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."
Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
Half this submission makes no sense, grammatically or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Gramatically looks fine. I see subjects, objects and verbs in all the right places. There are commas where they're not needed and no commas where they are, but comma rules are regularly broken. Just as s's is now considered acceptable (I consider it gross and a sign of mental fragility), comma rules aren't considered important any more outside of formal writing. Unless you know something about Slashdot the rest of us don't, formal writing doesn't really fit the description.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
I find anything related to the Kelly Criterion interesting. It made me a rich guy :-)
To clarify, try this experiment: sit down with a group of friends and pretend you all have 100 dollars. Ask everybody what their stake will be for the following game: you throw a coin and if it ends up heads, everybody gets 1.5 times his stake, plus the initial stake returned. Tails means the stake is lost. First of all: this game has a positive expectancy so you should play. But the question of how much you should bet is an interesting one. It is easy to see why: bet nothing and you will not profit. Bet everything and sooner or later you will be wiped out. Try the game with a couple of friends who haven't heard of Kelly and chances are everybody has lost his stake in a couple of rounds.
Once you find a profitable strategy that works, and scales to large large amounts, Kelly is really useful to know.
Mark
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
No, he's complaining about the grammar, punctuation, and the irrelevance of the opening Christmas nonsense. He's not complaining about the math. A better summary made without even reading the article:
Evangelos Georgiades of MIT and Doron Zeilberger and Shalosh Ekhad of Rutgers have published a paper entitled, "How to Gamble, If You're in a Hurry." They consider previous work on gambling flawed because of theoreticians' reliance on the continuous Kolmogorov paradigm. Instead, they propose that money is not infinitely divisible and that its use in gambling is therefore better described by different algorithmic strategies involving what seems to be an advanced version of the Kelly criterion.
Ideas are nice, and math is beautiful, but clear English is necessary to convey information. The summary did not do that well.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, can I try?
Evangelos Georgiadis [mit.edu] of MIT and Doron Zeilberger [rutgers.edu] of Rutgers, along with Zeiberger's computer Shalosh B. Ekhad [rutgers.edu], have written a paper entitled, "How to Gamble If You're In a Hurry," in which they propose new ways of studying gambling from a mathematical perspective. They criticize previous scholarship following the [arxiv.org] Kolmogorov measure-theoretic paradigm [google.com], including Kelly (1956) [bjmath.com], Breiman (1961) [google.com], and Dubins and Savage (1976) [google.com], on the grounds that the mechanisms they provide for winning do not take into account real-life constraints such as the finite divisibility of money, the finite duration of the game, the finite resources of the opponents, and the possibility of uneven payoff in the game. Rather than proposing a single strategy that provides an optimal outcome to an unrealistic scenario, Georgiadis and Zeilberger provide a Maple [maplesoft.com] package that calculates the best strategy given a set of real-world criteria, including the probability of winning a game, the amount of money you have, and the time within which you must complete your gambling. The paper thus represents a movement from using mathematics to derive single solutions to highly abstract problems to using algorithms that can generate optimal solutions for more concrete problems. Also, Zeiberger advances an attempt at cuteness by putting condescending words about humanity in his computer's mouth, the irony [wikipedia.org] of which is heightened by the realization that Shalosh B. Ekhad is nothing more than Zeiberger's ventriloquist dummy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are more non-native speakers of English in this world then there are native speakers. Probably a reason it conveys information better, if not the only one.
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: (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: (Score:2)
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
i'm an american & i've taken graduate-level measure theory and statistics. the phrase "continuous kolmogorov paradigm" is just wonky. the first thing one thinks of is the kolmogorov complexity, which is pretty much the opposite of "continuous," both in utility and intent. so, the phrase is probably referring instead to the standard modern sigma-field measure theoretic approach. however, this measure theory still has no problem (in principle, at least; actually proving things is of course another matter) dealing with discrete or finite outcomes!
now, i've read the paper, and i see that the authors in fact use (almost) this language in their emotional conclusion. that is their right, since they have done the work. moreover, they have a good point imho, that "hard core" proofs in probability theory are often sterile and irrelevant to the real world. however, this kind of thing should be cleaned up for a general audience.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame there isn't a -1 Misinformed. Most of Einstein's best work was done in Switzerland.
