Talk:Blackjack
Would something like this work?
Content imported from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike License. A full list of contributors prior to January 7, 2014 is available here.
Compromise[edit]
I don't see any compelling reason why this article can't include some info about Dr. Golden's work as well as the links that are desired by User:Monitor. Would this version work for the two of you? Auggie (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2014 (CST)
- Monitor is in over 25 related books (http://www.qfit.com/Blackjackbooksites.htm). Golden is in zero related books and is a complete unknown in the field. I can find no one that has ever heard of him in the BJ field. The information is very poor and so unknown that he could not even find a link to any mention of it on the web. His links are circular within encyc.org. His claims that he developed a first in the field are simply outrageousMonitor (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2014 (CST)
- And, he has already removed the links without comment.Monitor (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2014 (CST)
- Nobody wins with all this fighting. There is plenty of room for both of you to generate content, and honestly, I regard both of you as blackjack experts with something to contribute. Auggie (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2014 (CST)
- That's a pity. Les knows almost nothing about BJ. He is in no books. I have never met a person that has heard of him. His claims are utterly false. No one has heard of the "strategies" that he claims to have invented. I have never seen anything written by him, other than self-promoting edits, and I have around 45 Blackjack books. I asked people with larger BJ libraries, and they have read nothing by or about him. He is a complete fraud adding utter nonsense and false claims about himself to what was a good article built up over many years by many people. And he continues to delete valuable links. He has added many pages here. ALL of them are self-promoting and point to his ridiculous article on himself that claims he is famous in a couple dozen different fields, based on articles that he has written about himself using fake names. He actually claims to have written critical articles for one of the largest newspapers, because he wrote a letter to the editor. Good luck with him.Monitor (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2014 (CST)
- So much for your "encyclopedia". Les Golden is not a lesser-known BJ expert. I see no evidence that he knows as much as someone that spent 20 minutes flipping through a book in a library. His "strategies" do not exist. His statements in the Golden Diagram section are flat-out lies.Monitor (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2014 (CST)
- That's a pity. Les knows almost nothing about BJ. He is in no books. I have never met a person that has heard of him. His claims are utterly false. No one has heard of the "strategies" that he claims to have invented. I have never seen anything written by him, other than self-promoting edits, and I have around 45 Blackjack books. I asked people with larger BJ libraries, and they have read nothing by or about him. He is a complete fraud adding utter nonsense and false claims about himself to what was a good article built up over many years by many people. And he continues to delete valuable links. He has added many pages here. ALL of them are self-promoting and point to his ridiculous article on himself that claims he is famous in a couple dozen different fields, based on articles that he has written about himself using fake names. He actually claims to have written critical articles for one of the largest newspapers, because he wrote a letter to the editor. Good luck with him.Monitor (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2014 (CST)
- Nobody wins with all this fighting. There is plenty of room for both of you to generate content, and honestly, I regard both of you as blackjack experts with something to contribute. Auggie (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2014 (CST)
Clarification[edit]
WP contributors are not the final word on what should be written here. WP articles are a starting point. We improve them. Auggie (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2016 (CDT)
I completely agree. A compelling reason exists that no scholarly journal and no peer-reviewed book allows citations to either imdb (international movie database) or WP. That's because anyone can, anonymously, "edit," independent of expertise. Scholarly publication, such as mine on the Golden Diagram in The Mathematical Scientist and my book to be published by World Scientific Publishing Company in which I expound on my Magic Circle strategy for roulette, requires double-blind peer review. That means that the reviewer does not know the name of the scholar, and the scholar does not know the name of the reviewer. In contrast, edits on WP and imdb are often as favors between editors. For example, the Wizard of Odds has told me that he included a reference on his well-regarded web page (the Wizard is a professor at the University of Nevada) to one of Wattenberger's triviality-filled middle school level webpages solely as a favor swap.
