Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 November 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 7

General Eisenhower

It was rumoured that during the 2nd world war that he had a headquarters office in Surrey, maybe New Malden or Kingston. Does anyone know if this is recorded anywhere please?85.211.131.65 (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force puts this in the Teddington end of Bushy Park, which is now in Surrey but would then have been in Middlesex. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That article links to Camp Griffiss. Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers, very helpful.85.211.131.65 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Greenham Lodge near Newbury, Berkshire in England, was requisioned by the Air Ministry during the Second World War and served both the RAF and the American Air Force Base station no. 486. It is reported that Eisenhower had lived there and that D-Day had been planned from there. [Memories of Kopul Rosen, edited by Cyril Domb, (Carmel College: Wallingford, 1970)p.24]Simonschaim (talk)

Ducks/Peanuts

Are peanuts a suitable food for ducks please?85.211.131.65 (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

These ducks seem to love them. Doing a search for "peanuts for ducks" turns up quite a few results and I don't see any right off that give any reason why they wouldn't be good for ducks. I can't think of any reason either. If you give them salted peanuts, that's probably not too great for them due to the high salt intake for such a small creature when compared to a human. And if you're housing them, I wouldn't think that feeding them only peanuts would be good for them. A varied diet is good for most creatures. Dismas|^(talk) 08:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If they try to swallow them whole, they might choke on the husks. So, you might want to give them unsalted peanuts, with the shells removed. Also, I wonder, do any ducks have peanut allergies ? StuRat (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Natural selection" came to mind when I read "ducks" and "peanut allergies." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be artificial selection ? Surely ducks don't go around digging up peanuts in nature, so had no interaction with them until people started tossing them their way. So, if they can't handle it and die, that would be artificial selection, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a human change to the duck's environment, but "artificial selection" to me implies a conscious choice in favor of a known pre-existing trait. Is anyone intentionally breeding peanut-tolerant ducks? —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ducks swallow pretty much everything whole - peanuts would be no problem. When you're used to thinking of ducks as cute little herb/insectivores, it is a bit of a suprise to see them fighting with each other over who gets to swallow a frog whole. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Frogs, being wet and slimy, might go down better than a dry peanut with shell. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Love pressed duck with a peanut crust, especially from Tina Chinese Restaurant. Commercially stuffing ducks with peanuts and peanut oil til their livers burst would probably enhance the effect. As long as they are dabblers they will likely enjoy peanuts (eatne voluntarily) as they would any vegetable matter and high protein and fat food sources. Here's a website about various types of Purina Duck Chow. http://www.poultryconnection.com/quackers/chow.html. They probably even have sasquatch and chupacabra chow. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

SEGA...well not really

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm writing a business letter to the great,but less known,Naoto Ōshima about game designing,but can you guys conger up 9 questions someone would like answers to about this career,or maybe some subjects?I have only one(What is it like,doing what you do?) and I really need this.Mr.Ōshima could give me advice for my small 2 person game company.74.178.177.227 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have anything you want to ask him, like how he comes up with a game concept, what development process he follows, what he thinks makes a good programmer, what kind of testing he does, if he uses focus groups to improve games, etc. ?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kuldevta / Kuldevi of Rehal

Who is the kuldevi of 'Rehal',a Punjabi (Indian) surname ?49.249.136.156 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

How are sports odds for wagering determined?

Lottery organizations offer sports matchups for wagering in many different configurations. One of the most common is where the bettor chooses either the 'home' or 'visitor' team in a match to win. The odds for the wagers are structured to maximize the probability of profit for the organization. In order for this to happen someone, somewhere, must calculate the actual likelyhood of either team winning. This is actually a business, called 'setting the lines'. What I cannot discover is how those lines are set. It seems to me that the trick is to anticipate which team the bettors will bet on the most, rather than to anticipate which team will win and by how much. Googling 'sports betting' or 'setting the lines' is somewhat useless as there are just too many hits. Any ideas on where I could look to learn how sports lines are set? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.120.72 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is also called "handicapping", and Wikipedia has an article titled Handicapping which covers horse racing only, but the term is used in setting odds and point spreads across all sports betting. Wikipedia also has articles titled Bookmaker and Mathematics of bookmaking which will likely have some good information for you, and also could lead you to even better answers. Does any of this help? --Jayron32 21:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oddsmakers make their livings setting the lines, so they're not going to give out info about their proprietary methods (you're just as likely to get Coke to tell you the formula). They may not even have a formal method anyway; it might just be years and years of experience. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This article states "Linemakers use a variety of methods to calculate their idea of the pointspread. Some use complicated computer programs that factor in recent performance, injuries, player match-ups, etc. Others simply have a feel for the games and produce a number out of thin air. However, most line makers use power ratings or some derivation." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting article I had not encountered. Thank you. What I am curious about is those variety of methods mentioned. It does seem to be a closely guarded secret. The key to setting sports odds would seem to have more to do with predicting betting patterns rather than the actual outcome of the event. 207.161.221.23 (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)original poster

