Michael Shackleford Wikipedia
April 13th, 2011 at 8:50:45 PM
permalink
Yes, that is my other claim to fame. It was indeed entirely my idea.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
April 13th, 2011 at 8:53:13 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob'he was best known for researching the most popular baby names for each year since 1880'
How the heck did you get involved in that? Was it your idea?
Wiki
Oh, go crazy. Edit it so he invented Post-Its and won American Idol in season 2 as well. ;)
Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
Preparing for a fight about your bad decision is not as smart as making a good decision.
April 13th, 2011 at 9:10:40 PM
permalink
Quote: FarFromVegas
Oh, go crazy. Edit it so he invented Post-Its and won American Idol in season 2 as well. ;)
I know, it did occur to me. I was going say he invented Day-Glo Condoms, or is in the Griffin Book for card counting, but I thought better of it.
Griffin
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 13th, 2011 at 10:33:06 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI know, it did occur to me. I was going say he invented Day-Glo Condoms, or is in the Griffin Book for card counting, but I thought better of it.
Griffin
There are guys who watch out for certain sections of Wikipedia. If they appoint themselves in charge of Vegas, they get a notice for every change made for an article referring to Vegas. They would correct stuff like that in hours.
The baby names are based on the Social Security database, which is a little thin for the first 4 decades. It probably doesn't effect the percentages of the primary names by much.
The number of births in the USA should increase to 2.3 million for boys or girls by the year 2020 as all the immigrants have babies.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:39:24 PM
permalink
Mike pretty much defined:
1. What American Gamblers pretty much need as a Gamblers' Resource with his WizardofOdds site.
2. What Casino executives need as a resource when reviewing or considering new games for their casino's operational mix of games;
3. What game designers need and refer to between his two sites, from game design, mathematical referral, to you name it.
4. Not to mention his role in slot/VP area advancement.
The guy's impact and role on this industry is just nuts, not meaning to log-roll. If Edward O. Thorpe has a fine entry in Wiki, (and he does) - so should Mike Shackleford.
If Stanley Kubrick and Eric Clapton have Wiki articles because of their roles and importance in their own industries, then MS's entry is also appropriate for Gaming.
We'd be a decade behind in this industry from where we are right now, if it weren't for him in this industry.
And I don't associate M.S. with Day-Glo condoms, - in spite of the fact that he seems to be photographed with strippers while visiting the Vatican or a Shinto shrine. WTF.
1. What American Gamblers pretty much need as a Gamblers' Resource with his WizardofOdds site.
2. What Casino executives need as a resource when reviewing or considering new games for their casino's operational mix of games;
3. What game designers need and refer to between his two sites, from game design, mathematical referral, to you name it.
4. Not to mention his role in slot/VP area advancement.
The guy's impact and role on this industry is just nuts, not meaning to log-roll. If Edward O. Thorpe has a fine entry in Wiki, (and he does) - so should Mike Shackleford.
If Stanley Kubrick and Eric Clapton have Wiki articles because of their roles and importance in their own industries, then MS's entry is also appropriate for Gaming.
We'd be a decade behind in this industry from where we are right now, if it weren't for him in this industry.
And I don't associate M.S. with Day-Glo condoms, - in spite of the fact that he seems to be photographed with strippers while visiting the Vatican or a Shinto shrine. WTF.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:25:21 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan
If Stanley Kubrick and Eric Clapton have Wiki articles because of their roles and importance in their own industries, then MS's entry is also appropriate for Gaming.
We'd be a decade behind in this industry from where we are right now, if it weren't for him in this industry.
WTF.
I'm curious about this statement. Could you give examples, I don't know what you mean.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 12:06:45 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanWe'd be a decade behind in this industry from where we are right now,
You mean... blackjack would still pay 3:2 and rooms would still be comped?
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 14th, 2011 at 12:10:03 AM
permalink
Well,
I thought I had provided examples. Specifically, In his role of:
1. Setting up a Gaming site that promoted, explained, and proved "Gaming, its mechanisms - and how it all works" for the gambling world to see for free, - and not just in a site about "visiting Las Vegas." Every game's house edge, possible advantage play or loophole, and proper strategy is detailed on an each-game basis like NO other site.
2. In providing a resource that game designers depend upon for their work; a LOT of new game design work was helped by using the exhaustive information provided by his WOO site.
3. In providing mathematical work for the slot machine and Video Poker side of the industry to IGT, Bally's, Williams, etc. We have no idea of the million of gambling hours played in this industry that was verified and approved by countless gaming jurisdictions - based on his mathematical work, or refers to his work.
4. As much as I hate to say this, in his role of providing fairer play knowledge and even advantage play knowledge to gamblers, even though I at times have trouble with this as I often take the side and the view of casino operators, working in casino operations and game design, often against advantage-play gamblers. He and Max Rubin, et al, did a ton of work in this area that countless gamblers utilize in the "cat-and-mouse" play between gamblers and operators. Principal.
