I'm more interested in how hot these things run.. my old Core Duo MBP runs so hot I can't even use it on my lap, and the fan emits a really annoying loud, high-pitched whine. This computer is actually physically painful to use.
What will determine Google's business success in the long run is a) the moats it can build around its businesses, and b) whether they can overcome their competitors' moats. (A moat is some advantage that protects the company from competition. In the tech industry this is usually called "stickiness")
In some of the businesses mentioned in the article, such as IM and email, moats exist, but unfortunately Google is on the wrong side of those moats. AIM and Y! Mail are on the inside, and Google is on the outside trying to get in. These moats are not that strong (very few are in technology), but it doesn't look like Google is making too much headway. If anyone should be scaring Yahoo Mail and AIM, it's Facebook and Myspace. Those guys already have a list of your friends, which eliminates a major switching cost, and they have already shown that contextualized communication wins. (Most college kids don't use email anymore -- they use fb.) I'm convinced that only business-related email is saving email as a paradigm in the next 10 years, but who knows what can happen in that time?
I have been trying to identify Google's moats and I can think of a few. The first is the brand name. Google is cool because they release a bunch of cool technology and they win the evangelizers, who are really important when it's only a matter of picking among similar-quality search engines. The second is that they have supposedly assembled a really amazing team. This is not so easy to do, even with a large amount of money, as MSN Search has shown. Finally, the infrastructure has to be given some credit. Not just the hardware farms, but the gigantic databases that have been assembled over time which might make Google a better-informed and therefore better-results-producing search.
The above moats -- both google's and competitors' -- are only fair, not permanant. The upside is that Y! and AIM's moats can be destroyed. So it is conceivable that in the long run, Google chips away and evenutally wins those markets through tough-nosed competition. They'll have to make much better sites before we get to that point.
The downside is that these moats are not as strong as platform lock-ins. Technologies are so interdependent that platforms (something other companies are truly dependent on) naturally form monopolies, and those monopolies naturally give birth to other monopolies. Microsoft is a perfect example. And it is not hard to imagine them using their browser platform to become the winner in search. Unfortunately, google has not yet been able to form a platform (gmaps mashups don't count). I think they are really trying to do this by becoming what we used to call a portal (before 2.0 was cool). The problem is that nobody is dependent on any of their pieces. Web search isn't a dependency or a launching point, except to the extent that people used to use the search engine as their homepage (who needs that when we have search boxes in the browser?).
MS doesn't even need to make MSN as good as Google.. they just have to get it "good enough" such that it isn't worth people's time to switch away from the default search in IE. The whole idea espoused by the article of "winning by losing" is ridiculous. The fact is that Google is winning bigtime in search -- so big that they can afford to lose elsewhere. But they certainly aren't losing on purpose, or solely to promote the google brand. And they have little room for error in search.
OK, I'm seeing a lot of posts calling this acquisition "stupid" and i'm seeing the word "bubble" a lot. Now, many of these posters may know exactly what they are talking about, they may be far more informed about the business prospects of both companies than I am.
But if you just say "this is stupid" without any analysis of the future earnings of these businesses, you are adding nothing to the discussion.
Consider the following: Google is paying approx. 3.85 million shares of Google for YouTube. What is the value of those shares? Probably less than you think. What kind of competitive advantage does google have to justify such a high P/E ratio? They have the smartest technical people in the valley, and a great culture, those have to be worth something. But I'd argue that thy aren't worth $430 a share. What happens to google.com's traffic once people start using MSN search by default in the IE7 search box? Well, I can't tell you exactly what will happen, but I've got a decent guess. It'll PROBABLY GO DOWN, at least the growth rate. Does this sound like a company that is worth 62 times earnings ($130b by market value)?
I'd argue that if there's a bubble here, it's probably in the price of Google, not the price of YouTube. These things are hard to predict because you don't know exactly how the technology, and the underlying social dynamics of the users, will play out. And yes, the legal issues are thorny and I don't feel qualified to analyze those (though I'm sure Google's lawyers are more than qualified to). But i'd argue that Google ought to be making MORE acquisitons with its stock, not fewer.
Keep in mind that Google is not paying dollars -- they are trading Google stock for YouTube stock. So even though $1.65b is a scary number, what you should be asking yourself is not whether YT is worth $1.65b, but whether it is worth 1.25% of Google.
