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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles
They have 100x odds on one craps table and 20x on the other, both are $3 minimum, at least Sun-Thus. Was in Vegas 6/14 - 6/19/09. They may make the 100x table $5 minimum on the weekends, not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.174.194 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This casino still has blackjack, 2 tables in fact. The previous version of this article is incorrect. It is a crappy 6:5 game (you'd be better off playing the Big Wheel) but it is Blackjack. There are 2 BJ tables and 6 BJ Switch tables. Also there is only 1 100x odds craps table. 21:19, 11 November 2007 Bgtd
We do not mark on any casino page the number of tables or slots that a casino has. This information is too volatile to maintain and update, and is unnecessary as WP is not a travel guide. SpikeJones01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then why are you reverting it to a version that says they do not offer blackjack. That is false. All I did was say they still offer blackjack -- which they do. Bgtd01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are stating that the unsourced comment (the one with the fact tag) is 100% incorrect and that CR still offers blackjack, then what you do is simply remove the offending sentence. Adding any additional information that is not sourced will result in your edit being reverted again. SpikeJones01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a statement is wrong, and someone corrects it, and the solution is to revert to the false statement because both statements are unsourced? Bgtd01:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article was protected. I felt that was a more balanced move to allow tempers to cool rather then blocking individual editors. The revert was, I believe, back to the way it was before the edit wars started. That is a reasonable place to leave the article. Vegaswikian06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "low rollers" is used within the first sentence, is not defined or linked anywhere and appears to be unencyclopedic. It should probably be reworded, or removed all together. My own personal guess at what it is referring to is that the venue is being described as at the bottom end of the accommodation market; something that should be removed, unless it can be accurately sourced anywhere. —Sladen (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
