Slashdot Mirror
The Real MIT Blackjack Mastermind
Wade Roush writes "21, the top movie at the box office last weekend, has everyone talking about the real identities of the MIT blackjack team members fictionalized in the movie and in the 2002 book, Bringing Down the House, on which the film is based. Last week a number of stories pointed to former MIT student and Las Vegas resident John Chang as the model for the Micky Rosa character, the club mastermind played in the movie by Kevin Spacey. But Boston-area Internet entrepreneur and real estate developer Bill Kaplan is saying that if anyone is the basis for Micky Rosa, it's him. Turns out Kaplan now battles the "e-mail churn" problem as CEO of Newton, MA, startup FreshAddress, which helps companies correct the outdated e-mail addresses in their customer databases."
When you have a 5-shoe, you must simply sum all the face cards on each deal and divide by the exponent of all the 2-9 cards. If you can memorize the log tables, you can do 90% of what you need to do. Separate out the face cards and regulars, do exponents while enjoying a drink. It isn't that hard, you just have to realize that you will only win about 1.5% of the time, so you are in it for the long haul. If you have some trusted friends, they can watch the other tables and see whos shoes have a higher number of face cards...then you move to that table and you can maybe make 3 or 4 percent. If you do it right, you can do some quality bets and make a couple grand in half an hour.
The "Real MIT Blackjack mastermind" just works out the rest of the 10% that has been a known quantity since the 1980s and lets you up your percent. You can ignore him and still make $10,000 a night.
1 Corinthians 6:7-10, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Timothy 1:10.
Depends on your definitions. Those are the letters of Paul, which are not technically gospel; but are rather commentary on the gospel.
Uh, what does this have to do with the topic?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yes, it is mentioned in the New Testament. I believe it is correct to say that it is not mentioned in any Gospel, however. Further, since every single New Testament comment on the subject came from Paul, one might reasonably believe that this is merely his own personal bias creeping in.... Jesus had surprisingly little to say on the subject, IIRC. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.
BTW, IAN the OP, FWIW.
"To complicate matters further, most active Internet users have at least three separate e-mail addresses, which they give out for work purposes, for personal matters, and for newsletters and commercial offers. Somebody needs to sort it all out"
Somebody needs to sort it all out? Someone not me? No the fuck they don't. I divide my email addresses so ms granny-chain-a-lot spams one account and important shit goes elsewhere. I don't want companies to have an easier time finding me. Especially when 99.9% of them do *not* have my interests in mind as priority.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No shit! But we are talking about Chmcginn's sig, which claims that homosexuality isn't mentioned in the New Testament. Paul's epistles, which are part of the New Testament, mentions homosexuality, thus disproving Chmcginn's claim.
It's awfully awkward to explain this, but my remark about The New and Improved New Testament(TM) was meant to be sarcastic. It seemed to me as if Geoffrey.landis thought that the Gospels are the only books worthy of the New Testament, or he thinks Paul's writings aren't as "true" as the Gospels (hint: they're all part of the Holy Scriptures, as compiled by the Church). This to me seemed like an awful simplification of Christianity (read: "Cafeteria Christianity"), where one could pick and choose which books in the Bible to trust, based on one's own biases. Hence the sarcastic remark.
Damn, this is getting crazy. Mod this thread down, please!
- Francis Ocoma
Please wait while Sig Request is being processed...
No shit! But we are talking about Chmcginn's sig, which claims that homosexuality isn't mentioned in the New Testament. Paul's epistles, which are part of the New Testament, mentions homosexuality, thus disproving Chmcginn's claim.
Regardless, it still holds true that the Bible mentions the evils of eating pork rather more than it mentions bumlove.
The OP didn't say anything about the gospel, he said the New Testament, of which the gospel is a subset
which is totally what she said
God doesn't want us to have cholesterol problems. Isn't that obvious? Pork-fat rules! /BAM!
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
So, the Catholic church was allowed to make that decision once, and anyone who wishes to claim to be a follower of Jesus has to listen to what they decided in about 300 AD?
(For the record, I was raised Catholic, left that church, and joined another which recognized only the four Gospels & Act as canon, the rest were relegated to the same status the Gnostic texts hold for Catholics.)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?