Researchers Create a Statistical Guide To Gambling 185
New submitter yukiloo writes "An early Christmas treat for the ordinary Joe who is stuck with a Christmas list that he cannot afford and is running out of time comes from two mathematicians (Evangelos Georgiadis, MIT, and Doron Zeilberger, Rutgers) and a computer scientist (Shalosh B. Ekhad). In their paper 'How to gamble if you're in a hurry,' they present algorithmic strategies and reclaim the world of gambling, which they say has up till recently flourished on the continuous Kolmogorov paradigm by some sugary discrete code that could make us hopefully richer, if not wiser. It's interesting since their work applies an advanced version of what seems to be the Kelly criterion."
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you an American, by any chance? I'm asking in all seriousness. Just because this submission makes no sense to you doesn't mean that it makes no sense to the rest of the world.
"Interesting since they their work applies an advanced version of what seems to be the Kelly criterion."
I think there was the mix of unusual concepts with the grammatically incorrect sentences that made it horrible editing. Usually, I'm annoyed that they link so many words to Wikipedia or such, but in this case, there was no linking anything to anything, other than the one article, and the description given in the submission is not proper English. So the complaints on editing are quite accurate. Or are you asserting that the quoted sentence above is proper English?
It's likely just that you were never exposed to what's actually pretty basic and common knowledge throughout the rest of the world.
You were too focused on being an ass that you missed the complaint about grammar being the primary one. Perhaps it would have been more approachable if it were properly edited. And no, they aren't "basic and common knowledge throughout the rest of the world." I'm in "the rest of the world" right now, and the first 5 people I asked about them never heard of any of them (couldn't even name the field they related to). So you are wrong on every point, and quite the ass about it as well.
Re:Conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain how people learning math would put the lottery out of business. People are gambling for an adrenaline rush, not to satisfy some mathematical equation. Guess what, some people posion their bodies with alcohol on occasion to enjoy the side effects. Some of them even have extensive education in biology and medicine.
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is wrong with the sentence you've quoted?
You whine like a little bitch if someone doesn't know statistics as well as you, but can't recognize a non-sentence when you see one? You are the pedantic ass.
simply isn't a factor when submitting an article to blog.
You are an idiot. Nobody complained about the submission being flawed (other than the flaw carried through) but the complaint was about the editors not even editing a submission for basic English.
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame there isn't a -1 Misinformed. Most of Einstein's best work was done in Switzerland.
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
My guide to making the most money gambling: Don't.
In any casino the odds are always, ALWAYS stacked against you. They don't hide this fact, either. The odds are published and you can easily notice that the payout is less than the probability of getting something. They are in business to make money, it has to be this way or they'd go broke.
So don't gamble to make money. If you enjoy the thrill of it, if it entertains you, and you can afford it, then by all means. But don't try and find some way to gamble "quickly" that will make you money because it won't. Any money made is purely luck and your strategy of what you bet on will play very little in to it.
Play the game for enjoyment.
All that work... (Score:4, Insightful)