I have no interest in looking at digg's comments as long as it's not threaded and not moderated. I visit the digg page from my reader to follow the link to the article and nothing more.
So I use digg for the articles and not the comments. I use slashdot for the comments and not the articles (I usually don't RTFA). slashdot's strength is the moderation of a large number of comments (only the best ones get my eyeballs), and digg's strength is the moderation of a large number of articles (only the best ones get my eyeballs).
So comparing the number of comments on each isn't really going to matter (to me). I imagine you could easily count the number of articles on each and it could be lopsided the other way. I didn't RTFA here either, but if they're comparing the "digg effect" vs the "slashdot effect" on those hosting the articles, then that sounds like a more interesting comparison.
Who pays for the programming when everyone uses a dvr?
Perhaps when everyone uses a DVR we end up getting popup-style ads that annoy during the show? At that point, don't we all run to google to show us "better-targeted, less-irritating" ads (b/c they do it best)?
Each hand is an independent event (card-wise), so this doesn't really
matter like it would in a multi-deck blackjack shoe. And, assuming
we're talking about hold'em, "counting cards" is much more important in
7-card stud. In hold'em, you have your 2 cards and the 5 cards on the
board, and those cards never disappear. In 7-stud, each player
(eventually) gets 4 cards face-up, and as they fold their cards get
discarded, so it is beneficial to remember what they had showing.
3. Can compute probability
This helps, but the majority of calculations are pretty simple and
memorizable. If you have 4 to a flush with one card to go, you have a
9/46 chance to hit it, or about 20%. For any given hand, it is the
number-of-outs (cards that give you the probable winning hand) divided
by potential cards left (46 - you don't count cards that are in others'
hands since they're not known).
4. Has no emotions, so it won't get stressed or
tired
This is certainly applicable, but it's only half the battle. The other
half is those effects on the opponents. If the bot is playing against
humans, it helps to know the probable frame of mind that those players
are in. Have they just lost a tough hand or a big pot? They're more
likely to throw their money around in frustration. Do they have a small
stack with large blinds approaching? They'll have a
back-against-the-wall mentality (prepare for an all-in bet, etc.) Are
they chatting? (are they aggressive? are they quiet? are they drunk?)
5. And will always make the right move probability-wise
Probability-wise regarding their own cards, yes. Can it determine what
the probability of a certain opponent bluffing in a certain situation
(on a certain hand in a certain point of a tournament)?
Poker is a game
of incomplete information, and you have to be able to extract as much
information from your opponents as possible. It's a lot more than just
bet/check/fold depending on your 2 cards and the board's X cards.
Based on some of the IT people I have worked with, taking some English courses and being able to actually compose a readable email could go a long way.
If you give people a better alternative, they will (probably) use it, but if you try to preach about W3C standards they'll just ignore you.
In fact, they'll ignore you for far less than preaching.
I had a friend bring his laptop over and within 30 seconds of connecting to the 'net he got a Sasser popup and his machine rebooted. I told him what happened (he hadn't heard of the Sasser virus). I could have jumped on the IE soapbox, but instead I (halfway-poking-fun-at-him) said "if you would stop using IE, this wouldn't happen." I then enlightened him about Firefox, and his response was "you're one of them!" To him, I was pushing him some inferior software to help some geeky movement.
Over dinner that night he was trying to explain to me how this was an aberration. He started saying "Of the couple viruses I've had," at which point my wife started cracking up (she, of course, being a Firefox convert, has never had a virus).
Anyway, I considered sending this article to him, but I'm afraid he's going to view it as "preaching" and will do even more harm.
This was the case until 1998, when an official misheard the player call it in the air. He heard "heads", and when it came up tails he awarded the toss to the opposing team. The player (Jerome Bettis) actually called "tails". Since then, they have the player call it before the toss so that this mistake can't happen again.
This wouldn't help. They'd enter contests, undoubtedly lose (not win), and then feel the need to justify their coding 'talents' in another way.
And we're right back at virus-writing.
Someone once wrote a nice article about why it helps to be stupid when you want to play football, because _thinking_ is not what you want to do when you're standing in front of the goal with an open shot.
Yeah.. if the player were any smarter he'd realize he was actually playing basketball
The jist of the theory is, a panel of experts would make a educated "bet" based soley on intuition, and the average of their guesses usually came up with "close" answers. That is what these two project are hoping to achieve, a cummulative, and perdictive, "best guess".
...and, the more participants you have, the more accurate the consensus is likely to be. While newsfutures has ~12,000 registered (but not necessarily active) users, the sports betting industry is huge.
I tested this in the sports section of newsfutures.com.. Hypothesis: in general, the Vegas lines will be more accurate than the "going rate" on newsfutures. Fast-forward a year or so, and I reached as high as #7 in the rankings and never fell out of the top 20 thereafter. (Note: I turned the initial $10,000 into $4 million using this simple concept)
On a side note, is picking games in today's NFL any more scientific than finding a lost submarine?:)
Slashdot Mirror
I have no interest in looking at digg's comments as long as it's not threaded and not moderated. I visit the digg page from my reader to follow the link to the article and nothing more.