I'll say this:
Honestly now, we all here aren't using or running on Cindy Liu's Gambling site forum, or Stanley Ko's gambling site forum, or [name your own Gaming mathematician/game designer/guru or pundit's] site. Where are on the Wizard's site, and while he isn't as "main-stream famous" - like Kubrick or Clapton, in the Gaming Industry his reach is arguably the most extensive in terms of his role - in the slot machines and table that games we gamble on.
The databse site IMDB.com plays a similar role in the film industry as WOO and WOV play in the Gaming industry - as THE referral source for info.
Among Gaming industry people themselves - and not visiting or posting gamblers here at this site - Mike Shackelford is known and respected by the industry as the industry math, game design and verification expert.
If we want to book a room or see a show, we do go to Anthony Curtis' Vegas site.
But when we have gambling questions or quandaries, we find ourselves going to M.S.'s two sites for the answers. So does the Industry.
I thought I had provided examples. Specifically, In his role of:
1. Setting up a Gaming site that promoted, explained, and proved "Gaming, its mechanisms - and how it all works" for the gambling world to see for free, - and not just in a site about "visiting Las Vegas." Every game's house edge, possible advantage play or loophole, and proper strategy is detailed on an each-game basis like NO other site.
2. In providing a resource that game designers depend upon for their work; a LOT of new game design work was helped by using the exhaustive information provided by his WOO site.
3. In providing mathematical work for the slot machine and Video Poker side of the industry to IGT, Bally's, Williams, etc. We have no idea of the million of gambling hours played in this industry that was verified and approved by countless gaming jurisdictions - based on his mathematical work, or refers to his work.
4. As much as I hate to say this, in his role of providing fairer play knowledge and even advantage play knowledge to gamblers, even though I at times have trouble with this as I often take the side and the view of casino operators, working in casino operations and game design, often against advantage-play gamblers. He and Max Rubin, et al, did a ton of work in this area that countless gamblers utilize in the "cat-and-mouse" play between gamblers and operators. Principal.
I'll say this:
Honestly now, we all here aren't using or running on Cindy Liu's Gambling site forum, or Stanley Ko's gambling site forum, or [name your own Gaming mathematician/game designer/guru or pundit's] site. Where are on the Wizard's site, and while he isn't as "main-stream famous" - like Kubrick or Clapton, in the Gaming Industry his reach is arguably the most extensive in terms of his role - in the slot machines and table that games we gamble on.
The databse site IMDB.com plays a similar role in the film industry as WOO and WOV play in the Gaming industry - as THE referral source for info.
Among Gaming industry people themselves - and not visiting or posting gamblers here at this site - Mike Shackelford is known and respected by the industry as the industry math, game design and verification expert.
If we want to book a room or see a show, we do go to Anthony Curtis' Vegas site.
But when we have gambling questions or quandaries, we find ourselves going to M.S.'s two sites for the answers. So does the Industry.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 12:12:33 AM
permalink
Quote: P90You mean... blackjack would still pay 3:2 and rooms would still be comped?
Casino operators might actually consider that an advancement.
Some of us here in the gaming industry actually work for the gaming industry, and not always against it, - the base gambler's opinion and POV not withstanding.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 12:30:31 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanWell,
I thought I had provided examples.
I think Mike has provided some good info, but quite honestly, if you ask the average gambler if he's ever heard of WOO, most haven't. I know, I've asked. Most gamblers don't even look at the internet for gambling advice. Its very hard to get into an informed gambling discussion in a casino because the majority of players don't know what they're doing. Once in awhile I run into somebody who knows his ass from his elbow, but not often. Poker players are the exception, they seem to live online. As far as the gaming industry goes, and if they'd be 10 years behind without Mike's input, I have no idea. I guess Mike would have to weigh in on that.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 12:31:16 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanCasino operators might actually consider that an advancement.
Some of us here in the gaming industry actually work for the gaming industry, and not always against it, - the base gambler's opinion and POV not withstanding.
Well, I guess so. But most people still hate these changes (and some others), and I know at least some people in the industry dislike them as well, at least in the form of disliking having to do it or compete against it. So a lot of people wouldn't actually mind the industry being where it was a decade ago.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 14th, 2011 at 1:24:34 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI think Mike has provided some good info, but quite honestly, if you ask the average gambler if he's ever heard of WOO, most haven't. I know, I've asked.
The average gambler generally doesn't know how to gamble well, or even - sometimes - how to behave at a gaming table.
What we are talking about here is his IMPORTANT ROLE in the gaming industry - NOT his "FAME" amongst gamblers - regardless of, and even if they're playing on some IGT machine that he help verify for Gaming Control Board to get there, to his slot-playin' seat.
Quote: EvenBobMost gamblers don't even look at the internet for gambling advice. Its very hard to get into an informed gambling discussion in a casino because the majority of players don't know what they're doing. Once in awhile I run into somebody who knows his ass from his elbow, but not often.
