Talk:The Eudaemonic Pie

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of Category:Book stubs on the article page.

If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
If you disagree with this assessment, please:

Change the above "class=stub" to "class=start" or another applicable class per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Assessment#Quality scale;
Remove the stub template from the article.

Almost certainly a hoax, yes?[edit]

This is an extremely implausible story, and should not be categorized as a non-fiction stub without some seriously impressive citations. 71.162.39.32 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is about the book on the story, and not on the story itself, I don't see any problems. Edward O. Thorp pulled it off, and he's well regarded in the field. If you can find any reliable sources challenging the books accuracy, by all means, add them. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. They still own the shoe. 68.113.15.9 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“The players knew, presumably from the earlier work of Shannon and Thorp”[edit]

Surely, as phrased, counts as original research? I don’t have the book to hand, although I have read it, and can’t recall if they did or didn’t read Shannon and Thorp; however, if they did know the earlier research, and it is mentioned in the book or some other source, it doesn’t need the “presumably”; if we don’t know that they did, it can’t be imferred that they had - after all, it was an application of ballistics they used and could have been done with nothing more than their own inspiration and a knowledge of the mathematics. Jock123 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]