baseball handicapping

The reason that this page was started...
Someone proposed on the Requested Moves page that Handicapping be set up as a redirect to Handicap theory. Now, I have never heard of Handicap theory as it relates to biological evolution. I have only heard of it as it relates to sports and gambling. I proposed to the proposing someone that Handicapping should be set up to discuss the sports-related definition with a disclaimer leading folks to that biological mumbo-jumbo if that is what some folks sought (most likely they won't be looking for that obscure stuff, but who knows). That proposing someone never responded, so here is the result of my initiative. At that time I was surprised that no one had written an article on the sports-related Handicapping (or so I thought). I started Handicapping before I realized that Handicap (competition) already exists. However, it was just a stub with a two event edit history and only one decent line I could plunder and add to my introduction. So I just took it, pasted it, and reduced the Handicap (competition) article to a mere redirect to Handicapping. So, if anyone is miffed that I destroyed their page (sorry to the Handicap (competition) contributors...all two of you) or destroyed your master plan (you crazy obscure theoretical biologists)...too bad. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 04:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tried to redirect a new page I made "handicapping" to "Handicap theory" and made it FUBAR. Help. Handicapping and Handicap Theory should both redirect to "Handicap theory" THX --JPotter 00:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: This requested move was inadvertantly placed beneath the February 11th request for Supercentenarian→Oldest person. Upon seeing this mistake, I took the initiative to separate it. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) OPPOSE STRENUOUSLY: Judging from the history, JPotter had started the article entitled Handicapping on 11 February 2005. And while his redirect can easily be fixed, I do not think Handicapping should be a redirect to Handicap theory as the primary use of the word "handicapping" is for the practice of (and mathematics behind) giving a scoring benefit in sporting events to lesser talented participants, not as a corollary to Darwin's biological theories. I expected this to be an article on the sports-related practice and its methods. As a former bookmaker in my college days, Handicapping should be an article about the scoring practice and methods, with a disclaimer at the top saying "if you are looking for Handicap theory, click here." —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Oppose for reasons given above. Isn't there an article about handicapping in sport? Kappa 19:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Unforunately there isn't, much to my surprise also. —ExplorerCDT 02:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) NOTE: As the fix was simple...no Handicap Theory page really existed...I redirected that to Handicap theory. I've contacted JPotter to see if he'd agree to the use of Handicapping to discuss the sports scoring practice and its methods with a a disambiguation disclaimer at the top of the article. In the meantime, I have started to put together some ideas for a Handicapping article and will start it when (if) JPotter responds positively to my comments regarding a compromise proposed from the above concerns on his talk page. —ExplorerCDT 02:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) As of last night, I hadn't heard from JPotter so I made Handicapping into a different article with a disclaimer at the top disambiguating it to both Handicap theory and Handicapped. This request can now be deleted, but I do request archiving on both the Handicapping and Handicap theory talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 14:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree with the way ExplorerCDT has set it up (with Handicapping as an article about the sports usage, and a typical "other uses" note at the top). JamesMLane 10:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) have taken the liberty of reverting the recent edits to the article by User:Peter Tidmarsh. I firmly believe that his edits from 14 March to 17 March 2005 made the article hackneyed, anecdotal, and regrettably puerile in character, and I have stated such on the user's talk page. —ExplorerCDT 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It strikes me that the reversion was made because you disagree with his explanation of the origins of handicapping, which is in disagreement with your own. I'd suggest that if there isn't a clear etymology or original use that both be given. Emotive terms such as hackneyed and puerile are not helpful, especially if they are there to disguise disagreement with the actual content. --Simon Lucy 16:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My disagreement is precisely with the content. Some of it was amateurishly immature (especially the Golf write-up). The etymology is clear in the sources I've run into, and his alternative etymological origins were woefully unsubstantiated...despite my best efforts of tracking down the claims he posted in good faith before deleting them from the article. Lastly, his style was hopelessly hackneyed and anecdotal and not up to the standard of an objective encyclopedia. In fact, his additions to the article smacked of tongue-in-cheek smuggery. Sure, the adjectives I used may not be helpful, and they may be pointedly hurtful, but they are amazingly accurate when describing what I feel his additions did to the tenor of the article, it's accuracy, and furthermore they in no way disguise my disagreement. In fact, they are the crux of my disagreement rather overtly stated. —ExplorerCDT 18:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't see any citations for your original etymology. --62.49.30.152 08:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) For the record I didnt make any claims on etymological origins, which are rarely clear. I did point out that the current use of the word cast doubt on the claim made by ExplorerCDT.