Exactly. If the average gambler doesn't know his ass from his elbow, then how would he know who invented, verified, or the people who even made the game he's playing on possible? They don't - and it doesn't matter - nor should it even matter - to the players. They player wouldn't know the dealer's name if he weren't waering a name tag - and I wear one 40 hours a week.
Both "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wizard of OZ" movies were tremendous Cinematic achievements, but the millions of people who have seen and loved these movies haven't a clue to whom Victor Fleming was (the director of both films) or who Margarat Hamilton was ("The Wicked Witch"). And it doesn't matter. But believe me, they were known in the industry, and not on the streets.
Quote: EvenBobPoker players are the exception, they seem to live online. As far as the gaming industry goes, and if they'd be 10 years behind without Mike's input, I have no idea. I guess Mike would have to weigh in on that.
He could. If he wanted to, he could post a 40-page Resume from his work at the Social Security Administration to his Gaming Industry achievements.
Is it Necessary? No. What's necessary is that we (both the gamblers and the casino operators) have these games to play on, and boy do we play them.
I once played my own casino game - EZ Pai Gow - at the Cannery, and one player mentioned "that this game is all right - I LIKE getting full pay on a win without a damn commission taken out....the bastard who invented this game is probably playing golf in Miami Beach or some shit, for all we know..." ( HA! ) and I was sitting right next to him hearing this....Aside from Steve Winn, NO one is a rock star in this industry.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 1:43:50 AM
permalink
Quote: P90Well, I guess so. But most people still hate these changes (and some others), and I know at least some people in the industry dislike them as well, at least in the form of disliking having to do it or compete against it. So a lot of people wouldn't actually mind the industry being where it was a decade ago.
Any casino operator who dislikes 6:5 Single deck can offer 3:2 single deck, but would lose table income from loses, and have a legion of "grinders" taking up table space.
The casino industry would indeed mind being ten years behind advantage players.
The whole Gaming industry is a beautiful eco-system of advantage players and casino operators playing a wonderful cat-and-mouse game to stay ahead of each other in a beautiful but messy challenge of casino operations.
Believe me, if Max Rubin or Stanford Wong were to awake tomorrow morning to find their entire Net Worth was tied up in a Casino Operation that THEY THEMSELVES had to manage, things would be DIFFERENT!
Each of them would wake up saying...
"Aw, sh]t! We were HIT by a counting team last night, - and we're way down into the red on the books! G-d dammit, we were raped by M.R. and S.W! What do do??!!"
"Ahh, Let me call a fine gaming mathematician! ....He says...pay 6:5 on Single Deck BJ's, use a 50% penetration on shoe games, have the floor and surveillance monitor jump-bettors, and DON'T sweat the money or mistreat players [all of which are correct defenses and actions] - and pay the mathematician that saved us."
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 1:43:57 AM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan.
What we are talking about here is his IMPORTANT ROLE in the gaming industry - NOT his "FAME" amongst gamblers .
But you said:
>>4. As much as I hate to say this, in his role of providing fairer play knowledge and even advantage play knowledge to gamblers, even though I at times have trouble with this as I often take the side and the view of casino operators, >>
Thats why I made the comment. You WERE talking about his fame among gamblers.
I play three games, roulette, BJ and bac. I haven't noticed any changes in the last 10 years. Which games in the casino have changed that wouldn't have changed without Mike's input.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 2:04:01 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBut you said:
>>4. As much as I hate to say this, in his role of providing fairer play knowledge and even advantage play knowledge to gamblers, even though I at times have trouble with this as I often take the side and the view of casino operators, >>
Thats why I made the comment. You WERE talking about his fame among gamblers.
I play three games, roulette, BJ and bac. I haven't noticed any changes in the last 10 years. Which games in the casino have changed that wouldn't have changed without Mike's input.
I was talking about his impact.
1. MANY Slot and VP machines: IGT, Bally's WMS/Willaims, and Aristocrat.
2. The invention of the Flush-mounted I-Deal card dispensers from ShuffleMaster as a defense from hole-carding on Three-card Poker, along with the Casino Gaming pit practice of NOT dealing out the dealer's hand on the game until ALL players have folded or bet the PLAY bet. See his page on Hole-carding Three-card Poker.
3. EZ Baccarat distributed by DEQ gaming Systems - his description of the game and its history were refered to countless times to help make it the upcoming form of Casino Baccarat, particularly in Asia/Macau. HIS web page on that game was hit countless times for performance verification in the sales process of that game. Apparently, Baccarat HAS changed because of DEQ, the Talisman Group, and his Web page on the game's math. The math link was online at www.wizardofodds.com, along with the Talisman group's link.
4. Blackjack has changed tremendously in the past ten years also - new side bets, new Blackjack variants, new defenses and advantages plays - all of which are mathematically presented at www.wizardofodds.com, and many of which are discussed right here at his site.