I believe the article is wrong.. SFA has $1.6b in cash, not debt. CSCO will be paying $6.9b, but the effective price will be $5.3b since they will be acquiring the cash on SFA's balance sheet.
This is a classic case of the chicken and egg. If there is no userbase that is capable of playing videos, content producers will be reluctant to release their content for sale on ITMS. There is little profit to be made without a viable market and it is a risky move in many respects. But without content, people will say that Apple is making a bad move. I think Apple is right now cashing in on the legitimacy of the iPod brand as well as making an investment in the future -- which is video. By being the first to market with a video device, they can control file formats as well as the distribution channel (ITMS). Not to mention the benefits to the brand..
I am not sure what level of answer you want here, but it seems from this 'percentage of revenue' business that you could use some advice at the highest level. (My apologies if I came to the wrong conclusions based on the short snippet that was on the slashdot front page.)
Your company should spend on whatever will give it the highest return. If that happens to be IT, then spend on IT. If there is a better place to put the money, put it there.
You talk about trying to find a justifiable method. The best justification is that the new budget will make a lot of money for the owner.
This story is a perfect reason exactly why one should NOT use future income as a criteria for what they want to do in life.
The fact is that you won't be able to predict how much a certain occupation will be 'worth' 10 years from now or even 3. The assumption that one can find an easy and high-paying industry is especially reckless. Supply and demand will eventually kick in. And in CS, we have essentially a commodity market for programmers which means a very competitive market.
What people should do is enter a field which they truly enjoy, regardless of the income. I know it sounds difficult, but life isn't easy. It's hard. But if you are working in a job you enjoy, you will have an edge over the competition. Most people don't enjoy their jobs. You'll be several times more productive if you do, and this means that you can make a decent living even in a beaten down industry. But most importantly, money isn't going to make you happy. It sounds cliche, but it is true.
It is very difficult to see this when you are first entering college. But once you leave college you start to lose a lot of your social connections. Soon, your work takes over a much greater part of your life.
It seems to me that even people who aren't very well-paid can have a pretty good standard of living in this country. On the other hand, being in a profession which you enjoy and that lends itself to social situations from which you can benefit WILL make you happy.
Figure 2, A brief history of online advertising, is a timeline. Interestingly, at 9/11/01 there is marker that says "Grown Men Cry". Anyone else find this a bit odd for a "professional" publication?
Intel hasn't been dealing with raw x86 instructinos for a long time. Intel transforms x86 into "microcode" -- they break up the x86 instructions into simpler uops (or micro-ops) that are more like RISC instructions (I think). This is what enables the Pentium 4 to have 25-30 stage pipeline, which I don't believe was the greatest idea, but it was quite a feat of engineering and it allowed Intel to get ridiculous clock frequencies to sell their chips.
Google is gaining a huge foothold on the web. Alot of Google's new sites (gmail/maps/suggest) depend heavily on Javascript
Microsoft decides to release a new version of IE
Perhaps the new microsoft motto will be "IE's not done till Google doesn't run"
This won't be a huge problem since Google can simply update their code. However, I wouldn't be surprised if alot of JS functionality that would be very useful to google either now or in the future is simply "missing" on IE7
There has been alot of talk of Google launching a new era of computing with the web as the OS. But Microsoft controls the web (through IE), and they won't allow the web to become a competitor to Windows.
Slate's Daniel Gross explores why big corporations are hiring fewer Ivy Leaguers. Is it because today's bosses aren't as snowed by polished young Ivy grads as they were in the past? Or are today's Ivy League graduates simply so wealthy that they no longer feel the need to find stable, high-paying jobs at big companies?
One point where the article is dead on is that finance, particularly hedge funds and investment banking, is seen as a much sexier line of work than management. Especially as a straight-out-of-college deal, it's much more socially acceptable to say that you're going to work for Merrill Lynch than Walmart. The entry-level pay is higher, for one thing, but of course it just "sounds" better to certain ears. Recruiting for these prestige jobs also heavily favors those with connections, and not surprisingly, students like to exploit their connections. Many comments here pertain to engineering or CS, but these schools are not typically known for those departments, and in any case, those jobs are not sexy either. (These aren't my judgments, just my observations of other people's perceptions). I would be interested in the statistics on entry to graduate-level programs and the effects of those numbers on this phenomenon.