Re:Do you even bother to edit submissions anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
Haters gonna hate.
Bad idea to start with this overused cliche, which makes anyone spouting it sound like a tedious, unimaginative, bandwagon-jumping, meme-spouting 14-year-old trying to put across an unconvincing display of dismissive confidence, as well as being an obviously lame attempt at not actually addressing the original criticism.
Frankly, we'd be quite justified in not bothering to read the rest of what you said on the basis of those first three words of cliched drivel. But anyway...
Where people reside and make their contributions is ultimately the most important factor. Look at Einstein and how he was driven away from Germany and made all his contributions in America.
If, by "made all his contributions in America" you're implying that we have America to thank for all his work (including his most important), then you're absolutely wrong. The theories of special and general relativity were all written decades before he emigrated to the US.
That aside, not saying that I entirely disagree with what you said in general; ths US *has* been a valuable incubator for the creativity of foreign academics during the 20th century, which has arguably been to its own significant benefit.
Well.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The news story posted on Slashdot not that long ago on a casino successfully suing a gambler of all his winnings because the machine's system for preventing you from winning wasn't working tells me that the only paradigm in use is "give us your money... or else!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Countermeasure: Two big guys grab you by the arms and escort you to the front door.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was "two big guys grab you by the arms, turn you upside-down and shake your wallet and change out of your pockets, then throw you out the front door into the oncoming traffic so you can't sue them".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The smart ones go work in the fancy financial industry.
That's the way to legally cheat, consistently make a profit, and not have your bones broken.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html [nytimes.com]
And the betting limits are really high.
Re: (Score:3)
Research says that that is a cognitive illusion, that the smart ones AVOID the financial industry like the plague.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/30/daniel-kahneman-cognitive-illusion-extract?INTCMP=SRCH [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/12/businessglossary110?INTCMP=SRCH [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/03/research.science1?INTCMP=SRCH [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
One of the articles you referenced cites NASDAQ "flash orders" as a blatant mechanism for cheating. Fortunately for everyone, flash orders were shut down within months [wsj.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to take another look at the graphic. Specifically, the point about a third of the way between .0 and .1 seconds...
Re: (Score:3)
There it - it's called "open a casino."
There's also "become a lobbyist for some social evil (eg: big tobacco)."
But the number # 1 way is do as L. Ron Hubbard did with scientology - create your own religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/09/11/06/1638213/casino-denies-man-166-million-jackpot [slashdot.org]
but I don't think that's the one he's talking about. Casinos claiming "malfunctions" when you win is more common than you think. What is not as common as them claiming the same "malfunctions" when you lose, and voluntarily handing out money.
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/06/05/1828218/malfunction-costs-couple-11-million-slot-machine-jackpot [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/06/2246234/man-arrested-for-exploiting-error-in-slot-machines [slashdot.org]
These casinos pay the politicians in their states a lot of money to allow them to continue ripping people off. It's the american way!
Re: (Score:3)
You could run a search. Would be quicker. There've actually been a few stories. Here's what you get if you type "slot machine" into Slashdot's search engine (Ooooh! That's a complex thing to do!)
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/09/11/06/1638213/casino-denies-man-166-million-jackpot [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/06/05/1828218/malfunction-costs-couple-11-million-slot-machine-jackpot [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/06/2246234/man-arrested-for-exploiting-error-in-slot-machines [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A search for casino works perfectly well, and since "machine" probably doesn't refer to blackjack, I think the average Slashdotter's intelligence is greater than you give credit for. (I happen to think readers here are competent and smart, if you don't then that would explain why you're AC.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Was that the RNG (Random Number Generator) on an arcade unit which had shorted out, so that every time it was rebooted, it would deal the same set of cards like something out of Groundhog Day? He just memorized the order the cards were dealt and repeatedly played that machine.
Then there is card-counting at Poker which simply involves keeping track of the ratio of high-cards and low-cards which have been dealt.
