Talk:Betting strategy

Gambling Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Cleanup[edit]

This article is too short, too vague, and doesn't include citations. If it's not expanded and made encyclopedic, it should probably just be deleted. I don't have time to do it myself right now, but maybe someone else wants to step up and expand and improve the article? Rray 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting, but I'm still unsure if the subject of this article is notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Rray 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Rray, regarding the Betting Strategy page. I am interested to know why you thought a link to 81 articles on Betting Strategy not available on Wikipedia, written by a professional gambler, is Spam. As you say yourself the page is weak, therefore adding relevant external links is surely an improvement. In its place you have provided a link to an online gambling affiliate website, who's sponsor has recenty had their domain confiscated by Judges in Nevada, giving information that already exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. Interested to know your logic? Crofton park 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of articles isn't relevant. There could be 810 articles listed on that page, but that wouldn't suddenly make it an appropriate external link.
It looks like the articles were written by someone named "Hobbes". That's presumably a pen name, but information written by someone who's willing to use his real name and is an actual notable expert in the field is going to be a more appropriate link than a collection of articles by an anonymous "professional gambler".
You don't strengthen a weak page by adding external links; you strengthen it by improving the article.
Shackleford's site is not an affiliate website, even though he does accept paid advertising. But it wouldn't matter if it were an affiliate website. What matters is the quality and relevance of the content there.
Bodog's recent domain and/or problems have nothing to do with whether or not this essay is an appropriate link for the article either.
My logic is simple. The Shackleford article provides better and more pertinent information to the article topic than the list of articles on the Pinnacle Sports site.
Looking over your previous contributions to the Wikipedia, it seems that your main concern is including links to content on one particular website (the Pinnacle Sports site). That's usually a sign that there is a conflict of interest, and that your purpose here is to promote your website rather than to contribute to the project. I'd suggest working on adding and improving content here instead of just dropping links.

Rray 16:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rray, thanks for the response, you raise some interesting though contradictory points.

If it doesn't matter that Shackleford's website is an affiliate, only the quality and pertinence of information, why do make the point about my previous contributions? Surely you should simply apply those same criteria to my posts.
You talk about a conflict of interest from my contributions but see no conflict of interest in adding links from a site talking about Betting Systems sponsored by a bookmaker.
If you don't improve an article by adding External Links, then they serve no purpose.
I take your point about anonymous articles, unfortunately gamblers like to retain their privacy
I accept the invitation to improve the article and will try to do so when I can, in an unbiased manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crofton park (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the quality and pertinence of the link you added already.
I have no conflict of interest related to the Wizard of Odds website. I'm not associated with the site in any way.
The external link I added improved the article. The external link you added did not.
Gamblers are welcome to their privacy, but they don't qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia if you can't verify notability and verifiability.

You would be well served by reviewing some of the guidelines for editing here. It's fun to edit here, and you might like it, but it helps to know how the community works. One of the 1st things to learn is that this isn't really a place to promote your website. Rray 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rray, thanks for your feedback, I have taken all your points on board. Wikipedia is an excellent resource, and hopefully I can contribute in the future, in line with the guidelines you mention.Crofton park 09:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of mis-information[edit]

I have no idea where the author originally got the idea a d'Alembert is an "up as you win" progression but it is the exact opposite as it is a negative progression. What is listed on the main page is a contra-d'Alembert.

Surebettor (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

I tagged the article because large amounts of text (such as in Labouchère system section) are copy/pasted from gambling websites. Please see WP:COPYVIO for more info, and take the time to rewrite these sections in your own words. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the language is very worrisome in many of these descriptions. It suggests that they work. I think the additions should be removed.Objective3000 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content clean up[edit]

I have re-edited as much as possible, to state in my own words how each system works. If there are still unacceptable portions, please specify and I will endeavor to amend until appropriate. - (92.233.225.132 (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There are serious problems with these descriptions. They keep giving examples of "profit." There are numerous examples of winning, not losing. They suggest you can "protect your bankroll." It is stated that you can "quit whilst ahead." It is suggested one strategy is better than the others. One topic is even written inthe first person discussing how the system has been successfully used in a casino. This is giving credence to gambling system scams sold all over the Internet. These are well-known gambling frauds presented as if they are scientifically useful methods of betting.Objective3000 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree with what you have said, but you can't discuss a betting system without showing possible profit and loss from using that system, and you can't really discuss betting systems without showing how specific systems work (which is why there is not much information on the restored version). Whether these systems are scams sold to the foolish or an actual technique used to create an edge, these are still recognized systems which people will look for information on. - (92.233.225.132 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Which doesn't mean this is the place for it. A single line covers the topic: "many fraudulent betting sytems exists" or "many betting systems that lose money exist". It's not our mission one way or another to discuss all the specific ones, in this article especially. Matingale for instance has its own article. We only deal with notable, verifiable stuff in the Wikipedia. 2005 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]