So I use digg for the articles and not the comments. I use slashdot for the comments and not the articles (I usually don't RTFA). slashdot's strength is the moderation of a large number of comments (only the best ones get my eyeballs), and digg's strength is the moderation of a large number of articles (only the best ones get my eyeballs).
So comparing the number of comments on each isn't really going to matter (to me). I imagine you could easily count the number of articles on each and it could be lopsided the other way. I didn't RTFA here either, but if they're comparing the "digg effect" vs the "slashdot effect" on those hosting the articles, then that sounds like a more interesting comparison.
Who pays for the programming when everyone uses a dvr?
Perhaps when everyone uses a DVR we end up getting popup-style ads that annoy during the show? At that point, don't we all run to google to show us "better-targeted, less-irritating" ads (b/c they do it best)?
I disagree - http://www.google.com/search?q=bacon+site%3Asnpp.c om
1. Has a perfect poker face
Doesn't matter online..
2. Can count cards
Each hand is an independent event (card-wise), so this doesn't really matter like it would in a multi-deck blackjack shoe. And, assuming we're talking about hold'em, "counting cards" is much more important in 7-card stud. In hold'em, you have your 2 cards and the 5 cards on the board, and those cards never disappear. In 7-stud, each player (eventually) gets 4 cards face-up, and as they fold their cards get discarded, so it is beneficial to remember what they had showing.
3. Can compute probability
This helps, but the majority of calculations are pretty simple and memorizable. If you have 4 to a flush with one card to go, you have a 9/46 chance to hit it, or about 20%. For any given hand, it is the number-of-outs (cards that give you the probable winning hand) divided by potential cards left (46 - you don't count cards that are in others' hands since they're not known).
4. Has no emotions, so it won't get stressed or tired
This is certainly applicable, but it's only half the battle. The other half is those effects on the opponents. If the bot is playing against humans, it helps to know the probable frame of mind that those players are in. Have they just lost a tough hand or a big pot? They're more likely to throw their money around in frustration. Do they have a small stack with large blinds approaching? They'll have a back-against-the-wall mentality (prepare for an all-in bet, etc.) Are they chatting? (are they aggressive? are they quiet? are they drunk?)
5. And will always make the right move probability-wise
Probability-wise regarding their own cards, yes. Can it determine what the probability of a certain opponent bluffing in a certain situation (on a certain hand in a certain point of a tournament)?
Poker is a game of incomplete information, and you have to be able to extract as much information from your opponents as possible. It's a lot more than just bet/check/fold depending on your 2 cards and the board's X cards.
Based on some of the IT people I have worked with, taking some English courses and being able to actually compose a readable email could go a long way.
Where do I apply for these positions? I can be twice as efficient as these guys by browsing spyware-free with my [non-IE] browser.
If you give people a better alternative, they will (probably) use it, but if you try to preach about W3C standards they'll just ignore you.
In fact, they'll ignore you for far less than preaching.
I had a friend bring his laptop over and within 30 seconds of connecting to the 'net he got a Sasser popup and his machine rebooted. I told him what happened (he hadn't heard of the Sasser virus). I could have jumped on the IE soapbox, but instead I (halfway-poking-fun-at-him) said "if you would stop using IE, this wouldn't happen." I then enlightened him about Firefox, and his response was "you're one of them!" To him, I was pushing him some inferior software to help some geeky movement.
Over dinner that night he was trying to explain to me how this was an aberration. He started saying "Of the couple viruses I've had," at which point my wife started cracking up (she, of course, being a Firefox convert, has never had a virus).
Anyway, I considered sending this article to him, but I'm afraid he's going to view it as "preaching" and will do even more harm.
This was the case until 1998, when an official misheard the player call it in the air. He heard "heads", and when it came up tails he awarded the toss to the opposing team. The player (Jerome Bettis) actually called "tails". Since then, they have the player call it before the toss so that this mistake can't happen again.
This wouldn't help. They'd enter contests, undoubtedly lose (not win), and then feel the need to justify their coding 'talents' in another way. And we're right back at virus-writing.
Case pieces (boxes, bureaus, etc...) appear more balanced and pleasing to the eye when the golden ratio is followed.
Same can be said for centerfolds.
I thought he did?
"Personally, I got toothpaste, tic-tacs, deodorant, and a McDonalds coupon book in the same package."
Think they are trying to tell you something?
Tell him something? This sounds normal to me - I use all four on every first date.
The jist of the theory is, a panel of experts would make a educated "bet" based soley on intuition, and the average of their guesses usually came up with "close" answers. That is what these two project are hoping to achieve, a cummulative, and perdictive, "best guess".
...and, the more participants you have, the more accurate the consensus is likely to be. While newsfutures has ~12,000 registered (but not necessarily active) users, the sports betting industry is huge.
:)
I tested this in the sports section of newsfutures.com.. Hypothesis: in general, the Vegas lines will be more accurate than the "going rate" on newsfutures. Fast-forward a year or so, and I reached as high as #7 in the rankings and never fell out of the top 20 thereafter. (Note: I turned the initial $10,000 into $4 million using this simple concept)
On a side note, is picking games in today's NFL any more scientific than finding a lost submarine?