Now, I'm no expert on these matters, but would there really be ten times more murders in america if capital punishment was substituted with life in prison?
That number sounds completely ridicoulous to me.
There were 892 executions between 1976 and 2004 [1]. That averages to 32 per year. The estimate, if believed, is that 320 murders are prevented per year.
There were 16,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in 2001 (another 16,000 in 2002) [2]. So of course "ten times more murders" is ridiculous. The estimate is not 160,000 murders prevented; the estimate is 320.
Now, I'm no expert on these matters, but would there really be ten times more murders in america if capital punishment was substituted with life in prison?
That number sounds completely ridicoulous to me. I would probably put that number lower than 2 and closer to 1... without taking the time to compare all 38 states with capital punishment to those who don't it doesn't look like theres anywhere near a factor of ten difference between them.
not sure if this poster is serious or not.. but i'll bite. Your math is all wrong.
There have been 891 executions between 1976 and 2004.[1] That averages to 32 executions a year. Saving 320 lives a year, if the estimate is believed. In 2001 and 2002 there were about 16,000 murders each year.[2] Obviously, multiplying that number by 10 "sounds completely ridiculous". The estimate is not that 160,000 murders are prevented.. the estimate is 320.
Re:Simple advice from Brett Maverick
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 1
1. Never enter into a hand if you don't have a fighting hand to start with.
2. Never continue playing when you are beat showing.
3. Often you should overplay your weak hands (but this does not change rule one)
4. Often you should underplay your strong hands.
While these ideas are in the correct spirit, they are a bit oversimplified. I would modify #1 and 2 to say that, you must have the CORRECT POT ODDS to continue calling. For example, by this person's logic, if you had 4 cards to a flush and your opponent had a pair, you must always fold. Well, thats clearly not true; if the pot has $20 in it and your opponent only bets $2, then you should call, because you have the odds to call. You could very well be beat showing and still continue (if i understand this term correctly).
I would also modify points 3 and 4 to say "Occasionally" instead of "Often". As a general rule, you don't want to be deceptive too often; people will call you just to "keep you honest" or maybe just because they have a hand. Of course, it depends on your opponents. If they keep falling for it, then sure, keep going.. but in general, these are not plays to be used too often.
I would also amend all the points to say that, in No-Limit poker, one shouldn't overemphasize the value of his hand. One should also make bets based on his position at the table and what the other players have. (This requires reading, or estimating the value of opponents hands.) If you have position, then there are instances in which you can bet and your opponent MUST fold even if he has you beat, simply because in the long run he cannot make that call too many times, because your position will enable you to win much more money from him than he could win from you.
While many have posted about pokerbots, odds calculations, and other game-related issues, i'm surprised no one has brought up the issue of security.
Internet pokerrooms are an exploding phenomenon; according to my sources, one of the largest pokerrooms makes over $2 million/day. However, as you might expect, this brings up some security issues.
The most basic of these is random number generation. A long time ago, one of the poker rooms had a faulty Random Number Generator. They were re-seeding it for every hand! And worst of all, they posted their code online to demonstrate how "secure" it was... The best poker rooms today will use a hardware RNG with all sorts of goodies to protect the data stream.
Another issue is that of fraud. Hackers have been known to buy-in with stolen cc's, and then dump that money to accomplices, then, when the victim charges back, the poker room is left holding the bill. This doesn't affect the players so much, since the poker rooms end up losing the money; but the best poker rooms will impose limits on (first) deposits to prevent this.
Yet another issue is that of collusion detection. Another AI problem, which is a pattern-detection problem, is to check when two people are "playing partners". Some of this software is already in use right now and (to my knowledge) works fairly well. I think a big problem for colluders is, not only do they have to make their collusion effective, but they have to avoid the detection software.. and if you can avoid the detection software, that probably puts a big enough dent into your cheating plan that it renders it useless.
Finally, it brings up the issue of e-cash in general. While paypal does not allow online gambling, there is a whole industry of electronic payment services that thrive on gambling, the main one being Neteller. Since none of these are US-based, does the US risk losing dominance in this potentially important area of the future? And how secure are these accounts anyway? The people I know who use these things keep very little money in them and withdraw regularly to a real bank account.
So as you can see, poker and internet poker in particular brings up far more computer issues than simply the problem of a Poker-playing AI/poker strategy. Thoughts are welcome.
