Talk:Charles Wells (gambler)

Opening comment

Isn't this the guy that figured out that one of the roulette wheels was flawed and had a pattern to what numbers the ball landed on? I'm pretty sure it was like, he could be fairly sure if he dropped the ball in a specific place it would end up in a specific area of the wheel.

No. You are thinking of Joseph Jagger JMcC 09:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The odds of five consecutive bets paying off on a single number is 1 in 60,466,176, and that's without a house number. Though the odds are the same for any given number, such as five on five consecutive bets, the odds of that happening are so astronomical that Windows calculator runs out of digits, even with exponents, when I make the calculation. Ergo, Charles Wells was either cheating, or had some sort of arcane knowledge that allowed him to predict what would come up and when. I lean toward the former, but I can't discount the latter. Who was this guy, and how the hell did he pull of an apparent statistical miracle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.166.197 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If 60 million different gamblers walked up to a roulette table and each risked their entire stake on five consecutive 1-in-38 spins, one of them might well win five consecutive bets. Perhaps that lucky gambler was named Charles Wells... although the rest of his biography provides strong inductive evidence of cheating. --76.30.4.62 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace of Charles Deville Wells

Wells was born in the village of Broxbourne on 20 April 1841, and his birth certificate is proof of this. Broxbourne was situated in the registration district of Ware. It is always the name of the registration district which appears in the General Register Office index of births, as opposed to the actual town or village where the person was born. This may explain why Ware is sometimes incorrectly cited as his birthplace. StylusGuru (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)StylusGuru

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Wells (gambler). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001044016/http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/b/michael-butterworth/man-who-broke-bank-at-monte-carlo.htm to http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/b/michael-butterworth/man-who-broke-bank-at-monte-carlo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327134722/http://www.casinosviplounge.com:80/charles-wells-roulette-rock-star.html to http://www.casinosviplounge.com/charles-wells-roulette-rock-star.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The Wikipedia article on Charles Wells (gambler) is largely composed of material which I contributed. Previously the article was only a few lines in length, and I expanded it considerably. Most of the information comes from research I carried out for my biography of Wells ('The Man who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo, Charles Deville Wells, gambler and fraudster extraordinaire). Recently all references to my book have been deleted owing to concerns about conflict of interest.

I do feel, however, that the very existence of a biography is of importance in an article about an individual, and should at least be mentioned — if only as "further reading". (I note that a 1935 film and a 1983 novel are included in the article on Wells, even though they have only the slightest relevance to his story).

Under the COI rules I cannot make the edit myself, but would be grateful if consideration could please be given to my suggestion. Thank you.

StylusGuru (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Reply 01-OCT-2018 WorldCat lists 4 items with similar names to the one you've mentioned. If I could have the ISBN or ASIN of the book in question to narrow the selection, I will have a look at it to see if it can be added as one of the article's end-placed indices, either Further reading or External links. Also: have you published any other books on the subject, or has the book you've published been reviewed in any scholarly journals? If so, please advise.  Spintendo  07:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC) I've located the book you mentioned. Unfortunately (and perhaps because the book is a newer publication) a perusal of the literature on this subject did not reveal any sources either reviewing the publication (in a peer-reviewed journal) or discussing it (again, in a peer reviewed journal). According to Wikipedia's core content policies that would have to be evident in order for the book to be as broadly mentioned as you'd like it to be in the article. Having others discuss your book and its ideas acts as a guard against inserting original research. With regards to listing it in a Further reading section: The book was published by The History Press, a smaller-sized independent publisher based in Stroud, Gloucestershire. Despite their focus on local history, the publisher's long history of existence (c. 1897) is such that I feel it would not be inappropriate to list the publication under Further reading, along with one other major work about Wells / Monte Carlo for balance, per the guidance at WP:Further reading and WP:FURTHER. I'm going to leave the template open to garner additional editor input on this proposed Further reading section. Additional comments/suggestions are welcomed! Regards,  Spintendo  08:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds very fair to me. Thank you. StylusGuru (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give this one more day to garner input and if nothing arises I'll implement this change.  Spintendo  02:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I'd like your input on this proposed addition of the entry in a Further reading section if possible, along with a second published, more well-known book on the subject for balance (shown above, along with more of my reasoning for this inclusion). What are your feelings on this...if any? Any input you can offer would be appreciated! Thank you  Spintendo  02:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Quinn is StylusGuru, and I say No, not least because of his spamming of his books around Wikipedia but also because I cannot trace any evidence that this is considered a significant scholarly enterprise. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 03-OCT-2018

  Edit request declined  

• I was aware that the book's author and the COI editor were the same person. I wasn't aware that the COI editor had attempted to place this book in several other articles. One publication being mentioned in the EL section of a single, relevant article is something I would have been initially ok with, because that would have demonstrated a sense of modesty and perhaps a noble, educational-based motivation.
• On the contrary, the COI editor's attempts at placing the publication into several different Wikipedia articles does not demonstrate modesty—rather—it demonstrates a willingness to use Wikipedia to push the publication (and its release date) to potential buyers, which is not Wikipedia's purpose, per WP:NOTACATALOG. Mies van der Rohe's axiom that less is more would have proven good advice for the COI editor to take in order to prevent their spoiling of this request.
  

Thank you JzG for your input, it's much appreciated.  Spintendo  10:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 04-DEC-2018

In answer to the question of whether the book is a significant scholarly enterprise, a recognised historical society has stated its intention to review it in a future issue of its journal. As this journal is published only once a year, however, it may be some time before the review appears. (Reviews of a less academic nature appeared in two national newspapers at the time of the book's release). For the present, Guy, I'd be more than happy to send you a review copy of my book, which would enable you to decide for yourself. Let me know where to send it, please (my email: info@robin-quinn.co.uk). Best regards.StylusGuru (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"Wells’ exploits inspired Fred Gilbert to write a popular song, "The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo"" In support of this contention the current article shows the sheet music title page. Which title is THE MAN THAT BROKE THE BANK AT MONTE CARLO. Which is correct Who or THAT? AnnaComnemna (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Death of Charles Wells

The claim that Charles Wells of Monte Carlo fame died in the United States in 1914 seems to be incorrect. A death certificate from 1922 shows that Charles De Ville Wells, age 81, died in the Chelsea area of London, England, on 22 June of that year. This corresponds with his year of birth, which was 20 April 1841. The man who died in Yuba County, USA, appears to be a different Charles Wells. 80.47.217.141 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Sacramento Union reports to suggest that the man they are reporting on was our man, so I have removed them from the article. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)