5. Roulette hasn't changed much in ten years, but new advances for Roulette in terms of multi-spin bets ("Poker-for-Roulette," "Roulette Parlay bet," etc.) were discussed right here on his Game Inventor's Corner, - and were reviewed by Gaming industry executives from prominent game distributors that I had personally spoken with in new game pitch meetings here in Las Vegas.
6. Many new games that were recently signed by the industry were done by his math or by Charles Mousseau, his referral who made EZ Pai Gow possible, and who did the math on a new game that was signed by a distributor, and two that are being pitched and taken seriously by several game distributors.
This site - and along with WOO - is inspected by legions of Gaming Industry executives for what is currently happening, and for what is coming down the pike.
Just because the average gambler isn't aware of this doesn't mean it isn't happening. It is.
Gotta give some props.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 2:10:33 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThats why I made the comment. You WERE talking about his fame among gamblers.
No, I was talking about his effect on the industry and on the games that we gamblers play, and that casino operators lease or purchase a ton of gaming stuff because of his work and decisions and opinions.
The man on the street doesn't know his name.
And WE gamblers here may mention him in this forum, - on his site - in the same post that we mention Day-Glo condoms, of all things....WTF. I look at this crossed-eyed. He isn't a god, but he simply did achieve a lot in this industry.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 2:32:23 AM
permalink
I want to hear what the Wiz says about this 10 year thing. Is EZ bac still around? Every casino I've seen that tried in, ended up getting rid of it because the Asians want nothing to do with it. They refused to play, the tables sat vacant. Do they play it in Vegas? I saw it at the Four Winds, MGM in Detroit, and a casino in Indiana. It didn't last 3 months in any of them.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 2:37:57 AM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan
in the same post that we mention Day-Glo condoms, of all things....WTF..
Jeez, it was a joke. I said it because of the pics with women, and on his latest exploits in Panama. I'm sorry if I insulted your delicate sensibilities..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 2:52:52 AM
permalink
Bob,
No problem. No one was offended, I'm sure.
But for a serious article in an encyclopedia reference about his gaming accomplishments,
too many links back to "Day-Glo Mike" here might give him too much of a criarde pastel taint...
No problem. No one was offended, I'm sure.
But for a serious article in an encyclopedia reference about his gaming accomplishments,
too many links back to "Day-Glo Mike" here might give him too much of a criarde pastel taint...
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 3:04:05 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI want to hear what the Wiz says about this 10 year thing. Is EZ bac still around? Every casino I've seen that tried in, ended up getting rid of it because the Asians want nothing to do with it. They refused to play, the tables sat vacant. Do they play it in Vegas? I saw it at the Four Winds, MGM in Detroit, and a casino in Indiana. It didn't last 3 months in any of them.
EZ Bac is doing very well and is growing, it's only direction is upwards:
270+ tables, a large following in Macau, and it is a big game in the card rooms of California and the West Coast, recently approved for Washington State.
In Las Vegas, I thinks it's at the Paris, Harrah's, and Monte Carlo.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 3:14:14 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanBob,
But for a serious article in an encyclopedia reference about his gaming accomplishments,
..
And who do you think wrote that Wiki entry? Dollars to donuts its was the Wiz.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 3:29:58 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobAnd who do you think wrote that Wiki entry? Dollars to donuts its was the Wiz.
I don't think so. He may have fact-checked it. He can answer himself.
Below is the Wiki entry for him:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
--------------------------
Michael "The Wizard of Odds" Shackleford (born in 1965 in Pasadena, California, United States) is a leading expert on the math behind casino games.[1] Before entering this field, he was best known for researching the most popular baby names for each year since 1880.[2][3]
Today Shackleford is best known for his website, The Wizard of Odds, which contains analyses strategies for hundreds of casino games. Shackleford also analyzes new games for game developers and casinos. His most notable clients include Hilton, Realtime Gaming, Playtech, and Shuffle Master. He is the author of Gambling 102: The Best Strategies for All Casino Games (Huntington Press, 2005). Previously, he was an Adjunct Professor of Casino Math at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and a contributing editor to Casino Player magazine.
Before becoming the Wizard of Odds, Shackleford worked as a claims adjuster and later as an actuary for the United States Social Security Administration from 1992 until 2000. His main responsibility there was estimating short-term costs and benefits of Social Security law changes, but what brought him notoriety was his idea to tabulate the most popular baby names each year for the last several decades. The results of this research have been published in many books, newspapers, and magazines, and the Social Security Administration now officially publishes a new list every year of the previous year's most popular names, along with all the previous years' names.[4][5]
Shackleford resides in Las Vegas, Nevada with his wife and three children.