The main reason not to play online is collusion. You can get eaten alive by two players who know each other but pretend not to. It happens. Everywhere.
This isn't a big deal for a few of reasons; first of all, people who collude are usual bad at poker. And collusion simply DOESNT HELP that much that it would represent a significant edge, or give a bad player an edge over a good player. So if you are a good poker player, you will beat them anyway
Secondly, it is EXTREMELY EASY for the poker rooms to catch colluders. There is a record of every single bet that you make and a paper trail a mile long for every player. If you really want to avoid collusion, you'd probably be safer ONLINE than offline. The poker rooms also use software to automatically scan betting patterns for suspicious activity, and this software is surprisngly good at catching cheaters. I think a big problem for colluders is, not only do they have to make their collusion effective, but they have to avoid the detection software.. and if you can avoid the detection software, that probably puts a big enough dent into your cheating plan that it renders it useless.
Finally, most people who wish to play online want to play the low limits. We're talking pennies, dimes, and quarters here. There isn't much incentive for colluders to play these games, as there is so little money at stake. Sure, once you get to higher limit games ($5-10 NL, $10-20 NL), you should be more careful. But by the time you are playing for that kind of money, I'm sure you're able to look out for yourself.
I know that there's mathematical ways of going about games.
I don't like to use them, unless I can intuit them.
Sure, mathematics can tell you poker odds. But I think it's much more fun if you try to feel the correct decision.
In poker, you have to have good math skills AND good intuition. At any decent-level game, you will lose badly without both. If you don't understand the mathematics behind the game, you will simply get slaughtered; even if you have great intuition, you can read your opponents hands perfectly and still call with the wrong odds. On the other hand, a math genius can easily lose because he doesn't realize that his opponent is playing mind games with him.
All the best players in the world have excellent intuition, and the math comes naturally. The calculations are actually quite simple; the main one to know is that your odds of hitting are 2 times your # of outs plus 2 (percent). The experienced players know all the odds by memory since they have seen the situations so many times; you will often see poor or novice players thinking a long time at the table with a marginal hand because they are calculating odds. However, intuition does often decide the entire out come of a game; when all the chips are in the pot, the entire game could hinge on whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not. And this is not mathematics.
The only way to win consistanty is to play rationally (ie. mathematically) against people who are not playing rationally.
This is misleading. In order to beat people who are playing "irrationally", you must also play "irrationally". Let me explain what I mean by this.
There is no "Optimal strategy" in poker. There is a good strategy for a specific situation against specific players, but there is no single strategy that can always be applied.
If you always play "rationally (mathematically)", then that means you are not varying your game; then your opponents can read you like an open book. Then they can bluff at you when you check, because "rationally", you check when you have nothing. So this isn't a good way to do it.
When players start out, they usually play "rationally", i.e. they are always thinking about math and odds. The truth is that you have to vary your plays, sometimes doing "irrational" things like betting when you don't have a hand or have an incomplete hand. The reason i call this irrational is that, a rational opponent could turn around and exploit your sub-optimal play. However, you play sub-optimally precisely because you know your opponent is weak and will not exploit your play.
I'll use an analogy to explain this phenomenon. In a game of paper-rock-scissors, the mathematically optimal (rational) strategy is to play randomly. And your analysis of random vs random is correct.. no one wins. However, if your opponent plays "irrationally" (exhibits patterns), then you must also play "sub-optimally" to exploit these patterns. In doing so you will exhibit patterns of your own. If your opponent is playing 66% rocks, you would do well to play lots of papers. Now, if your opponent is rational, he would just start playing scissor instead. But precisely because he continues to play suboptimally (66% rocks), you continue playing papers. Poker is a more complex game, which is why people actually make mistakes of this magnitude at poker and why people don't play paper-rock-scissors for money.
The reason you can win at poker is that players are always betting the value of the cards in their hand. To win at poker, you have to take into account more than your cards and the odds of the next card hitting; you have to bet your position at the table, and you have to bet based on the other player's cards. Bad players will tell you what they have with the size of their bets. Now that you have more information than they do, you can eat them alive.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm more interested in how hot these things run.. my old Core Duo MBP runs so hot I can't even use it on my lap, and the fan emits a really annoying loud, high-pitched whine. This computer is actually physically painful to use.
