Only if the casinos don't reshuffle often enough. I can't for the life of me understand why they don't use eight decks and reshuffle after four or five. Then the card counting edge will almost never be big enough to give the counters an edge. And for the non-counters it obviously makes little difference.
Does anyone know why the casinos don't do this? It seems so fantastically obvious to me, and the casino operators are not stupid.
Not a problem in real life. As someone pointed out, you have to be able to count in order to count cards. So the card counters are all asians.
(This was obviously a joke, but it's worth noting that the main character in Ben Mezrich's "Bringing Down the House" was asian.)
No. Maybe I am not quite clear here. Let me be more specific.
www.domain.com works as it should. No problems there. But just domain.com gives an error message (Network Error (dns_server_failure)). That's just inexcusably poor.
I understand that. But my point is that if your public website does not route from domain.com to www.domain.com automatically, you do not know what customer service is. The fact that you can also have different services running at support.domain.com and docs.domain.com is besides the point.
Most programs which turn text into clickable URLs look for www.* (which btw. is one of the reasons for not omitting www from the URL although it is technically not necessary either.)
Another reason is incorrectly configured DNS'es. Some domains don't accept.com but require www..com. Embarrasingly, I have to confess that this applies both to my employer and my internet bank. Pretty good reasons to switch jobs and banks, if you ask me... (This applies to the www part. The http:/// part is added implicitly by the browser, of course, and so is only needed for other protocols.)
OK, I'll admit, I'm the last person of my generation who is not yet on Facebook, so please excuse my ignorance here, but is it really the case that if you "friend" someone, you can't unfriend that person later? That sounds just nuts, for so many reasons.
And even if you can't do it yourself, surely contacting support and have them do it for you should be possible?
It's interesting to ask yourself this: Are you actually going for minimal time (i.e. a race) or maximum calories burnt (i.e. exercise / training)? If it's the second, then completing the course in less time (or effort) is a bad thing.
No, that is only true if you go very slowly. Let's say you run 10K in 50 minutes, and that's your absolute personal best. If you instead run 10K in 55 minutes, you will spend less calories. Yes, you exercise five minutes longer, but at a more convenient pace, so you spend less calories per minute. This breaks down at even lower speed, where you will spend even fewer calories per minute, but add too much time, for an increase in total calories spent.
Obviously, what pace is the most energy efficient varies depending on fitness and loads of other factors. But as a general rule, going 10% slower than your absolute max is usually more efficient. And, as you note, "efficient" may not be what one is after if, for instance, weight loss is the objective. Then spending more calories is better.
I have a Polar 625SX. It stores heartrate info for easy transfer to the computer. There are two files generated. Both are proprietary, but one is considered secret and the other is well documented. I can't remember what the contents was of the first file, but the second, readable, file had all the HR, speed and distance information I needed. I have written some simple programs that calculate kilometer times and other basic stuff, so I can confirm that it works and is as simple as you can hope for.
As for privacy, that data is stored locally. There are loads of applications on the web you can use to load that data to, but I have never seen the need for that.
If you are the least bit serious about this, do note that Polar, Suunto and Garmin all are high quality options. The Nike+ stuff is terrible and should be avoided. You can't configure it and the precision is just god-awful. My wife has it. According to that, she would probably win the Olympics in most distances. She is fit, but not that fit...
Personally, I think one of the best indicators of over-high car prices is the explosive growth of car rentals and the aftermarket. No, wait, that doesn't make any sense!
Agreed, most hobbies cost way, way more than WoW. One of the few cheaper ones is online poker, and obviously only if you don't suck at it. Then again, if you play poker to win, the proper way to do it is to grind, and that is pretty boring. (Unles you are a world class player. Chances are, if you read this on/., you are not a world class player.)
15% isn't normal. Madoff's stated returns were less than that, and even that was high enough to be considered borderline incredible. Even 5% is high if the investment is very low risk.
No, millions of people did not lose a significant chunk of their retirement account. And if you believe thousands of people helped him, you really have no clue.
Running a legitimate fund may or may not be difficult. Running a ponzi scheme is much simpler (in terms of people needed to do it).
So, there's dozens of pro online players that have made millions playing, and the vast majority of losers are losers because of the rake? WHAT?!
No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. The skill and results of all players is essentially normally distributed, but the rake shifts everyone quite a bit to the left. So there is a fairly large set of players who are losers overall but who would be winners playing in a rake free environment. (Ceterus paribus, which a rake free environment wouldn't be.)
This does not mean that "the vast majority of losers are losers because of the rake". But it does mean that a sizeable minority of losers are losers because of rake. Some site a few years ago said that ~5% of players were serious winners, ~10% were "casual winners" and the rest essentially losers. And stats reveal the reasonable normal distribution of results. This means that roughly 1 player in 3 is a loser because of rake. (In reality less because of rakeback and promotions.)