[edit] References1.^ Simpson, Jeff (May 19, 2002). "Actuary Releases Ranking of Las Vegas Slot Machine Payout Percentages". Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV). http://www.reviewjournal.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2002/May-19-Sun-2002/business/18686053.html. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
2.^ "Background information for popular names". Social Security Administration. 2009-04-03. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/background.html. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
3.^ Nealy-Brown, J. (February 12, 2002). "Actually, it's one of the best jobs in the country. Actuaries are in growing demand as businesses seek help in assessing risk across a wider playing field.". St. Petersburg Times. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/12/news_pf/Business/Actually__it_s_one_of.shtml. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
4.^ "Popular Baby Names". Social Security Administration. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
5.^ Orenstein, Peggy (July 6, 2003). "Where Have All the Lisas Gone?". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/magazine/where-have-all-the-lisas-gone.html. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 3:36:02 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanI don't think so. He may have fact-checked it. He can answer himself.
.
Most famous people write their own entries or have them written and edit them.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 3:39:23 AM
permalink
Bob,
His real Wiki entry seems pretty humble and benign.
Go PM him, and see what he says.
Then Report back to us on this post.
If you're going to make this claim.
His real Wiki entry seems pretty humble and benign.
Go PM him, and see what he says.
Then Report back to us on this post.
If you're going to make this claim.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 4:03:18 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanBob,
.
If you're going to make this claim.
I didn't make any claim, I made a guess. Its a fact that most living people on Wiki write and control the entries about them. Do you think its an accident that on some entries there's no birthdate and often no personal info whatever? Its heavily controlled and edited by the person its about, as it would be if it was about me. Or you.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 4:21:15 AM
permalink
His wiki entry is very humble and benign. There is nothing nefarious about his entry there.
It's simple, short, factual, as far as it seems.
If you had implied that he wrote it about himself by himself as some sort of self-aggrandizing action, then I'd disagree.
If he edited it and verified it about himself, then you're right, there's no wrong in that, as we all have the right to cross-check our public history and biography.
What was the thrust of your claim about his wiki bio, or that he may have been involved in it?
Looks fine, factual, and innocent to me.
It's simple, short, factual, as far as it seems.
If you had implied that he wrote it about himself by himself as some sort of self-aggrandizing action, then I'd disagree.
If he edited it and verified it about himself, then you're right, there's no wrong in that, as we all have the right to cross-check our public history and biography.
What was the thrust of your claim about his wiki bio, or that he may have been involved in it?
Looks fine, factual, and innocent to me.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 4:25:25 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanHis wiki entry is very humble and benign. There is nothing nefarious about his entry there.
.
YES! Thats my point! Thats EXACTLY what I would write about myself, something humble and benign. Thats why I think its written by him.
Good grief..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 5:36:44 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinQuote: EvenBobI know, it did occur to me. I was going say he invented Day-Glo Condoms, or is in the Griffin Book for card counting, but I thought better of it.
Griffin
There are guys who watch out for certain sections of Wikipedia. If they appoint themselves in charge of Vegas, they get a notice for every change made for an article referring to Vegas. They would correct stuff like that in hours.
The baby names are based on the Social Security database, which is a little thin for the first 4 decades. It probably doesn't effect the percentages of the primary names by much.
The number of births in the USA should increase to 2.3 million for boys or girls by the year 2020 as all the immigrants have babies.
Where did this graph come from? I wasn't aware you could get a social security number in the 1880s, 50 years before the program started. Or is it taking people at their word on birth when they first registered at the program start? And maybe Wiz or someone else can explain the spike at 1910 as welll as why so many more females (male births outnumber female births slightlhy) born before 1930? Were there more female immigrants? I find that harde to believe, should be the other way around.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
April 14th, 2011 at 6:34:17 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanThe whole Gaming industry is a beautiful eco-system of advantage players and casino operators playing a wonderful cat-and-mouse game to stay ahead of each other in a beautiful but messy challenge of casino operations.
I don't think I would put it quite that way. I mean, how large a fraction among total player gambling winnings is even accounted for by APs, how much of that isn't due to the same luck as with any other player, and what fraction of that comes from counting rather than holecarding, cheating or collusion?
Running counting simulations, even over a million hands (about 10 years of 9-to-5 work) the player can still end up a million dollars up or a million dollars down; a lifetime is barely enough to reliably converge close to the theoretical. While certainly scary, we come down to the same short-term vs long-term Singer loves so much, just from the opposite side, and in terms of actual take-home money counters hardly come close to drunk but lucky gamblers.
That considered and added to how many people only think they are counting ("don't worry, I know how to count" has become pretty much a comedy cliche), in a modern environment casinos that think of their operations as complicated strategic maneuvers against counters are deluding themselves just as much as these players. The game they really are in is a far less glamorous and intellectual grind against taxes, credit payments, utility bills and janitorial costs.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 14th, 2011 at 6:58:17 AM
permalink
Thank you very much for the kind words Dan! That makes my day. I'd like to think I have saved gamblers some money through the years by teaching them to play better, and taught a thing or two about math to both sides of the table. I love it when I see somebody in a casino carrying around a strategy printout from my site. Still I know that the vast majority of players have never heard of me.