What will determine Google's business success in the long run is a) the moats it can build around its businesses, and b) whether they can overcome their competitors' moats. (A moat is some advantage that protects the company from competition. In the tech industry this is usually called "stickiness")
In some of the businesses mentioned in the article, such as IM and email, moats exist, but unfortunately Google is on the wrong side of those moats. AIM and Y! Mail are on the inside, and Google is on the outside trying to get in. These moats are not that strong (very few are in technology), but it doesn't look like Google is making too much headway. If anyone should be scaring Yahoo Mail and AIM, it's Facebook and Myspace. Those guys already have a list of your friends, which eliminates a major switching cost, and they have already shown that contextualized communication wins. (Most college kids don't use email anymore -- they use fb.) I'm convinced that only business-related email is saving email as a paradigm in the next 10 years, but who knows what can happen in that time?
I have been trying to identify Google's moats and I can think of a few. The first is the brand name. Google is cool because they release a bunch of cool technology and they win the evangelizers, who are really important when it's only a matter of picking among similar-quality search engines. The second is that they have supposedly assembled a really amazing team. This is not so easy to do, even with a large amount of money, as MSN Search has shown. Finally, the infrastructure has to be given some credit. Not just the hardware farms, but the gigantic databases that have been assembled over time which might make Google a better-informed and therefore better-results-producing search.
The above moats -- both google's and competitors' -- are only fair, not permanant. The upside is that Y! and AIM's moats can be destroyed. So it is conceivable that in the long run, Google chips away and evenutally wins those markets through tough-nosed competition. They'll have to make much better sites before we get to that point.
The downside is that these moats are not as strong as platform lock-ins. Technologies are so interdependent that platforms (something other companies are truly dependent on) naturally form monopolies, and those monopolies naturally give birth to other monopolies. Microsoft is a perfect example. And it is not hard to imagine them using their browser platform to become the winner in search. Unfortunately, google has not yet been able to form a platform (gmaps mashups don't count). I think they are really trying to do this by becoming what we used to call a portal (before 2.0 was cool). The problem is that nobody is dependent on any of their pieces. Web search isn't a dependency or a launching point, except to the extent that people used to use the search engine as their homepage (who needs that when we have search boxes in the browser?).
MS doesn't even need to make MSN as good as Google.. they just have to get it "good enough" such that it isn't worth people's time to switch away from the default search in IE. The whole idea espoused by the article of "winning by losing" is ridiculous. The fact is that Google is winning bigtime in search -- so big that they can afford to lose elsewhere. But they certainly aren't losing on purpose, or solely to promote the google brand. And they have little room for error in search.
OK, I'm seeing a lot of posts calling this acquisition "stupid" and i'm seeing the word "bubble" a lot. Now, many of these posters may know exactly what they are talking about, they may be far more informed about the business prospects of both companies than I am.
But if you just say "this is stupid" without any analysis of the future earnings of these businesses, you are adding nothing to the discussion.
Consider the following: Google is paying approx. 3.85 million shares of Google for YouTube. What is the value of those shares? Probably less than you think. What kind of competitive advantage does google have to justify such a high P/E ratio? They have the smartest technical people in the valley, and a great culture, those have to be worth something. But I'd argue that thy aren't worth $430 a share. What happens to google.com's traffic once people start using MSN search by default in the IE7 search box? Well, I can't tell you exactly what will happen, but I've got a decent guess. It'll PROBABLY GO DOWN, at least the growth rate. Does this sound like a company that is worth 62 times earnings ($130b by market value)?
I'd argue that if there's a bubble here, it's probably in the price of Google, not the price of YouTube. These things are hard to predict because you don't know exactly how the technology, and the underlying social dynamics of the users, will play out. And yes, the legal issues are thorny and I don't feel qualified to analyze those (though I'm sure Google's lawyers are more than qualified to). But i'd argue that Google ought to be making MORE acquisitons with its stock, not fewer.
Keep in mind that Google is not paying dollars -- they are trading Google stock for YouTube stock. So even though $1.65b is a scary number, what you should be asking yourself is not whether YT is worth $1.65b, but whether it is worth 1.25% of Google.