More than two decades ago, Trivial Pursuit arcade units were extremely popular in bars and restaura
Not going to work so well (Score:2)
In terms of a machine that malfunctions and pays out more than it should, it'll be noticed quickly these days (they are all networked and watched) and you'll have to give the money back. Cheating isn't allowed. I don't mean that is a casino rule, I mean legally. If you find a way to game the system, the casino is in their legal rights to not pay you winnings.
In terms of counting cards they solve this problem by frequent reshuffling and using multiple decks of cards. Try effectively counting cards if there a
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is card-counting at Poker which simply involves keeping track of the ratio of high-cards and low-cards which have been dealt.
Nobody "card counts" in poker, which means that you have no clue what you are talking about. The closest thing in poker to card counting is when 7-card stud players memorize what cards have been discarded by other players.. the key term here is MEMORIZE.
Now I have to ask you.. why are you talking about this subject when both you and I know that you dont know what you are talking about? (hint: Blackjack players count cards, Poker players laugh at you.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are lost in a maze of twisty URLs, all the same.
Conclusions (Score:5, Interesting)
The three authors completely agree on the mathematics, but they have somewhat different views about the
significance of this project. Here they are.
Evangelos Georgiadis’ Conclusion
We provided a playful yet algorithmic glimpse to a field that has up till recently flourished on the Kolmogorov,
measure-theoretic paradigm [as evidenced by the work of Dubins and Savage [4] (see [7] for more recent
developments]. The advent and omnipresence of computers, however, ushered an era of symbol crunching
and number crunching, where a few lines of code can give rise to powerful algorithms. And it is the ouput
of algorithms that usually provides insight (and inspiration) for conjectures and theorems. Those, in turn,
can then be proven in their respective measure-theoretic settings. Additionally, a computational approach
lends itself easily to more complex scenarios that would otherwise be considered pathological phenomena
(and would be fiendishly time-consuming to prove – even for immortals like Kolmogorov and von Neumann).
Doron Zeilberger’s Conclusion
Traditional mathematicians like Dubins and Savage use traditional proof-based mathematics, and also work
in the framework of continuous probability theory using the pernicious Kolmogorov, measure-theoretic, par-
adigm. This approach was fine when we didn’t have computers, but we can do so much more with both
symbol-crunching and number-crunching, in addition to naive simulation, and develop algorithms and write
software, that ultimately is a much more useful (and rewarding) activity than “proving” yet-another-theorem
in an artificial and fictional continuous, measure-theoretic, world, that is furthermore utterly boring.
Shalosh B. Ekhad’s Conclusion
These humans, they are so emotional! That’s why they never went very far.
The only winning move (Score:2)
is not to play.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a form of not playing.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you lose when you're legally entitled to not pay any winnings - ever?
Re: (Score:2)
People finally figure it out and stop coming to your multi-billion dollar casino?
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that the chances of the house losing overall on the betting is astronomically low and if it did happen they could probablly get out on a technicality (which is what I presume you are reffered to with being "legally entitled to not pay any winnings").
The thing is the casino has to pay for rent/mortgage (unless they own the property outright), property taxes, staff, energy and so on. There is a limit to how much cash they can separate from each punter so if they can't get enough punters through the
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually a lot of technicalities they can use - not just to prevent paying out if it would mean losing overall. The links I gave elsewhere show that there only has to be a suspicion that a gaming machine (be it a slot machine, a roulette wheel or an automatic deck shuffler) has a fault, even if that fault leads to the machine being random rather than biased towards the house, then the house isn't obliged to pay the winnings. True, do that too much and people will stop gaming, but the lottery shows t
Not a Useful Guide (Score:5, Informative)
The paper is about how much to bet (your strategy) on a given round if you have x dollars and want to win N dollars. This is problematic for two reasons.
First, their method only works when the probability of winning is >0.5, which never happens in any real casino.
Second, almost nobody really bets this way. Most people don't go to a casino looking to win N dollars. Instead, they go to the casino hoping to play for time T without losing more than N dollars (although people might not be up front about that goal).
