No, the odds makers were fine. The AI just got "lucky" in this race by playing the most likely winners. Odds makers don't care if any particular individual bet wins. They look at the aggregates. If the AI used that strategy over many horse races it would lose money due to the odds. So many stupid people here.
Exactly. The same logic can be applied to "Financial Advisors". If they knew anything they wouldn't be working as a Financial Advisor making $200k a year.
I didn't say it was easy. I am amazed that so many people don't understand what I am saying. You have a better chance of "winning" if you pick the top 4 horses based on the odds than if you picked the worst 4 horses based on the odds. This program got lucky but you are "more lucky" using that strategy. They picked the horses most likely to win, in the order they were most likely to place in. If you used that strategy you would "win" more than you would "lose" but you wouldn't likely make money in the long term due to the odds. Odds makers aren't dumb.
I realize that you are probably associated with these guys and want to hype it up, but I will tell you this: if they had such a method to do this they wouldn't tell everyone about it. They would be making trillions in gambling and the stock market and wouldn't be looking for VC funding. Stop the hype.
No, it would still be a business. The point is that betting isn't about picking the "winner". It is about the odds. If you just picked the favorite to "win" every time, you would "win" more often than if you picked the least favorite, but you would lose money due to the odds payoff.
No they shouldn't. I said they should "win" most of the time. If you had this "AI" always bet the "top 3" horses it would "win" more than someone who bet the "bottom 3" horses. I guess common sense isn't very common. That is why they have odds in the first place.
What is so amazing? Nyquist had 2-1 odds of winning, 5-1 for the runner up and 1-10 for third. They were predicted by the odds makers to be the top 3 horses! If you picked the horses with the best odds on every race you would "win" more than you would "lose". Common sense. Christ.
So what? I can pick who is going to the NBA finals most likely. Cleveland and Golden State. You can pick that in the middle of the season. They had the best records and were blowing out teams. That isn't intelligence. I'll go out on a limb and say the Penguins are going to win the Stanley Cup, and I know nothing about hockey or basketball.
Big deal. I did too and I know nothing about horse racing. The top three were the ones with the best odds of winning according to the bookmakers. In general if you pick the participants with the "best odds" you will "win". For example if you pick Germany over Iceland in soccer you will "win" almost 100% of the time.
100% correct. The threat is not AGW, but other man made constructs. This is why AGW is such a scam. It keeps us from addressing real problems, like LOCAL pollution, unsafe water, disappearing wetlands due to to development, etc.
No he wasn't. He "hacked" it previously before the demonstration. Stop lying. I agree he shouldn't have been arrested but there is no reason to lie for clicks.
Slashdot Mirror
And if it DID work, why would they make it public at all? They would make billions off of betting and the stock market.
No, the odds makers were fine. The AI just got "lucky" in this race by playing the most likely winners. Odds makers don't care if any particular individual bet wins. They look at the aggregates. If the AI used that strategy over many horse races it would lose money due to the odds. So many stupid people here.
Cortexia you can stop posting as AC. No one is buying your hype. Being better than Bing is like winning the Special Olympics.
Exactly. The same logic can be applied to "Financial Advisors". If they knew anything they wouldn't be working as a Financial Advisor making $200k a year.
I didn't say it was easy. I am amazed that so many people don't understand what I am saying. You have a better chance of "winning" if you pick the top 4 horses based on the odds than if you picked the worst 4 horses based on the odds. This program got lucky but you are "more lucky" using that strategy. They picked the horses most likely to win, in the order they were most likely to place in. If you used that strategy you would "win" more than you would "lose" but you wouldn't likely make money in the long term due to the odds. Odds makers aren't dumb.
I realize that you are probably associated with these guys and want to hype it up, but I will tell you this: if they had such a method to do this they wouldn't tell everyone about it. They would be making trillions in gambling and the stock market and wouldn't be looking for VC funding. Stop the hype.
This is 100% correct as well. These tech "journalists" are getting paid somehow and it isn't from banner ads.
No, it would still be a business. The point is that betting isn't about picking the "winner". It is about the odds. If you just picked the favorite to "win" every time, you would "win" more often than if you picked the least favorite, but you would lose money due to the odds payoff.
I'm not whining. I already "got" my money. I just think it is stupid and transparent. A.I and VR are the type machines of today.
No they shouldn't. I said they should "win" most of the time. If you had this "AI" always bet the "top 3" horses it would "win" more than someone who bet the "bottom 3" horses. I guess common sense isn't very common. That is why they have odds in the first place.
Exactly. Just another company trying to get VC money using the current "A.I." hype machine.
What is so amazing? Nyquist had 2-1 odds of winning, 5-1 for the runner up and 1-10 for third. They were predicted by the odds makers to be the top 3 horses! If you picked the horses with the best odds on every race you would "win" more than you would "lose". Common sense. Christ.
So what? I can pick who is going to the NBA finals most likely. Cleveland and Golden State. You can pick that in the middle of the season. They had the best records and were blowing out teams. That isn't intelligence. I'll go out on a limb and say the Penguins are going to win the Stanley Cup, and I know nothing about hockey or basketball.
Big deal. I did too and I know nothing about horse racing. The top three were the ones with the best odds of winning according to the bookmakers. In general if you pick the participants with the "best odds" you will "win". For example if you pick Germany over Iceland in soccer you will "win" almost 100% of the time.
100% correct. The threat is not AGW, but other man made constructs. This is why AGW is such a scam. It keeps us from addressing real problems, like LOCAL pollution, unsafe water, disappearing wetlands due to to development, etc.
Google has ads? It is 2016. Why are you still seeing ads?
Is your beard ironic too?
What are you saying? They it all looks alike? That is kind of racist.
You don't need high speed internet to get weather forecasts or to get market data. Jesus Christ.
No he wasn't. He "hacked" it previously before the demonstration. Stop lying. I agree he shouldn't have been arrested but there is no reason to lie for clicks.
He was arrested for actually hacking the website. Stop it with the clickbait headlines. This isn't the Star.
It means "easy to use". Plus it leaks all your personal information to everyone frictionlessly.
Yes. That is what I said. Conservative != GOP.
The GOP is not Conservative at all. They like to spend as much as the Democrats do. People need to find a better label for the Republicrats.
Actually Paypal is the preferred "currency" of ransomware. But dont let the facts stop you.