I especially like the Netflix "Urban" genres. It's just movies with black people in them. http://www.netflix.com/SubGenre?sgid=1129&pgid=296 &hnjr=3
I believe the article is wrong.. SFA has $1.6b in cash, not debt. CSCO will be paying $6.9b, but the effective price will be $5.3b since they will be acquiring the cash on SFA's balance sheet.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SFA
This is a classic case of the chicken and egg. If there is no userbase that is capable of playing videos, content producers will be reluctant to release their content for sale on ITMS. There is little profit to be made without a viable market and it is a risky move in many respects. But without content, people will say that Apple is making a bad move. I think Apple is right now cashing in on the legitimacy of the iPod brand as well as making an investment in the future -- which is video. By being the first to market with a video device, they can control file formats as well as the distribution channel (ITMS). Not to mention the benefits to the brand..
http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0795/
:)
Scroll about halfway down the page to see the source of that quote
I am not sure what level of answer you want here, but it seems from this 'percentage of revenue' business that you could use some advice at the highest level. (My apologies if I came to the wrong conclusions based on the short snippet that was on the slashdot front page.)
Your company should spend on whatever will give it the highest return. If that happens to be IT, then spend on IT. If there is a better place to put the money, put it there.
You talk about trying to find a justifiable method. The best justification is that the new budget will make a lot of money for the owner.
Fusica.com has a similar feature under expert search except that it is not collaborative.
This story is a perfect reason exactly why one should NOT use future income as a criteria for what they want to do in life.
The fact is that you won't be able to predict how much a certain occupation will be 'worth' 10 years from now or even 3. The assumption that one can find an easy and high-paying industry is especially reckless. Supply and demand will eventually kick in. And in CS, we have essentially a commodity market for programmers which means a very competitive market.
What people should do is enter a field which they truly enjoy, regardless of the income. I know it sounds difficult, but life isn't easy. It's hard. But if you are working in a job you enjoy, you will have an edge over the competition. Most people don't enjoy their jobs. You'll be several times more productive if you do, and this means that you can make a decent living even in a beaten down industry. But most importantly, money isn't going to make you happy. It sounds cliche, but it is true.
It is very difficult to see this when you are first entering college. But once you leave college you start to lose a lot of your social connections. Soon, your work takes over a much greater part of your life.
It seems to me that even people who aren't very well-paid can have a pretty good standard of living in this country. On the other hand, being in a profession which you enjoy and that lends itself to social situations from which you can benefit WILL make you happy.
Figure 2, A brief history of online advertising, is a timeline. Interestingly, at 9/11/01 there is marker that says "Grown Men Cry". Anyone else find this a bit odd for a "professional" publication?
Intel hasn't been dealing with raw x86 instructinos for a long time. Intel transforms x86 into "microcode" -- they break up the x86 instructions into simpler uops (or micro-ops) that are more like RISC instructions (I think). This is what enables the Pentium 4 to have 25-30 stage pipeline, which I don't believe was the greatest idea, but it was quite a feat of engineering and it allowed Intel to get ridiculous clock frequencies to sell their chips.
Let's put two and two together:
Perhaps the new microsoft motto will be "IE's not done till Google doesn't run"
This won't be a huge problem since Google can simply update their code. However, I wouldn't be surprised if alot of JS functionality that would be very useful to google either now or in the future is simply "missing" on IE7
There has been alot of talk of Google launching a new era of computing with the web as the OS. But Microsoft controls the web (through IE), and they won't allow the web to become a competitor to Windows.
Tivo shares up almost 50% on the news
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=tivo
I think that alot of us are wondering right now.. how long has the Chinese government known about this? (and how long as the NSA known)
Slate's Daniel Gross explores why big corporations are hiring fewer Ivy Leaguers. Is it because today's bosses aren't as snowed by polished young Ivy grads as they were in the past? Or are today's Ivy League graduates simply so wealthy that they no longer feel the need to find stable, high-paying jobs at big companies?
One point where the article is dead on is that finance, particularly hedge funds and investment banking, is seen as a much sexier line of work than management. Especially as a straight-out-of-college deal, it's much more socially acceptable to say that you're going to work for Merrill Lynch than Walmart. The entry-level pay is higher, for one thing, but of course it just "sounds" better to certain ears. Recruiting for these prestige jobs also heavily favors those with connections, and not surprisingly, students like to exploit their connections. Many comments here pertain to engineering or CS, but these schools are not typically known for those departments, and in any case, those jobs are not sexy either. (These aren't my judgments, just my observations of other people's perceptions). I would be interested in the statistics on entry to graduate-level programs and the effects of those numbers on this phenomenon.