However compare Chamber's Online Reference "Probably" - with our authoritative ExplorerCDT's "sources are clear". [1] ETYMOLOGY: 17c: probably from hand i' cap an old lottery game in which money was deposited in a cap and forfeits were drawn from it.
Not much has changed, punters agree to enter the lottery, or bet on a sporting event or "put their hand in" (the cap) beforehand, and afterwards the forfeits or winnings are drawn from the cap or bookie. ExplorerCDT's dubious claim - that the looser (or a representative of the looser !) puts the forfeit in - is backtofront which is fascinating for those interested in etymology of the word.
As it stands I will trust Chambers above Wikepedia.
For the sake of accuracy ExplorerCDT should withdraw his lit. crit. and focus on substantiating his claim and for the sake of readability he should respect the different voices of its contributors. --User:Peter Tidmarsh 10.45 18 Mar 2005 (UTCThe articles that were merged were talking about handicapping from different sides of the coin. This article seems to be about bookmakers, while that one was about sharps who tried to beat them. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well that's what encyclopedia articles are, articles that cover the scope of something. If we were going to write an article about the baseball world Series, we wouldn't write one from the perspective of one tema another from the perspective of the other. We'd write about the whole game, the entire picture. Bookmakers and bettors both handicap a game, but at different times. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC) What about an article on bookmaking and oddsmaking, and a separate article on sharp betting. The sharp betting article would include things like arbitrage and middles? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
See arbitrage betting and Mathematics of bookmaking. How would sharp betting differ from advantage gambling? Maybe you should take a look through Category:Wagering and the Category:sports betting subcategory. Again, we don't want to content fork. Existing articles should be expanded to include synonyms or related concepts, rather than create parallel articles that say the same thing in different words. 2005 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Well, sharp betting could be covered in advantage gambling. That sounds good. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Sharp betting is a type of advantage gambling, so it makes sense to include it there. At the same time, if there's as much in depth information about sharp betting as there is about Card counting, for example, a separate article could also be justified. I'm familiar with Stanford Wong's book on the subject, but I think there need to be multiple reliable sources which cover the subject of sharp sports betting before it would be considered notable enough for an article of its own. (Just like card counting has multiple sources covering that subject.) Rray (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Also, I know there was some debate about whether or not "handicapping" and "sharp betting" were synonymous before, but I'd suggest that the two terms are not synonymous. Someone can handicap a football game without actually betting on it. And someone can handicap games and bet on games without getting a mathematical advantage. (I can handicap a game and agree that the line is close enough that I'm willing to be on it even though I don't have a mathematical advantage. I'm still "handicapping", but I'm not "sharp betting".) The phrase "sharp betting" implies that the person is actually a bettor, and also that the person is good enough at finding value in the bookmakers' lines that he can gain an advantage. Those implications aren't necessarily true of someone who is just a handicapper. Rray (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC) The terms sharp betting and handicapping can be synonymous. The term "handicapping" is often used to describe when a skilled bettor attempts to pick winners, directly against the line (as opposed to using arbs or middles or bonuses). It can also refer to bookmaking, but it is used as a verb to describe skillful sports betting. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC) "Can be" synonymous and "are" synonymous are two different things. Since one word has a broader meaning than the other, it doesn't make much sense to equate them as synonyms. Especially not in an encyclopedia, which is aimed at explaining things to laymen. Rray (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) The problem is, I think it's the primary word used to describe skilled sports bettors. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I wouldn't think they are synonyms, but if they are then it is a content fork, so we have a dilemna. If User:GusChiggins21 can be persuaded to not label them synonyms, then we could move sharp betting elsewhere... however that is a problem too. Sports betting is an article. It's more than a little odd to have a different article that is basically "effective sports betting" or "smart sports betting". I don't see why anything having to do with sharp betting on sports not be in the sports betting article. Everything else works similarly. A card counting advantange gambling blackjack player is covered in those three articles; we don't need another one saying the same thing, that a player can beat blackjack if they bet properly. 2005 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I see your point, but we have an article about Poker and about Poker strategy, so articles about Sports betting and Sharp sports betting could make sense *if* we can find multiple reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Poker strategy has been covered by multiple reliable sources. I'm not convinced that sharp sports betting has been. I'm not as familiar with the subject as I am with more card game related gambling subjects. This is where GusChiggins21's input might be valuable. Rray (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Right, if it has plenty of sources, and if it the focus is substantially different than the sports betting articles, then a new article is called for like with poker. But just restating the sports betting article and saying making good bets is the point of sharp betting, well that says nothing so it could just be one sentence in the main article. I don't see the need at this point, so I don't think a new article needs to be done till a large section in the xisting article exists to move out separately. 2005 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from