Talk:Lansquenet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lansquenet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

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The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.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'.

Informal commentary[edit]

Commentary like "Sometimes there is a run of several consecutive winnings; but on one occasion, on board one of the Cunard steamers, a banker at the game turned up in his own favour I think no less than eighteen times." sounds like the author pasted a few lines from a 19th century book without citation. I'll try to track down the source, but the article should be cleaned up regardless. --unsigned by 72.226.233.13, 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The book is "The Gaming Table Volume I" by Andrew Steinmetz (BiblioBazaar reprint). It's in the public domain by now (I'd assume) but it should be attributed correctly. And is a description of how people used to cheat at this game in the 19th century really relevant? Factomancer (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unclear playing details[edit]

"having the option at any moment of giving up the bank"
Does the author really mean ANY moment? This is very confusing. What becomes of the banker's stakes if he pulls out? Does the next banker keep on playing the started "hand"? I suspect what is probably meant is that the banker can only retire voluntarily directly after a win. On a related matter, it also needs be noted when the deck is shuffled. And if possible it would be interesting to know what kind of deck was used during what historical periods and in what areas. --BjKa (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]