Actually, while setting the "initial" odds or point spread has a bit of black magic, you'll find that the spread or odds will generally move over time. That's because bookies are trying to find that magic number that will result in the same amount of cash being bet on both teams. The bookmakers aren't trying to predict the outcome of the game; they're trying to find the magic number that ensures that the losers pay the winners exactly, so they can collect on the vig without having to pay out themselves. The more imbalanced the bet, the less they collect from the losers and the more they pay out to the winners, which is bad. So, if they find that the bets are coming in lopsided in favor of one team, they will adjust the odds or spread until the money starts to even out. --Jayron32 05:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So, if you bet on a team whose spread at that moment is 3 1/2, and it later changes to 6 1/2, for example, which spread counts for you? The one when you placed the bet? Or the final line before the game starts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's always the spread when you place your bet. If the bookie took your money on the bet of "Cowboys +3 1/2", then that is the bet you made. If someone else later places a bet at "Cowboys +6 1/2" that has no bearing on the bet you made. Each bet is a single negotiation (well, usually a "take it or leave it" negotiation, but still...) Professional sports gamblers will try to time their bets to maximize their profit potential. Some teams, especially those with large national fanbases, tend to have lines that move a lot (as all the fans "jump on board", so gamblers tend to bet the other way; i.e. a team like the Cowboys or Steelers will tend to generate a lot of action for them, which moves the line too far in one direction; the pro gamblers know this and will bet the other way to take advantage of people betting emotionally. --Jayron32 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds a little like the futures market. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Done correctly it is. It's my understanding that most professional bookmakers will try to keep the lines equal, in other words have it so their payouts will be consistent with their income, and they make profit on the spread, which is sort of like their tax. Otherwise the bookmaker's just betting like everyone else, and why should they be any better at it? Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When the pointspread varies wildly, some gamblers will bet both ways; for example, against the Cowboys at +3.5 and with them at +6.5, and pray to the gambling gods they lose by 4-6 points, whereupon they'd collect on both bets. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's even a name for that. It's called Arbitrage betting. It isn't wise to do so with the same bookie, as they generally blacklist you if you make a practice of it. --Jayron32 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you just saying that or do you know that to be true (I've never bet in this fashion). It seems to me if they kept their line's evenly split, they'd be thrilled for the extra business, if they're only interest is in collecting their fee (i called it a spread earlier... i'm not sure I used that term exactly right). Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A bookie's commission is called the vigorish or "the vig". --Jayron32 05:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

latex balloons

Resolved

 – CambridgeBayWeather found appropriate references that explain

According to Toy balloon, Faraday invented rubber balloons in 1824. Therefore I removed the following from a list of anachronisms in The Wild Wild West:

In "The Night of the Gruesome Games" (10/25/68), latex balloons are shown despite the fact that they were not invented until The Great Depression of 1930's.

But it came back.

Now, I'm willing to believe that an important improvement to the rubber balloon was made in 193x – either something that can be seen at a glance, or a new process that made balloons cheap – but I'd like to know what that was! —Tamfang (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Valid sourcing is your trump card. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Vulcanization#Later_developments says a critical development occurred in 1905 (vulcanization applies mainly to hard rubber, though). I'm not sure what would have happened in the 1930's though. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement that they were invented by Michael Faraday, isn't referenced either. Indeed 84.246.20.54's only recent(-ish) contribution has been to add the bit about Faraday. The Faraday article doesn't mention balloons (or rubber or latex), nor did it back in Sept 2011 when the edit was made. I suspect that it is the toy balloon article which is wrong rather then the list of anachronisms. As Bugs says, reliable sourcing is what is required, for both statements. Astronaut (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind WP:NOR. If that entry in the article is sourced, it shouldn't just be removed. If it isn't, it probably should be removed. --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I just added two references to toy balloon, the same remark about Faraday was also in the Balloon article, but used a third reference. The first of the references also goes on to state that latex balloons were invented in 1874 1847 but not massed produced until the 1930s. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An excellent result. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A book, "The Devil's milk: a Social history of rubber" says (p 43) that the colored toy rubber balloon was invented in the 1850's by a Frenchman named Lavater, and they were sold to the public. The vulcanized rubber condom dates to 1847. There is no mention of Faraday. I don't recall mention of inflatable rubber balloons in my reading of Faraday's work. I will review it. (added)The account in one of the refs of him making an inflatable balloon by sticking together sheets of caoutchouc is plausible, but neither of the webpages giving him credit in the Toy Balloon article are what I would judge to be reliable sources. There should be something in a journal article or textbook. Also his unvulcanized stuck-together balloon would have been sticky in hot weather and brittle in cold weather and leaky because of the large seam. Lavater toy balloon of the 1850's sounds more like what we would think of as a toy balloon. Edison (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that none of the sources I showed are really that good. I would point out though we are talking about three different things. The rubber balloon, the latex balloon and the toy balloon.

While I haven't been able to find a solid source for Faraday I did find some that looked a little better than the originals, Rocket-Powered Science: Invent To Learn!- Create, Build & Test Rocket Designs (bottom p15), Yankee Magazine's Now That's Ingenious!: Everyday Experts Reveal Their ... (bottom p210) this quotes Faraday but he doesn't quite say he made the balloons and Hydrogen. Of course Faraday wasn't producing a toy balloon but according to sources they were for his experiments. While I realise that just because the Internet says so doesn't make a statement true I could not find one source to say that anybody else invented the balloon or that the Faraday story is a myth. Unfortunately I can't view this but it is linked from the first result in Google Scholar.

The toy balloon may have been first put on the market by Thomas Hancock (inventor), who got a patent for vulcanising rubber 8 weeks before Goodyear, in 1825. This was in a kit form and the buyer got a bottle of rubber solution to make balloons, The Origin of Everyday Things and the Rocket-Powered Science link above.

The latex balloon was supposed to have been sold by J. G. Ingram and the Rocket-Powered Science link above, in 1847. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)