Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT vs. Las Vegas

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the avoid-that-little-room-with-deniro dept.

spellcheckur writes "Techno-mag-turned-fashion-rag Wired Magazine has an article about MIT kids counting cards in Las Vegas. I wish I could have made seven figures while I was still in college. Maybe I should get a how-to book." Also, any chance is a good chance to mention The Eudaemonic Pie.

3 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Doesn't matter if they count them or not... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1, Troll

    If they have a hand below 17, they have to hit, no matter what

    I should know... my father was a blackjack dealer, and he hit me until I turned 17... :-)

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
  2. Groups too small by dh003i · · Score: 1, Troll

    For a group, you need a large number of people -- perhaps 100 or so -- to work together randomly and hit different casino's. That makes it difficult for Casino's to notice a "regular" winner.

    Also, probably a good idea to bring a few lawyers along. The people who work in or own Casino's are all mob-affiliated crooks, anyways.

    --
    social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  3. Re:Not TOO hard. by unicron · · Score: 2, Troll

    I think the whole cheating/not cheating arguement is getting lame. Put simply: You're doing something in a game of cards that gives you an unfair advantage so that you can win more money. That sounds like the definition of cheating to me, just because you aren't using a mechanical device or magnets or some shit doesn't mean it's not cheating. The "using your brain to win" is not cheating. Your brain didn't physically place the bet, so that logic is flawed. That's like saying "I killed someone with a portable rail gun but it's not murder because I had to really put my mind into making the gun".

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.