About the Wikipedia entry, I had nothing to do with it. However, I do think my former webmaster Michael Bluejay has made some contributions or edits to it. He never asked me what to say. Since he worked for me at the time, I suppose one could argue that I indirectly had something to do with it. I think it would be inappropriate for me to write my own entry.
About the Wikipedia entry, I had nothing to do with it. However, I do think my former webmaster Michael Bluejay has made some contributions or edits to it. He never asked me what to say. Since he worked for me at the time, I suppose one could argue that I indirectly had something to do with it. I think it would be inappropriate for me to write my own entry.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
April 14th, 2011 at 7:27:22 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardAbout the Wikipedia entry, I had nothing to do with it. However, I do think my former webmaster Michael Bluejay has made some contributions or edits to it.
According to Wikipedia 42 people worked on your entry over a 5 year period. I know that I changed a few things back in 2009. Michael added a list of your clients when it began. I recently updated a dead link.
Posting stuff in Wikipedia can be frustrating, because people have firm ideas about what you can say or not say. For instance, the entry in your article that your explanations are mathematically correct was flagged as unprovable. I know at one point I listed "Wizard of Vegas" as well as "Wizard of Odds" as an external reference, but someone removed it for god knows what reason.
The funniest moves are the guys who know that reporters will read wikipedia articles the same as everyone else, because it is fast and easy. If you put something in wikipedia, and then a reporter picks it up, then you can go back and use the article as a reference.
I don't see anything wrong with correcting facts on your own article, as long as you don't violate the "neutral point of view" guiding principal. But some people have gotten lambasted in the media for constantly changing Wikipedia articles that they find unflattering.
I have never ever seen anything critical said about you in the media, neither personally or professionally.
April 14th, 2011 at 7:33:10 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanThe databse site IMDB.com plays a similar role in the film industry as WOO and WOV play in the Gaming industry - as THE referral source for info.
That's a very apt comparison, and one I had failed to make before. Whenever I want to know something about a movie or TV show, I go to the IMDB (that's Internet Movie Database for those who dind't know). And when I want to know anything about a casino game, I go to the Wizard's Odds site or here. In both cases 99 times out of 100 I find the infomration I need within five minutes.
About the only differences are that 1) IMDB seems like a massive operation and ahs a commercial side and 2) if you want info on specific TV episodes you go to epguides.com rather than IMDB; the Wizard's sites are all owned by him and run out of his living room. That's quite impressive when you think about it. No, that's amazing when you think about it.
On top of that Mike's a great guy, friendly and above all accessible to a wide variety of people. Remember the "Wizard's Coffees" were his idea. How many of us have met him that way?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
April 14th, 2011 at 7:47:21 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinPosting stuff in Wikipedia can be frustrating, because people have firm ideas about what you can say or not say. For instance, the entry in your article that your explanations are mathematically correct was flagged as unprovable.
You should put it as "mathematically derived". Most times people won't touch a properly written article, but if you do a small edit, they look out for this stuff.
Quote: pacomartinThe funniest moves are the guys who know that reporters will read wikipedia articles the same as everyone else, because it is fast and easy. If you put something in wikipedia, and then a reporter picks it up, then you can go back and use the article as a reference.
Oh yes. I actually literally laughed out once when I was in an extended discussion on another forum, and another poster quoted my own article he read in wiki without proper context as an argument against me. (There is no ownership of articles in wiki, of course, but there are articles where a single author writes like 95% of the text, and that was one. Obviously the poster had no idea.) At that point minimally-referenced articles were still tolerated, when well written.
Since the subject is relatively obscure and information on it very scarce, unless obtained from RL sources, by now it's been spread all over web pages on the subject, and people have actually added references to my wikipedia article pointing to web pages that took their information from that very article. I can figure that out because anyone else would have rounded the units differently, use slightly different definitions, different estimates, different detail, etc, it's like a fingerprint. But that's how it works.
Since then I actually started intentionally "fingerprinting" any articles I write by adding a little detail no one else would, like an extra decimal digit, a very uncommon term, an overly minute piece of trivia, sometimes it's not strictly correct but inconsequential information, just to see how far it goes and have a clue as to who gets his information from RL and who from wiki. So far almost everything stuck, although I suppose it wouldn't for more mainstream topics.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 14th, 2011 at 7:47:31 AM
permalink
I can say The Wizard has saved me plenty of scratch. Glad I stumbled across the site...probably was when I was learning to play craps. I know I'm still losing when I gamble but at least I can play the best possible. From a small peanuts gambler, thanks Wizard!
April 14th, 2011 at 9:23:38 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinQuote: EvenBobI know, it did occur to me. I was going say he invented Day-Glo Condoms, or is in the Griffin Book for card counting, but I thought better of it.
Griffin
There are guys who watch out for certain sections of Wikipedia. If they appoint themselves in charge of Vegas, they get a notice for every change made for an article referring to Vegas. They would correct stuff like that in hours.