MSFT has underperformed the S&P but actually it has been fairly in line with the NASDAQ in the last five years.
z =m &q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC&c=%5EIXIC
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&
Now, I'm no expert on these matters, but would there really be ten times more murders in america if capital punishment was substituted with life in prison? That number sounds completely ridicoulous to me.
There were 892 executions between 1976 and 2004 [1]. That averages to 32 per year. The estimate, if believed, is that 320 murders are prevented per year.
There were 16,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in 2001 (another 16,000 in 2002) [2]. So of course "ten times more murders" is ridiculous. The estimate is not 160,000 murders prevented; the estimate is 320.
[1]http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/capital_punis
[2]http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offr
Now, I'm no expert on these matters, but would there really be ten times more murders in america if capital punishment was substituted with life in prison? That number sounds completely ridicoulous to me. I would probably put that number lower than 2 and closer to 1... without taking the time to compare all 38 states with capital punishment to those who don't it doesn't look like theres anywhere near a factor of ten difference between them.
not sure if this poster is serious or not.. but i'll bite. Your math is all wrong.
There have been 891 executions between 1976 and 2004.[1] That averages to 32 executions a year. Saving 320 lives a year, if the estimate is believed. In 2001 and 2002 there were about 16,000 murders each year.[2] Obviously, multiplying that number by 10 "sounds completely ridiculous". The estimate is not that 160,000 murders are prevented.. the estimate is 320.
[1] http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/capital_punishment_ in_the_united_states.html
[2] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreporte d/02-nmurder03.html
1. Never enter into a hand if you don't have a fighting hand to start with. 2. Never continue playing when you are beat showing. 3. Often you should overplay your weak hands (but this does not change rule one) 4. Often you should underplay your strong hands.
While these ideas are in the correct spirit, they are a bit oversimplified. I would modify #1 and 2 to say that, you must have the CORRECT POT ODDS to continue calling. For example, by this person's logic, if you had 4 cards to a flush and your opponent had a pair, you must always fold. Well, thats clearly not true; if the pot has $20 in it and your opponent only bets $2, then you should call, because you have the odds to call. You could very well be beat showing and still continue (if i understand this term correctly).
I would also modify points 3 and 4 to say "Occasionally" instead of "Often". As a general rule, you don't want to be deceptive too often; people will call you just to "keep you honest" or maybe just because they have a hand. Of course, it depends on your opponents. If they keep falling for it, then sure, keep going.. but in general, these are not plays to be used too often.
I would also amend all the points to say that, in No-Limit poker, one shouldn't overemphasize the value of his hand. One should also make bets based on his position at the table and what the other players have. (This requires reading, or estimating the value of opponents hands.) If you have position, then there are instances in which you can bet and your opponent MUST fold even if he has you beat, simply because in the long run he cannot make that call too many times, because your position will enable you to win much more money from him than he could win from you.
While many have posted about pokerbots, odds calculations, and other game-related issues, i'm surprised no one has brought up the issue of security.
Internet pokerrooms are an exploding phenomenon; according to my sources, one of the largest pokerrooms makes over $2 million/day. However, as you might expect, this brings up some security issues.
The most basic of these is random number generation. A long time ago, one of the poker rooms had a faulty Random Number Generator. They were re-seeding it for every hand! And worst of all, they posted their code online to demonstrate how "secure" it was... The best poker rooms today will use a hardware RNG with all sorts of goodies to protect the data stream.
Another issue is that of fraud. Hackers have been known to buy-in with stolen cc's, and then dump that money to accomplices, then, when the victim charges back, the poker room is left holding the bill. This doesn't affect the players so much, since the poker rooms end up losing the money; but the best poker rooms will impose limits on (first) deposits to prevent this.
Yet another issue is that of collusion detection. Another AI problem, which is a pattern-detection problem, is to check when two people are "playing partners". Some of this software is already in use right now and (to my knowledge) works fairly well. I think a big problem for colluders is, not only do they have to make their collusion effective, but they have to avoid the detection software.. and if you can avoid the detection software, that probably puts a big enough dent into your cheating plan that it renders it useless.
Finally, it brings up the issue of e-cash in general. While paypal does not allow online gambling, there is a whole industry of electronic payment services that thrive on gambling, the main one being Neteller. Since none of these are US-based, does the US risk losing dominance in this potentially important area of the future? And how secure are these accounts anyway? The people I know who use these things keep very little money in them and withdraw regularly to a real bank account.
