Talk:Monte Bank

The play

 * This is something interesting. I didn't know there were so many names for this game. Need more time because I spend the day reading about the Gold Rush in California the whole day to finish the biography of John David Borthwick because of this game.


 * My father used to shuffle the cards in a similar way described by Brisbane. One from the top and another from the bottom. He placed both cards under and two two others the same way he had done the first time, so that the bottom card was always under the pack (that's what cheating really means !).


 * Give me more time to better this article because it was basically a copy of Foster's description of the game. Scarne has a description a bit different for the Spanish variation as described on your first editing. That's what it is, one version different from another, everywhere. Krenakarore (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I consulted four sources, and all of them agreed about the suit matching, none of them mentioned denomination matching. See the descriptions, available electronically via footnotes 1, 2 & 4; as well as the hardcopy listed at footnote 5. The matching of denominations is a different game from Monte. The description sounds like Lansquenet. I haven't researched Fan-Tan or Ziginette yet. Who was/is Foster?  I wrote the description from scratch after reading the four sources, and a couple of minor references, and then double checked it against them. I would be surprised if it was any closer to any other description than it has to be in order to lay out the same rules/data. --Bejnar (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that the 1864 version of Hoyle contains the incorrect description here, as does the 1868 edition here. But the 1922 edition of Hoyle contains a corrected description here. –Bejnar (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Monte Bank x Monte

 * There seems to be a slight difference in game playing as for which game is which. You're right, the difference between card rank and suit is gigantic, but I've gotta admit that I didn't even noticed that. Today was simply a hurry-scurry here. I'll try to find more information as for the citations ok. I belive that they apply to the other game though, not this one. This game was so confusing for me, that I still don't know if the players can only bet on one pair or both...........:) !
 * As for the 1922 edition you mentioned, it's not there. Only the '68 ed. appears for me. I'd like to copy and insert it there as a reference. Monte, as desccribed, is the name of the game. I didn't know this Monte Bank (it sounds like a French "Mont Blanc", no ?). Bank means Mount, you know. Too many similarities with Ziginette, yes. Things in the past were not so sofisticated. For me, Monte Bank is a variation of Monte, not the other way around. Dating period games and their variations is something not so very easy you know, but it's definitely my cup of tea.
 * It's been a rewarding experience to work with you, anything else ? Here, Foster Krenakarore (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Basset + Faro x Blackjack = Monte

 * Four days out of Prague and it's all changed. Well, notability is really something, isn't it ? First and foremost, I'd like to say it again: It's been just great to work with you man ! I'm always open to learn from.
 * Well, I didn't say Monte Bank resembles 21 and Baccarat, but Dr. Richard F. Selcer (History professor at IU) did, I just research and provide info on the subjects I deal with. For me, it's important to date card games and their variants, and list their rules too, simply because nobody remembered to preserve Loadam and now it's gone, forever. No info, no game.
 * So, to dive into Monte was the most rewarding thing that happened to me this year, 'cos I found more on Monte than only a card game. I found the history of the Gold Rush, California, Texas, New Mexico, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese building the railway, Santa Fe... so many interesting things I can harly describe here. More, I can trace a line from Basset to Faro, link Baccarat to Blackjack, divide 21 by 7/2 and find the square root of the variants concerning Monte, and many games derived from All-Fours, from the Netherlands to America, from Spain to Mexico, into Euchre and America.
 * As for the "national", I can't deny that Poker is, among all the other games, the one that's played, preferred and recognized as the most popular by the majority of the population, just the way that Bridge was once considered a national game, like Euchre before that. (I played Bridge with a bottle of Ballantines on the table, from midnight to 5 am twice a week for years ! Many books on the subject - one specifically for "defense" - in Spanish, and I read it twice. I've played Khanhoo for 12 years straight - I got one 1895 original deck here). Cribbage in England, Belote in France, 25 in Ireland, 45 in Canada, 500 in Australia and Buraco in Brazil (I grew up in a family of Buraco players. In the 60's, when I was little, I saw my parents playing the game up to midnight twice a week for many years !). My country was many times Sul-American and Pan-American champion in the 70's - there's an entry in Wiki about the game saying that it is played without a Joker. I didn't interfere 'cos there's a note there saying: this version is played in US.
 * Citacion... pg. 183 and pg. 212, also copyed on pg. 139.
 * Interesting story here on pg. 24.
 * But you've gotta read this: pg. 74.
 * Better yet, read this one: pg. 161 - A form of Blackjack (and here I quote myself: game mechanics).
 * But there's more... in Spanish describes the game (original) making it so... complex, that I goggled !
 * The game of Monte, played on the rank of cards and not on suit, seems to have been unknown in Mexico before 1773 pg. 288.
 * This one shows a list of rules for Monte and Imperial legalized in Mexico (by the goverment !), and this one, La rueda del azar: juegos y jugadores en la historia de México‎: monte, un juego de naipes que simulaba a la ruleta en el que el azar lo era todo. Se apostaba al color (bet on suit), a la figura (on court cards) o al número (or on the rank of the cards) que sacaba la banca. Or even México hacia 1850‎, which says: probar suerte en el "monte", una especie de "faraón" o de "golfo (a kind of Farao or Golfo - which is true !). So, as I thought, this game that you say: different, "in fact" is not so different. Spanish Monte is not only Monte Bank, but also the game of Monte, also played on the rank of cards, just the way that Canasta, played for the ranks is the precursor of Buraco, played for the sequence of suits (one evolved out of the other).


 * I didn't want to insert a "variation on the rank of cards", as described by Cotton I think, 'cos it would've been redundant on my part. The article that you created looks wonderful ! The picture (1854, I guess) on't is simply "unique". It's not only beautiful, but also helps dating the game.


 * When I find an article and see that it's full of tags and "citations needed" pinpointing everywhere, I find it inconsistent, visually polutted and worth deleting. If citation is needed, I will find it. A guy here deleted a picture on a game I was working on, saying that it was unsuitable (but didn't replace it for another). I opened a brand new deck of cards (Waddington, 1957) and did about 40 takes, till I could choose the best shot showing the highest possible combination of the game, and put it there. I care !


 * I guess you've noticed that I only edit about card games and related articles, nothing else. I don't leave my place to give opinions on things which I have no knowledge of, like numbers, medicine, aeronautics. I am not an expert on card games, I guess I'm merely one who knows "the game". Krenakarore (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mountebank"
I took out the claim that dishonest varieties of this game are the origin of "mountebank" meaning a swindler. It's from an Italian work for someone who mounts a bench. See any dictionary, such as these dictionary.com entries. Sorry I forgot to mention that in my edit summary. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the reference to "montebank" for the same reason. First, the word is "mountebank," and not "montebank"; second, your etymology is correct. (http://wordsmith.org/words/mountebank.html). GeeZee (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)