Talk:Keno

Keno played in most convenience stores?
Since when is Keno played in "most" convenience stores, as written in the introductory paragraph to this article? I assume the writer meant that many convenience stores and gas stations in the United States (and elsewhere?) sell Keno tickets for their state lottery drawings. I don't know if the statement is true or not. But as written, it sounds like it was penned by an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.198 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC) I no longer see reference to "convenience stores" but yes, many lotteries offer Keno as an option and yes, you can buy the tickets in the convenience stores. The California Lottery offers "Hot Spot", which is nothing more than keno. And people who contribute should NOT be called idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.211.49 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

History and origin
Is it definitely Chinese in origin? The first citation of the word in OED is 1814 when an American sailor called Benjamin F Palmer used it in his diary. He spelled it 'keeno'. It isn't clear from the context exactly what sort of game this was, but it predates the immigration from China of railroad workers mentioned in the article. In 1866 (29 July) a NYTimes journalist describes the game as it was played in Houston, Texas. He refers to it as 'very like the child's game of lotto', comments that the players (all men) are seated round long tables and that when the caller drew a ball out of a case the players 'marked it on their cards with a button'. A winner announced his success by shouting 'Keno!' Is this like the modern game? I am not a player. It sounds just like bingo to me. RLamb (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Modern Keno
My goodness, who wrote this section? "Nowadays" (para. 5)? "In days of old" (para. 5)??? Who talks like this? This so poorly written. Can someone take a stab at cleaning it up and at least trying to make it sound slightly more scholarly and less Mark Twainy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.198 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide tag
I removed this tag as no justification was added for it here on the talk page. If someone wants to explain why this article doesn't reflect a worldwide view of the subject here so that we can discuss it, then they should do so and re-add it. -- Rray (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
The article is very informative in parts but breaks down into first person and a jocular tone at times. I would attempt a cleanup but I have no idea about gambling. Padness (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article isn't even close to being well-written enough to warrant removing the cleanup tag. The part of the lead regarding how keno pays out is almost incomprehensible. A passage later on the pages indicates something about it being "unfortunate" that keno is considered a bad bet. That's imprecise language at best, and opinionated weak writing at worst. (I know I indicated otherwise in an earlier thread on this page, but after reading this article a little more closely, I realized that this article is in dire need of cleaning up still.) Rray (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the cleanup tag. The article still suffers from some really long almost incomprehensible sentences, and the tense jumps around. Much of it is wordier than it needs to be. I've fixed some of it, but I don't have time to edit the whole thing tonight. Rray (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another problem the article has is inconsistent capitalization of the word "keno". Keno isn't a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence or part of a title. I've cleaned some of these up, but I'm sure more instances of this exist. Rray (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
Some of the sources cited in the article seem pretty unreliable to me. They look like generic, anonymous articles used on online casino or online casino portal sites. The biggest problem is that they're anonymous and might not be reliable. If someone has better sources to add, that would be a big help. (The history section's citations are particularly poor quality, I think.) Rray (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section about the detailed mathematical analysis is completely unreferenced. I added a refimprove tag to the article to indicate that more sources are needed. If sources aren't added, that section should be removed until sourcing can be added. Rray (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The stated probability of hitting 20 out of 20 spots is incorrect. The article states that the odds are "1 in 3,535,316,142,212,180,000," but calculating $${80 \choose 20}$$ on an arbitrary-precision calculator (i.e., without rounding) actually yields 3,535,316,142,212,174,320. —24.60.246.88 (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Results
I know original research doesn't belong in the article but I thought the talk-page readers might be interested. The bus I take to Foxwoods casino, to play poker, gives us free Keno tickets that would cost twenty dollars if we bought them. Over the past couple of years I have made forty-eight such trips. So I got tickets "worth" $960. On those tickets, I have cashed out for a little over five hundred dollars. While the free money was nice, this illustrates what a very bad gamble this game is. I would not buy a Keno ticket from Mother Theresa. 63.117.187.62 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven63.117.187.62 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like correct your assumptions (keno is a rip off). You should not gauge the game of keno by "coupon" paytables that are used at Foxwoods for a free giveaway.  These paytables aren't designed to give a standard $1.00 wager payout to players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.211.49 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether a game is fair is usually determined by expected payoff. The payoffs vary from casino to casino, but the expected payoff will be certainly be less than the purchase price.  Otherwise the casino would not offer the game.  See the article for a discussion of the astronomically (&lit!) high odds against winning.  Sympleko ( &Sigma;&upsilon;&mu;&pi;&lambda;&epsilon;&kappa;&omega; ) 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

table and numbers
where to can we attribute this table? is there a source for all of its information are real? also, the article mentions "every person now alive", and I'm afraid that figure might be outdated189.78.163.65 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Still problematic
I see many editors have complained about the writing. Let me join them in their concerns. This passage is ridiculous;


 * Eventually, Chinese immigrants introduced keno to the West when they sailed across the Pacific Ocean to help build the First Transcontinental Railroad in the 19th century

300,000 Chinese came to the US escaping societal breakdown and violence in their province. Of the tens of thousands who got jobs in the railroad industry, they took the job because it was deemed too dangerous by most people and they were desperate for work. They were paid half as much as whites and received less than a dollar a day. 15,000 ended up getting blown to bits, while a total of 100,000 died. When they asked for more pay and better living conditions, the companies responded by cutting off their food. This was no different than slave labor, a far cry from “help”. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed that part. I agree, it's irrelevant. That keno was introduced by Chinese immigrants in the 19th century is the only relevant part. oknazevad (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Improving the probability table
Just a couple of suggestions that I think would make the probability table better.