The baby names are based on the Social Security database, which is a little thin for the first 4 decades. It probably doesn't effect the percentages of the primary names by much.
The number of births in the USA should increase to 2.3 million for boys or girls by the year 2020 as all the immigrants have babies.
I would have thought there would be more girls than boys. I mean when making a baby the pattern for girls is right before you !
April 14th, 2011 at 11:24:22 AM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffI would have thought there would be more girls than boys. I mean when making a baby the pattern for girls is right before you !
The graph is not for births, it is for people given social security numbers. Since Social Security began in 1935, before that you would have more women who given a social security number as they outlived their husbands. After 1945 you simply have more men then women who work.
If you look up the percentage of baby girls born in 1900 that were named Mary, the database probably gives you a pretty good answer. If you want to know how many girls were named May that were born in 1900 you will be way off.
The number of people with social security numbers after 1920 is pretty close to the number of actual babies born. There were a lot fewer births in the 1930's. We are about to enter a new state of births, where the absolute numbers are starting to exceed those of the 1950's. Unlike most of Europe, we've accumulated enough immigrants in the last 4 decades to keep our population growing for decades without any additional immigration. Normally natural or vegetative growth is simply their are more births than deaths.
Many countries in Europe have no vegetative growth, or it will vanish in a few years. Some, like the USA, including France and UK have natural growth because of immigration over the last few decades.
April 14th, 2011 at 11:56:41 AM
permalink
Quote: AltutIf Wiki isn't contributed to or controlled by the personality then how can anyone know if any of the info is bogus or not? You mean they just let anyone post to it?
Technically, you aren't allowed to "post" anything there. You are only allowed to rip off other sources and put a summary in there.
As to the local etiquette (I'm somewhat familiar with it), it dictates that the subject of an article should feel free to and actively take steps to correct factual mistakes, as well as other mistakes, but should not either reduce or expand the scope of coverage, leaving that to others. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what others know about the subject (or about you), not necessarily the facts. It's often silly, but that's the way it is.
In regards to living persons, however, one can generally successfully seek to remove personal information that has not been widely disseminated elsewhere before. Other than that, correcting information about yourself is perfectly fine (and expected if it's grossly incorrect), but adding it is a complete no-no; the idea is that one would let others decide.
As to specifically the Michael Shackleford article, it probably will at some point be nominated for deletion. A lot of articles are, it's not uncommon. The results will depend on how well the notability is established and how well-sourced it is.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 14th, 2011 at 5:22:53 PM
permalink
Quote: P90but adding it is a complete no-no; the idea is that one would let others decide.
Where does it say that? I just read the terms of use and it doesn't say that at all. What is does say is you should use links, 'where possible'. In other words, if you don't have a source and just made it up, oh well. My youngest daughter was in college last year and had a teacher who told them to avoid Wiki because it was full of so many lies. I know for a fact many famous people write their own entries, I've read it for years. I just read the other day that Joan Rivers completely rules her entry, and she adds and takes away info, sometimes on a daily basis.
Here's what Wiki says:"The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."
Translation: Anybody can write anything they like, at any time, about anything, including themselves. And they do it in droves.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 5:43:46 PM
permalink
Wiki's information is not guaranteed.
It is generally considered a reliable resource, and is heavily used.
It is generally considered a reliable resource, and is heavily used.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
April 14th, 2011 at 6:04:54 PM
permalink
Quote: P90As to specifically the Michael Shackleford article, it probably will at some point be nominated for deletion. A lot of articles are, it's not uncommon. The results will depend on how well the notability is established and how well-sourced it is.
Sourcing and citations is almost everything in Wikipedia. You can say almost anything if you have a source. I suggest that people take some time and google sources that refer to Michael. Perhaps if several people brighten up the Wikipedia article a little bit, it will survive longer and be more descriptive.
Here are five articles I found.
1) Stratosphere’s refusal to honor expired ticket gives sports books another black eye Las Vegas Sun, Jeff Haney
2) Vegas! Vegas! Vegas! 3 Days, 3 Ways Bing travel guide Same article on CNN
3) Time Out Las Vegaspg. 54, article about Michael's slot machine survey
4) Advertisement availability as Guest Speaker Oxford Company
5) The positive side of continuous shuffling machine Article on continuous shuffling machines at Play Perfect Blackjack
Wikipedia format FOR CITATIONS
All parameters for web citation
When copying all parameters in either the vertical or horizontal layouts, delete those which are not needed.
