Minnesota North Stars (9), October 7, 1983
Toronto Maple Leafs (11) vs Edmonton Oilers (9), January 8, 1986
Edmonton Oilers (12) vs Chicago Blackhawks (9), December 11, 1985 Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the NBA, it has to be 184, as List of highest-scoring NBA games says the highest combined score was 186-184: Detroit Pistons over the Denver Nuggets. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the never-to-be-topped Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In English professional football, Huddersfield Town scored 6 goals in a match and still lost: see Charlton Athletic F.C. 7–6 Huddersfield Town A.F.C.. That is an English record; I don't know of any higher losing scores in professional matches elsewhere. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is well documented for the highest level of Australian Rules Football at List of VFL/AFL records#Highest losing scores and lowest winning scores. I know this won't mean much to most readers, but in the Australian Football League in 1989 Hawthorn defeated Geelong 26.15.171 to 25.13.163. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example, 26 x 6 + 15 x 1 = 171, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well done. HiLo48 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of an interesting way to do things, giving more info than just the total points. Applying the same idea for a basketball game, you could have 2-point field goals . 3-point field goals . free throws . total score. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of reads like a baseball box score. --Jayron 32 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to list just the points, but noticed that Wikipedia's article gives the complete scores, so I thought "Let's go right ahead and confuse people". HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is the level of play. There could be ridiculously high numbers in the minor leagues or in semipro games or whatever, but that's a different story. Anyway, here's a list of major league baseball's highest scoring victories.[2] The 26-23 game is the only one in which the opposition came anywhere close to winning it. I have to give honorable mention to a Cubs game I recall (not fondly) in the late 1970s, where the Phillies beat the Cubs 23-22 in extra innings. Both of those crazy games were at Wrigley. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be interesting to know the correlation between the winning and losing score. In basketball and (American) football, it's kind of natural that a high score for one side makes a high score for the other side easier, because they get more possessions. That isn't true in baseball. I don't think it's true in association football but it doesn't make so much difference because it's not really a possession game.

On the other hand, if one baseball team has a big lead, they're more likely to be willing to give up a run for an out, which could increase the expected score of the other side, except that the other side is less willing to give up an out for a run.

Baseball of course also has "batters' parks" and "pitchers' parks" so you'd want to adjust the data for that before running the correlation. --Trovatore (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For baseball it gets tricky. At Wrigley, when the wind is blowing in, you can pitch a no-hitter. When the wind is blowing out, it's bombs away! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good point. Also temperature, humidity, who's calling balls and strikes — it could be tough to isolate the effect, if any, of run-for-out strategizing or other strategic decisions based on the score. --Trovatore (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In professional snooker, the highest ever losing score in an individual frame was 84 points, scored by Peter Lines in a qualifying match against Dominic Dale in 2012. Dale scored 108 points in the frame. This subject was brought up during the memorable first semi-final of this season's COVID-delayed World Snooker Championship a few weeks ago, when this long-standing record looked set to be broken in the deciding (final) frame. The final score in that frame was 103–83. To put it in context, a player would typically expect to win a frame once they had scored about 70 points, and 75 or more virtually guarantees victory. Because of snooker's particular scoring patterns, it is also possible to win a frame with a much lower points score: for example in the final of the same tournament, there were frames won with scores of 60, 61, 62 and 65 points. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think many Kiwi's remember Team NZ's disastrous performance at the 2013 America's Cup where Orace Team USA was able to recover and win 9-8 from 1-8 (meaning NZ only needed to win one more race). Although Oracle started off effectively -2 due to cheating in a warmup event, so you could say it was 11-8 from 3-8 but with Oracle needing 11 wins and NZ needing 9. Of course the America's Cup has no set format and so precisely how many races you need to win has varied over the years. Most of the events have been close to walk overs, but there was the 1920 America's Cup which involved a similar recovery (but only from 0-2) and the 1983 America's Cup (from 1-3). Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Of course these are sort of like tournament results. I'm not sure the lowest delta, but wouldn't assume it's a few seconds, maybe even 1 second, as with most races. And for these sort of races variance in the course etc means it doesn't make much sense to consider the fastest circuit time. (In athletic performances, it's a little different but also changing enough that I'm not sure if it makes much sense to consider e.g. the highest 2nd place 400 m race record.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In test cricket; "595 [runs] Bangladesh's total in the first innings in Wellington - no team has scored more in an innings and gone on to lose the Test. The previous highest was Australia's 586 against England at the SCG in 1894-95" [3] See Bangladeshi cricket team in New Zealand in 2016–17#1st Test.

According to Rugby Union for Dummies, in an 1890 match, Parramatta scored 22 tries against Richmond, New South Wales, but the scoring system then only included kicked goals and they were unable to kick any conversions. Richmond kicked a single goal and won the match. 22 unconverted tries by 1893 would have earned 66 points and today would earn 110 points. Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roads through Avebury Stone Circle

The Avebury Stone Circle is bisected by two roads: Avebury's High Street and A4361. How old are these roads? Were they built by the English, or do they date to Roman times or older? Was the circle built around an existing ancient crossroads? It seems a bit odd that a modern road would be built through the middle of a historic monument. Thanks, 95.168.116.252 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were two ancient "avenues" (Beckhampton Avenue & Kennet Avenue), but they don't exactly correspond to the current roads [see map]. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in the past few hundred years that the remaining stone circles have been regarded as historic monuments wothy of preservation. As it says at Beckhampton Avenue "Only one stone, known as Adam, remains standing now and even in William Stukeley's day there was little evidence on the surface of the avenue. The other stones were probably broken up and sold by local landowners in the post-medieval era." It's impossible to know the history of most roads in England as the majority were gradually developed from ancient tracks and footpaths, access to water, shelter, and woodland, causeways, animal tracks, etc.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Stukeley's Ground plot of Avebury dated 1724 and John Aubrey's plan of 1663 show the roads in the same position as they are today.

I also found this map which compares the modern roads with the ancient routes linked above; it also shows the Roman road from Silchester to Bath which passes almost a mile to the south and merges with the modern A4 road. So the roads passing through the circle must be medieval, but I can't find a source to confirm that. Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The ancient trackway running east-west through the henge, which later became the route of a medieval road, runs up onto the Fyfield Downs and it is likely that many of the stones for the monument would have been dragged along it, a mostly downhill route from the Ridgeway" Historic England - Avebury henge and stone circles. Alansplodge (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]