One, it doesn't need to go to three decimal places. One place is plenty; the other two are just visual clutter and don't add any meaningful information. I can appreciate the precision but for a general-audience Wikipedia page it definitely would be better off with fewer decimals.

And two, try right-justifying the probability column. The decimal points will line up vertically and the table will look more natural and be more readable.

Didn't want to just go in and mess with someone else's work so I thought I'd simply leave this message. Hope it helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byamrcn (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Probability table edits
Recently, I (JohnH~enwiki), made some edits to the Keno page which were reverted by Oknazevad. I disagree with the reversion, so have undone the revert and, per Wiki guidelines, have started discussion here in the talk page.

Oknazevad, I don't want to get into an edit war, so let's see if we can work this out. Let me quote your reasons for reverting my edits:
 * Entirely too much for an encyclopedia. Plus the atrocious editorializing.

I don't get your reasoning here. [1] You say "too much". I'm not aware of any Wikipedia article or section size limit, and I rather doubt that's the problem here. You say "too much" -- how does one decide what is "too much"? Instead of "too much", I say "complete". What exactly is wrong with giving readers all the appropriate numbers? Some people prefer odds-against and some people prefer probabilities, hence the three columns in the tables. Some people play 2 spots and some people play 10 spots. And everything in between and beyond. Would you be happy if I stopped at, say, 15 spots?

Next, [2], you criticize me for "editorializing". I'm aware of some editorializing I did inside HTML comments. Since these are not rendered on the page they are not seen by normal readers, so I felt free to bloviate. I don't see how you could have a problem with that. As far as editorializing elsewhere, I really don't follow. Could you give an example from my post and perhaps show how it could be redone without any "editorializing"? Thanks, JohnH~enwiki (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * By editorializing I mean the "should be self-explanatory" wording, which runs afoul of WP:WTW. And the use of second person, which runs against WP:YOU. The entire passage is full of WP:MOS issues and needs a total rewrite.
 * As for content, this is too much . It's nit summarizing at all, attempting to cover in a broad overview, as an encyclopedia should. This isn't a statistics textbook. I don't think the additions improve the article at all. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with oknazevad. Also, JohnH~enwiki, please refrain from accusing someone of edit warring after reverting them. As the author of the big changes, the onus is on you to justify the changes, and the reasons that the wording is inappropriate is clearly explained here on the talk page now. It might be helpful for you to review BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Rray (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Especially since I only revered once. Calling that edit warring is silly. Restoring edits that have been reverted without discussion to establish consensus to include them is closer to edit warring. oknazevad (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Chill, guys! When I said "Please, no edit war" (in my revert) I meant "Let's not have an edit war, let's talk this over." I read somewhere, in the very many guideline pages, that was the thing to do: (1) revert the revert and (2) open up a discussion in the talk page. That's what I did (again saying "Oknazevad, I don't want to get into an edit war") and oknazevad responded with his (or her, I'm not sure) comments on the content, which he was supposed to do. Things are proceeding as they should. Don't be upset, we'll get there. JohnH~enwiki (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No one's upset. You're clearly new here, so we're providing you with some friendly guidance. :) Rray (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. But when someone reverts you, don't revert the revert, start the discussion without that. It's bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-revert-discuss.
 * In general, as a new editor, I'd advise looking over the manual of style. It's not perfect, but it's generally good guidance for how this place works. oknazevad (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm being bold and adding the section on "How to calculate probabities". The text is substantially rewritten, particularly wrt WP:YOU and WP:WTW. Feel free to comment and/or correct, as I know you will. JohnH~enwiki (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Made a few tweaks, but it's much better. oknazevad (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These additions seem good, but they do need citations. Otherwise, it's just original research. Rray (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We're almost there, at least for this section. But after sleeping on it and having another read I think we need to add a hint for calculating $${n \choose r}$$. Something like "Spreadsheets have the function COMBIN(n,r) to calculate $${n \choose r}$$". I don't need to plug Microsoft (in fact I use FreeOffice PlanMaker, a totally free Excel knock-off). But a decent fraction of readers will have no idea what the notation $${n \choose r}$$ stands for, and I don't see the need to force them to go hunting when we can explain it for them in half a line.
 * Any thoughts? JohnH~enwiki (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objections, I added the exact explanatory sentence. Still need to discuss adding the table for probability of N hits for playing M numbers.
 * Hello? JohnH~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)