All parameters, horizontal layout
{{cite web |url= |title= |first= |last= |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |month= |year= |work=
|publisher= |location= |page= |pages= |at= |language= |trans_title= |format= |doi=
|archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |quote= |ref= |separator= |postscript=}}
All parameters for news citation
All parameters, horizontal format (delete parameters you don't need)
{{cite news |title= |author= |first= |last=
|authorlink= |authorlink2= |author2= |author3= |author4= |author5= |author6= |author7=
|url= |format= |agency= |newspaper= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |issn= |oclc=
|pmid= |pmd= |bibcode= |doi= |id= |date=
|page= |pages= |at= |accessdate= |language= |trans_title= |quote= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |ref=}}
All parameters for journal citation
{{cite journal |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |year= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |publisher= |doi=
|url= |accessdate= }}
April 14th, 2011 at 6:20:48 PM
permalink
I use Wiki all the time. Its invaluable to me as a source, I'd be lost without it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 7:18:58 PM
permalink
Well it's important to get the wikipedia article correct since it is the first place people go.
April 14th, 2011 at 7:59:25 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThat's the kind of story that will kill him if he runs for president.
No it won't. Trump and his story is well known and has been well covered. There are very few surprises. I don't think he'll run, why would anybody want the SS following them around the rest of their lives. Obama is complaining about it already, wait till he's 70. He's starting to realize his normal life is gone, his every move for decades will be planned.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 8:17:12 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWhere does it say that? I just read the terms of use and it doesn't say that at all.
It doesn't say that in the terms of use, because it's not strictly forbidden.
It's just how it works. Guidelines cover how the material should be written.
These aside, editors very much don't like people writing articles about themselves. Such articles are far more likely to get deleted, if there is basis to do so, than the same article written by someone else.
I've been a very active participant in the project's early days, not so much now, but still, it's very much of a community with own unwritten and loosely written rules, not related to TOS.
Quote: EvenBobTranslation: Anybody can write anything they like, at any time, about anything, including themselves. And they do it in droves.
And then comes one of the Deletionists or PeopleWhoLikeLongBackronyms and deletes it. Just because you can write it doesn't mean you're entitled to having your contribution retained. Sometime it's overlooked, sometimes it's tolerated, sometimes it's not. For an article to stand up to review, sourcing is usually a necessity, especially in articles about living persons.
The subject article would most likely fall under this section:
people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known
This isn't meant to rank, rather to consider that Wizard isn't a public person, not the same way a celebrity who is itself a subject of pop culture would be. He's known for his work rather than persona, so, for instance, information about his haircut would not be considered relevant for Wikipedia's purposes, while information about his websites, involvement in the industry, effect on it would be.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 14th, 2011 at 9:25:07 PM
permalink
Quote: AltutAfter reading all this I have to believe the Wiki person can and does make postings about himself/herself.
Of course they do! So would I if there was an entry about me.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 9:26:35 PM
permalink
I edited the wiki page for Jim Morrison since it had nothing to do with me at all. Bastards changed it back in less than 10 minutes!
EvenBob: "Look America, I have a tiny wee-wee, can anybody
help me?"
April 14th, 2011 at 9:52:41 PM
permalink
Updated Wikipedia article on Michael
I think the article is a little more organized and with better documentation. I don't have his exact birthday, but I am not sure he wants it made public. I posted his default head shot.
I also added a reference to his book website. It may get erased In the past, I and other people have listed Wizard of Vegas and Wizard of Macau on the External links, and someone repeatedly erased them.
I expect the trolls will work it over shortly. If you want to edit it, please Login with a name. Anonymous edits tend to get reversed quickly.Try to avoid clearly promotional comments, as they will get deleted quickly.
If you type in Wizard of odds you get the following reference page.
Wizard of Odds may refer to:
Michael Shackleford, one of the world's foremost experts on the math behind casino games
The Wizard of Odds, a 1973 television game show starring Alex Trebek
which I left unchanged.
I think the article is a little more organized and with better documentation. I don't have his exact birthday, but I am not sure he wants it made public. I posted his default head shot.
I also added a reference to his book website. It may get erased In the past, I and other people have listed Wizard of Vegas and Wizard of Macau on the External links, and someone repeatedly erased them.
I expect the trolls will work it over shortly. If you want to edit it, please Login with a name. Anonymous edits tend to get reversed quickly.Try to avoid clearly promotional comments, as they will get deleted quickly.
If you type in Wizard of odds you get the following reference page.
Wizard of Odds may refer to:
Michael Shackleford, one of the world's foremost experts on the math behind casino games
The Wizard of Odds, a 1973 television game show starring Alex Trebek
which I left unchanged.
April 14th, 2011 at 10:19:02 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinI don't have his exact birthday,
I heard he was born the same week 'I Dream of Jeannie' premiered. You should update the picture to one of him with the BJ award he won. That was a big deal, how come its not mentioned there.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 14th, 2011 at 10:23:28 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI heard he was born the same week 'I Dream of Jeannie' premiered. You should update the picture to one of him with the BJ award he won. That was a big deal, how come its not mentioned there.
I changed it to 18 Sep, 1965 which was the premier date. He can PM someone if he wants it more accurate
I couldn't find a reference to his blackjack award, except on this site. I need an external reference.