Another problem is that they assume that the probabiilty is constant with each round. That's true for some games (roulette), but not for others (blackjack).
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up.
First, their method only works when the probability of winning is >0.5, which never happens in any real casino.
This is not quite true. In blackjack, there are times when you have p>0.5. That's the point of counting cards. Some games, like poker, are really games of skill. Others, like horse racing, involve non-random aspects.
Another problem is that they assume that the probability is constant with each round. That's true for some games (roulette), but not for others (blackjack).
Another thing that makes the paper not really applicable to real life is that it assumes you can choose to bet any amount. In reality, if you're in a casino playing blackjack, one of the most common ways for the management to detect that you're counting cards and throw you out i
Re: (Score:3)
Another thing that makes the paper not really applicable to real life is that it assumes you can choose to bet any amount. In reality, if you're in a casino playing blackjack, one of the most common ways for the management to detect that you're counting cards and throw you out is that they notice that you're varying your bets according to a certain pattern.
I don't frequent casinos (there are few places more boring to me), but my understanding is that they generally allow, if not encourage card counting because most folks do it badly, and lose. The _hope_ of winning brings people in with their latest 'guaranteed winning scheme'. Card counting is hard, and as I understand it casinos have mostly changed their shuffling schedule and other things to make it harder. If, despite all these impediments, you appear to be doing too well, I suspect that they start to
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was as he specifically said he was talking about 'any real casino'. Blackjack as played in casinos is effectively impossible to game due to all the counter-measures in place now. If you gamble in a casino you are either part of an elaborate and complex attempt to cheat the house or like 99.99% of people playing chance is the only way you're coming away with a win.
Re:Not a Useful Guide (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. The title of the paper is a bit misleading.
They are studying the case of some betting game with a fixed probability of winning p (with p>1/2) and a fixed 1:1 payout, using a discrete model of money, with no maximum bet, a minimum bet of $1, and all bets being constrained to a multiple of $1.
It is already known that if you enter with x dollars and you have a target amount of N, your best strategy is to always bet the minimum. Needless to say always betting the minimum can take forever, so even under this very unlikely set of circumstances, you would not want to actually follow that strategy.
So instead they introduce a round limit T, and introduce software that solves the relevant dynamic programming recurrence determine what you should bet given the probability p, your current balance x', your desired amount N, and the remaining number of rounds until the loan shark kills you T'.
Max loss is usually full bankroll (Score:2)
Second, almost nobody really bets this way. Most people don't go to a casino looking to win N dollars. Instead, they go to the casino hoping to play for time T without losing more than N dollars (although people might not be up front about that goal).
People usually go to a casino with as much money as they are willing to lose. I also think the idea of spending at least a given time wile losing a set amount is a bit absurd unless it involves the chance of winning.
You could make a case for a fun casino evening involving maximizing your chances of winning N dollars within time T1 while still not going broke before time T2. A strategy of proportional betting (I assume the paper does that) will limit your chances of going broke regardless.
Re: (Score:3)
First, their method only works when the probability of winning is >0.5, which never happens in any real casino.
Against the house, no. Against other poker players for example, it's possible if you've identified weaknesses in the other players. But even if you've identified a 52% chance to win, how hard should you play to extract the most possible money while not getting yourself eliminated by bad hands? After all you still have a 48% chance of losing. The blinds going up means you have time pressure, you can't keep playing tiny bets forever. Not that I think poker players think this way, but it doesn't seem that usel
Re: (Score:3)
Take blackjack. Every time you play the game with a fresh set of cards, the ultimate probability of winning is the same, provided you use the same strategy each time. That counts as one round, with a winning probability p.
Also, you're wrong about p >0.5, there are strategies for p 0.5 .
Mathematics results a
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/ [wizardofodds.com]
"Full-Pay Deuces Wild optimal strategy (return of 100.76%)"
Just in Time for the Holidays! (Score:2)
But... (Score:2)
Eating the software is probably better for you than running it.