Re my TMS paper, for an example of the peer-review process, the editor's job is to know the experts to which to refer a paper. Edward Thorp was the obvious referee, my paper being based on the Fundamental Theorem of Card Counting which he published with his student Bill Walden at New Mexico State. If Thorp demurred, the next choice would have been either Walden, Stewart Ethier, who also published a paper on the subject, or perhaps Arnold Snyder or James Grosjean, two blackjack theoreticians. Whoever it was, my best guess being Thorp, he advised the editor that my paper was worthy of publication. That's why knowledge advances through the centuries-old format of peer review, in which true experts judge new research as desirable to be promulgated, not through self-pub'd websites of which WP is basically an assemblage. Drlesmgolden (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2016 (CDT)
- Good points on peer review. That's one of the most scary things about Wikipedia. People with no idea how to judge the quality of a source are making those judgments every day, and too many people are looking at Wikipedia as some sort of authority in itself. Congratulations on getting your work out there. Auggie (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2016 (CDT)
- NO, you harm articles. You harm them by having people wrongly insert their names as experts in a field where they are complete unknowns for their own self-aggrandizement. And his claim that the Wizard of Odds (who is NOT a professor anywhere) just did me some sort of favor is yet another of his outright fabrications. And it is laughable that Ethier, Grossjean, or Thorp approved of anything he has written. Monitor (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2016 (CDT)
- That's interesting. I will report to the Wizard that you deny him his academic credentials. He'll find that interesting. By the way, as an authority in virtually every gambling area, I'm sure you'll be joining us at the IGRT Conference. I'll be giving two papers, and I hope you'll come and listen. I'll be handing out preprints. Maury has invited me to join him and others at his house in Henderson for a "BGB" -- what he calls "Blackjack Guys Bonanza." I'm sure you received an invitation. So, if you're too busy in Vegas not to get to my talks, I hope to join you in fellowship at Maury's.Drlesmgolden (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2016 (CDT)
- Lying on encyclopedias is a violation of academic integrity, isn't it? Isn't that a violation of the Five Pillars? WP:Lies?? I'll try to find the communication between me and the Wizard. Seems you ASKED him for a review, and he granted it because you had done some "work" for him for FREE. A favor swap, isn't it? In scholarly work, one does not ASK for a review. The media encounter your work and then review it.Drlesmgolden (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2016 (CDT)
- I have no interest in meeting you. And, your threat is noted. Yes, lying (like leveling threats) would be such a violation. Why do you keep doing it? I have no idea what review you are talking about. Shack and I have had hundreds of communications over years. I have donated analysis work in the gambling field for free for decades. It's no big deal and I NEVER ask for anything in return. You even lied at this site about my home, claiming I don't live where I have lived for over a quarter of a century. Why would anyone do such an odd thing? This is just too weird for me. Have fun with your thousandth edit of pages about yourself. Monitor (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2016 (CDT)
- I guess that means you are not attending IGRT? But, but everyone in the field attends. It's the #1 conference in the field of gambling theory. And didn't you get an invite to the BGB? Guess not. That soiree alone is worth the trip. I hope James will be there. I'm printing out the above and we'll all get a big laugh out of your misspelling of his name! Just checked the IGRT Whova app for attendees. You're not giving a paper. You were not asked to appear on a panel. You are not even on the list of attendees! Gosh, Norman.
I'll ask the administrator of encyc if I should copy the letter I got from "Shack" to show who is lacking in veracity. At least he'll get a look at it. The U.S. is an evidence-based country. I have the evidence.
Hopefully the above will be your last edit at encyc. By the way Arnold Snyder's blackjack simulation program, available on his website, is far superior to yours, and it's free.Drlesmgolden (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2016 (CDT)
- Shack and I have traded e-mails a dozen times in the last few days over something else -- and he hasn't mentioned anything to me. If the sim on Snyder's site is so much better, why did he have me do his sims for his last book? Actually, that's quite a funny claim. Seriously though, your stalking of me for years is getting quite ridiculous. Remember what happened the last time you stalked someone. Monitor (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2016 (CDT)
- Your post about Arnold's site really is funny. See the first recommended site on his site: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/recommendedlinks.htm. Monitor (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2016 (CDT)