Talk:Odds compiler

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.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.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

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Opening comment

This section "The importance of the odds compiler has drifted somewhat due to advances in technology, such as betting exchanges which eliminate the need for a 'middleman', facilitating the idea of odds being determined primarily or exclusively by the bettors themselves. Bookmakers with odds determined mainly by bettors may increase in prominence." was removed but, although there could be a good reason, I couldn't see why although I have a limited knowledge of the subject. It would be a good idea to put the reason in here if there is one so that bods such as I don't go and re-instate it again! Thickycat (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something "may" increase in prominece, it "may not" also. The line says nothing. The rest is unsourced opinion. The IP editor was right in removing text like this. 2005 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough! Thickycat (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]