So as you can see, poker and internet poker in particular brings up far more computer issues than simply the problem of a Poker-playing AI/poker strategy.
Thoughts are welcome.
The main reason not to play online is collusion. You can get eaten alive by two players who know each other but pretend not to. It happens. Everywhere.
This isn't a big deal for a few of reasons; first of all, people who collude are usual bad at poker. And collusion simply DOESNT HELP that much that it would represent a significant edge, or give a bad player an edge over a good player. So if you are a good poker player, you will beat them anyway
Secondly, it is EXTREMELY EASY for the poker rooms to catch colluders. There is a record of every single bet that you make and a paper trail a mile long for every player. If you really want to avoid collusion, you'd probably be safer ONLINE than offline. The poker rooms also use software to automatically scan betting patterns for suspicious activity, and this software is surprisngly good at catching cheaters. I think a big problem for colluders is, not only do they have to make their collusion effective, but they have to avoid the detection software.. and if you can avoid the detection software, that probably puts a big enough dent into your cheating plan that it renders it useless.
Finally, most people who wish to play online want to play the low limits. We're talking pennies, dimes, and quarters here. There isn't much incentive for colluders to play these games, as there is so little money at stake. Sure, once you get to higher limit games ($5-10 NL, $10-20 NL), you should be more careful. But by the time you are playing for that kind of money, I'm sure you're able to look out for yourself.
I know that there's mathematical ways of going about games.
I don't like to use them, unless I can intuit them.
Sure, mathematics can tell you poker odds. But I think it's much more fun if you try to feel the correct decision.
In poker, you have to have good math skills AND good intuition. At any decent-level game, you will lose badly without both. If you don't understand the mathematics behind the game, you will simply get slaughtered; even if you have great intuition, you can read your opponents hands perfectly and still call with the wrong odds. On the other hand, a math genius can easily lose because he doesn't realize that his opponent is playing mind games with him.
All the best players in the world have excellent intuition, and the math comes naturally. The calculations are actually quite simple; the main one to know is that your odds of hitting are 2 times your # of outs plus 2 (percent). The experienced players know all the odds by memory since they have seen the situations so many times; you will often see poor or novice players thinking a long time at the table with a marginal hand because they are calculating odds. However, intuition does often decide the entire out come of a game; when all the chips are in the pot, the entire game could hinge on whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not. And this is not mathematics.
The only way to win consistanty is to play rationally (ie. mathematically) against people who are not playing rationally.
This is misleading. In order to beat people who are playing "irrationally", you must also play "irrationally". Let me explain what I mean by this.
There is no "Optimal strategy" in poker. There is a good strategy for a specific situation against specific players, but there is no single strategy that can always be applied.
If you always play "rationally (mathematically)", then that means you are not varying your game; then your opponents can read you like an open book. Then they can bluff at you when you check, because "rationally", you check when you have nothing. So this isn't a good way to do it.
When players start out, they usually play "rationally", i.e. they are always thinking about math and odds. The truth is that you have to vary your plays, sometimes doing "irrational" things like betting when you don't have a hand or have an incomplete hand. The reason i call this irrational is that, a rational opponent could turn around and exploit your sub-optimal play. However, you play sub-optimally precisely because you know your opponent is weak and will not exploit your play.
I'll use an analogy to explain this phenomenon. In a game of paper-rock-scissors, the mathematically optimal (rational) strategy is to play randomly. And your analysis of random vs random is correct.. no one wins. However, if your opponent plays "irrationally" (exhibits patterns), then you must also play "sub-optimally" to exploit these patterns. In doing so you will exhibit patterns of your own. If your opponent is playing 66% rocks, you would do well to play lots of papers. Now, if your opponent is rational, he would just start playing scissor instead. But precisely because he continues to play suboptimally (66% rocks), you continue playing papers. Poker is a more complex game, which is why people actually make mistakes of this magnitude at poker and why people don't play paper-rock-scissors for money.
The reason you can win at poker is that players are always betting the value of the cards in their hand. To win at poker, you have to take into account more than your cards and the odds of the next card hitting; you have to bet your position at the table, and you have to bet based on the other player's cards. Bad players will tell you what they have with the size of their bets. Now that you have more information than they do, you can eat them alive.