Note about Ekhad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Note about Ekhad (Score:5, Informative)
shalosh b. ekhad is Hebrew for 3-in-1
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what he does when he gets a new computer.
Guide for better than even odds? (Score:2)
According to the paper they are (initially) using a p=3/5 for an even return which to me is a hypothetical or illegal situation.
Am i missing something here or is this just a paper for if you find your self in lucky situation where the house is loss leading?
How do I counted cards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not loss leading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader [wikipedia.org]
The model is far to simplistic to account for blackjack card counting that has its own set of maths models.
Shalosh B. Ekhad (Score:5, Interesting)
Continuous vs Discrete (Score:3, Interesting)
All that work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to be bad at math to play the lottery. A buck for a ticket is a small price to pay for the entertainment you get when the numbers come up. Especially if your friends play, it can be a social event when the numbers are announced.
Well, honestly, you play correctly. If you're not actually expecting to win, but you find some entertainment in sitting there with your friends waiting for the numbers to come up, more power to you. I don't think you represent the majority, though. I think most of the people playing the lottery are people who spend money that they could actually use for more practical things, in the hope of moving up from poverty. I don't have numbers to back this feeling up, but I do see those local news stories every time the jackpot goes up into the $200 million range with poor schmoes buying hundreds of dollars worth of tickets. Congratulations, dude: you just increased your odds of winning from nearly impossible to still nearly impossible.
The above is not an argument against the lottery, btw. I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting people from their own bad decisions. It is, however, an argument for better public education. People would make less bad decisions if they had the tools to analyze a situation better.
Re: (Score:3)
I think your argument makes a lot of sense to be used against a lottery. At least.. against a state-run lottery. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from their own decisions, but neither should it be in the business of encouraging people to make decisions that are harmful to themselves.
If we're not going to allow non state-run lotteries, then we shouldn't have any lotteries at all.
Re: (Score:3)
I think your argument makes a lot of sense to be used against a lottery. At least.. against a state-run lottery. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from their own decisions, but neither should it be in the business of encouraging people to make decisions that are harmful to themselves.
Well, I like that it's a way for the government to raise money which is entirely voluntary. I'm not one of those guys who are completely anti-tax, but that doesn't mean I don't prefer a form of voluntary tax, which is what the lottery is, over the compulsory kind whenever possible. I also don't see it as encouraging bad behavior anymore than a government building a bridge is encouraging people to jump off it. It is possible to cross a bridge safely, and it's possible play the lottery responsibly, so if y
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, I think just the opposite. Since people seem to find a way to gamble one way or another (case in point, the current state of online poker), the profits may as well go to something useful and be run by a group that is ostensibly accountable to the public. I think the government would be much better suited to take a holistic view of gambling and encourage it less than a private entity.
Re: (Score:2)
every time the jackpot goes up into the $200 million range with poor schmoes buying hundreds of dollars worth of tickets. Congratulations, dude: you just increased your odds of winning from nearly impossible to still nearly impossible.
That's the part I don't understand. Although I virtually never do it, I can understand buying one ticket. Your first ticket converts your odds of winning from exactly zero to almost zero. The second ticket is just degrees of almost zero.
And yes, of course each ticket has the same probability of winning, so you do get the same increase in odds for that second ticket. However, those odds are terrible, so doubling your near-zero odds of winning isn't a rational move. The first ticket provides that unquantifiab
Get a blackjack app (Score:3)
entertainmenty and nonproportional value of money (Score:2)
Yes, it's fun to bet a small amount of money now and then (the more you're losing, the less fun it is)
Also, a large amount of money may be proportionally more useful to someone than a smaller amount of money, in which case it may make sense for that person to bet seemingly against the odds
some entertainment from thinking about winning (Score:2)
yes, there can be entertainment value in the game itself, and even simple games can be more fun as a social activity, betting or not
yet the theoretical possibility of a payout helps because it's fun to think about what you'd do with the prize money.
