Topic on Talk:Gambling Game

It has hit the bare minimum of 5 and it's been a over a month since the newest example. Maybe it would be better served if we launch it and add the trope to the examples section of works pages.

I'd like to see more of a description than just two-three sentences before I agree to launch.

Well, there are already 4. But perhaps that is bad grammar with some of them needing to be fused together.

<shrug> I didn't actually count. My point is that it feels way too short.

The description is still a stub. It's only one line long (on a 1920x1200 pixel desktop screen), hinting that there's still something that could be said about the trope. Also, there's no "compare with" and "contrast with" paragraph showing how this trope works with other tropes.

My opinion is that this is not ready for prime time, yet.

Some tropes there isn't much to say about. The description can easily be clearly stated in super concise terms and anything extra is just filler. This is Edible Smelling Salts all over again.

As for the compare and contrast, if there was anything close enough for compare or contrast paragraphs to be appropriate, those are missing. I believe I already looked through the gambling trope index and failed to find anything appropriate. Maybe we can assume/hope that wiki magic would solve that.

You know, That Other Wiki is right there if you're struggling to find words to build a foundation from. It's typically what I do if I can't spin up my own descriptions wholesale, and tends to be a good resource for info regardless.

As for the compare and contrast, if there was anything close enough for compare or contrast paragraphs to be appropriate, those are missing.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of The Bet and Side Bet as related tropes.

Those are just gambling tropes. Considering we have a gambling index (which for some reason is also the games of chance index), I don't think those are close enough. That said, I will add Side Bet to the gambling index right now.

"Those are just gambling tropes."

As in, they are thus related to gambling games.

The point of the index is to gather gambling tropes together. We don't need to have all gambling tropes on every trope page about gambling. I think the index tag at the bottom is enough. I think see alsos, compares, and contrasts should be reserved for things that either have a closer relationship or lack a shared index.

...do you not think tropes about gambling would share a close relationship with games built around gambling?

I've already stated my opinion: things that share an index should have a stronger relationship requirement to get a see also/compare/contrast than things that don't share an index.

This also sounds arbitrary to the point of inanity.

If a clear relationship can be observed between two tropes, a trope and a type of work, etc., then it should be noted as such, and this should not require any prescriptivism to some set of indexes - after all, it is those observations that serve as the basis for the indexes, and not the other way around, as that would make no sense.

Had computer or website issues so I posted the same comment twice 😩

Already incorporated the former in the description.

I wasn't aware this was a trope candidate - can probably work a lot of magic, I got time today.

"These Gambling Games date back to the Paleolithic period, before written history; the earliest six-sided dice date to about 3000 BC in Mesopotamia" I don't see how we can know this. Monopoly uses dice and that game lacks any intrinsic gambling of property that is customarily for keep. How do we know that the dice were used for gambling!?

Also even if the paleolithic dice were used for gambling, how do we know that gambling was intrinsically required to play these games (like poker) instead of just being customary (like black jack)?

Except we do know this - literally looking at the literal TOW article on the matter gives a citation: "Schwartz, David (2013). Roll The Bones: The History of Gambling. Winchester Books. ISBN 978-0-615-84778-8."

I recommended it for a reason.

Furthermore, any of these games can be played without actual gambling involved, which makes the distinction of "must require gambling" sound completely inane and arbitrary - how else does one describe poker meeting the criteria where blackjack somehow doesn't?

I can see a distinction there. Blackjack can be played without wagering anything; at its root, it's a contest of who knows probability math well enough to come closest to a score of 21 without going over. Poker, on the other hand, has an element of psychology (the bluff or lack thereof) in addition to the probability math needed to get a decent hand, and it's that psychology that leads to the gambling - even if all that's being risked is one's reputation as a good player. Stud and hold'em versions of poker don't even have the probability math - they're all luck and bluffing.

Nothing in the trope description as it read when I posted this requires the gambling stakes to be tangible.

EDIT: Unless I'm off-base with that quick analysis, that might be worth adding to the trope description.

the important thing about poker for this trope is how you put up money in the game and you continue to put in money until you win (match/call... or raise), give up and cut your losses (fold), or lose. In order to play poker without gambling you have to either cut out a huge part of the game or do something like temporarily give everyone monopoly money for the night that they don't get to take home.

I don't think the fact psychology, math, or luck are parts of poker matters for qualifying.

...they all have direct relations to the gambling aspect, what are you talking about?

What I'm saying is there might be gambling games that don't have psychology, math, and luck. I could have misinterpreted what Robkelk was saying.

There might be, but I can't think of any examples. Can you?

If we are keeping all the current examples (and I'm not saying we should), Russian Roulette is all luck.

Hm, that's a much better explanation, thank you - probably worth adding to the description.

Poking the wiki to finish this trope up. It's yea-close to being launchable -- it would be nice if someone took fifteen or twenty minutes and pushed it across line.

Not me, I just proofread and rewrote a trope by Kuma today, and I need to wait until my eyes stop bleeding.

Pinging the Usual Suspects: @Agiletek @GentlemensDame883 @Goo Monster @HeneryVII @HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl @Lequinni‎ @RivetVermin @Umbire the Phantom @Utini501 @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I dunno, this one seems a little too broad. I mean, you could gamble on pretty much anything.

If it's that broad we can narrow it back down to what I intended when I started it.

I wish I could delete my own posts instead of just editing

It also feels more like a category than a, well, trope to me, I'm afraid.

Can you put why you feel that way into words?

It feels like a place to just list works rather than something that can be built up into a narrative device. That's probably the best I know how to elaborate.

For what it is worth, there are cases of games existing in a setting that don't exist IRL, such as King's Dominance in Vigor Mortis.

Re-poking the wiki. It's been more than a month since this was last discussed. Can we please come to a consensus about this candidate? Is it close to launching? Is it too broad and needing refinement? Is it People Sit on Chairs?

My main concern has been addressed nicely, and the trope has nine examples. I'm willing to say "launch it".

And honestly, I have no problems with launching, so I am providing the second "yes" vote for this.

Voting a yes on this as well. Expanded the description.

And we're up to 18 examples. My vote remains "yes".

Okay, we've been soliciting votes for three weeks now. I think we can safely launch it.

Okay, launched and pimped.