Re: (Score:2)
nope. Gambling is for an expectation of pleasure. And with an external locus of control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
If you derive pleasure from losing money, send me $20 and I'll respond with an email telling you whether or not you won $40. ;)
Are you referring to the upcoming Facebook IPO, or is this a new scam of your own creation :)
Re:Conclusion (Score:4, Interesting)
Reminds me of a successful scam I read about, from back in the late 1950s or thereabouts. They put an ad in the classifieds of many papers, saying simply "Send your dollars to GEB, PO BOX 123". Lots of people thought this was some charity and sent money. The Postal Inspectors (US Postal Service police) came after the guy, charging him with mail fraud. His successful defense was that he made no promises, only asked people for money.
AFAIK this particular trick was quashed in the future, as newspapers refused to take ads like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I'm not the only one who finds it odd that the state lotteries they sold the public by claiming "The funds will benefit education" would put themselves out of business if people were actually learning math.
Or that anyone that knows the definition of "fungible" or "general fund" would already know the lotteries *can't* benefit education. But the lottery isn't only for bad at math. Where else do you have a non-zero chance of making millions from a $1 investment within a week's time?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that your chance of winning is somewhat less than that of being hit by lightning, I'd say there are lots of ways with similar odds. (Walking across the street and getting gently struck by a car driven by)|(Doing a good turn for)|(Some other event involving) a rich elderly person who makes you his/her sole heir is probably at least as likely.
Re: (Score:2)
a rich elderly person who makes you his/her sole heir is probably at least as likely.
I think you are wrong. Unless by "doing a good turn for" you mean "giving lots of blowjobs to" and you are Anna Nicole Smith, it never happens. You'd be more likely to be hit by a movie director and cast in a new movie from that encounter, which, to my knowledge, has never happened either. At least someone wins the lottery every week or so, that's a "sure thing" in that *someone* will win it. So why not you? Jumping out in front of expensive cars as a retirement plan and giving blowjobs to whoever pass
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I would argue that "giving blowjobs to whoever passes by", done in the right location, would arguably have a much higher chance of earning significant money. :P
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
People who drink alcohol live longer than people who don't. It's a fact: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html [time.com]
And this this study includes heavy drinkers that pull down the average life span of general alcohol consumers...
Re: (Score:2)
This just enforces my point -- as pointed out in the article the social benefits of drinking from time to time, and the quality of life they ensure, outweighs the biological side effects of poisoning oneself with ethanol. (well, that, and the fact that abstainers in the study were much more likely to be poor, with all the life expectancy decreases that come with it.)
I bet if you control for socioeconomic status, the gamblers would also prove to live longer for the same reasons -- while it indeed shits on t
Re: (Score:3)
Your summary accurately describes the definition of gambling as opposed to investing.
Gambling is placing money at risk with an expectation of loss.
Investing is placing money at risk with an expectation of gain.
So, pumping money into a [commodities|housing|internet|gold] bubble really is considered investing then? I guess this explains a lot (and yes, this is a slam on the sheeple not the parent).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you like to gamble, I tell you I'm your man
You win some, lose some, it's - all - the same to me
The pleasure is to play, it makes no difference what you say
I don't share your greed, the only card I need is
The Ace Of Spades
The Ace Of Spades
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it's all a game to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stakes or split,
The Ace Of Spades
The Ace Of Spades
You know I'm born to lose, and gambling's for fools,
But that's
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you mean expectation in the statistical sense, rather than the emotional one.
Re: (Score:2)
In gambling you don't get to wait for a better day before cashing in. In investing, you can "Buy low and Sell high" Very few stocks never return to and pass the purchase price unless you bought at a peak (buy high is bad) unless the stock goes bust. On average the market does well with it's ups and downs to enable buy low sell high. Lotto and casino games do not provide that option.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I'm not the only one who finds it odd that the state lotteries they sold the public by claiming "The funds will benefit education" would put themselves out of business if people were actually learning math. ;)
You do know that lotteries (and in fact and game that includes a progressive jackpot) can be wagered with positive expectation, right?
Just asking, because you go on about gambling being an expectation of loss and investing being an expectation of gain..
Re:correction (Score:4, Funny)
That would depend on how good AI is these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Researchers Create Statistical Guide to Gambling" (Score:2)