But just like stock returns, this curve has fairly large kurtosis and skewness. Some people are compulsive gamblers with no skills and no self control, and they are obviously *huge* donors.
You ban gambling because there's some jackass at the other end just taking in money for doing nothing.
Not true. They provide entertainment. It may not be entertainment to you, but you are of course free to refrain from participating. By your logic, we should outlaw opera. After all, I hate opera, so why allow it?
No. Chess is a game of complete information; poker is a game of incomplete information. Any strategy has to involve some element of speculation about what other players are going to do. That's an art, not a science.
This is not correct. It is almost certain that there is a poker strategy that is unexploitable, and which does not take opponent information into account. This is simple game theory.
That said, we are very very far from having such a strategy available. And, more importantly, while such a strategy can't be exploited, it doesn't extract the maximum amount of money from the opponent(s). In fact, unless the opposition is completely crappy, it may not even beat the rake. So in real life, taking opponent action into account will be needed.
I can't believe we are still seeing this crap posted so regularly. Online poker has been available for a rather long time now. For instance, PokerStars just celebrated dealing their 25th billion hand. Thus, there are fantastically large data sets of hand histories and many, many people going through these data sets.
Guess what they find? That the dealing is random, that some people are consistent winners and, because of the rake, most people are losers.
Has it ever happened that people have colluded at the tables? I have no proof that it has happened, but I am willing to bet my life that it has happened some times. Of course it has. The thing is, most of these colluders are not skilled enough to make money out of it. Playing good poker is difficult. Successfully colluding is actually no less difficult. If you are bright enough to do that, you can win alone, just as easily.
Think of it this way: assume that you are a winning player. Would it be to your advantage to play five out of ten hands on one ten-handed table, or to play one hand on five different tables? If you think the former is better you are completely incorrect.
I am a Swede. I can agree that when the weather is fine we try to be outdoors, but again, this does not mean that we shut down our Bittorrent clients. My computers run 24/7, all three of them.
Can you prove this, or are you just talking out of your ass?
It is completely the latter. Unemployment is expected to rise in Sweden (like in most of the western world) but it hasn't happened yet to that extent. And even when unemployment rises, internet subscriptions won't drop by much.
Ehh, no? I can't imagine the weather having much impact on Bittorrent traffic. It's not like you sit and watch the downloads after you have started them, do you? You start the download, then do something else (on or off the computer).
There may be a summer reduction in Internet traffic due to students leaving campus, but I really doubt that has anything to do with the weather.
Lying to your kids about brands? Yeah, that works really well! I suggest you store that post somewhere safe, then reread it when you get kids. Should be good for a laugh and a blush.
My kids know that they can't have everything they want. That won't stop them from asking, but they do take no for an answer. But suggesting that they are this ignorant is, well, just that.
Like every other parent in the world, I obviously think that may kids are far more intelligent than any other kids ever. But in this case, I know for a fact that they are *exactly* like every other kid.
Many people say "Ipod" in the same way they say "Kleenex" or "Xeroxing" or "Hoovering".
Two days ago I would have said that you were wrong. Yesterday I had a discussion with my 9 year old daughter. She wanted an iPod. I told her she already had an mp3-player. She looked at me like the conversation had been:
Daughter: "I want a bike!"
Wise father: "But you already have a desk"
Look on daughter's face suggesting her father had completely lost it.
I tried to ask her what the difference was between an mp3-player and an iPod. Of course she couldn't tell me. That didn't make her change her mind in the least. She ended the discussion by adding "iPod" to our grocery list and leaving the kitchen.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know why the casinos don't do this? It seems so fantastically obvious to me, and the casino operators are not stupid.
Not a problem in real life. As someone pointed out, you have to be able to count in order to count cards. So the card counters are all asians.
(This was obviously a joke, but it's worth noting that the main character in Ben Mezrich's "Bringing Down the House" was asian.)
www.domain.com works as it should. No problems there. But just domain.com gives an error message (Network Error (dns_server_failure)). That's just inexcusably poor.
I understand that. But my point is that if your public website does not route from domain.com to www.domain.com automatically, you do not know what customer service is. The fact that you can also have different services running at support.domain.com and docs.domain.com is besides the point.
Most programs which turn text into clickable URLs look for www.* (which btw. is one of the reasons for not omitting www from the URL although it is technically not necessary either.)
Another reason is incorrectly configured DNS'es. Some domains don't accept .com but require www..com. Embarrasingly, I have to confess that this applies both to my employer and my internet bank. Pretty good reasons to switch jobs and banks, if you ask me... (This applies to the www part. The http:/// part is added implicitly by the browser, of course, and so is only needed for other protocols.)
OK, I'll admit, I'm the last person of my generation who is not yet on Facebook, so please excuse my ignorance here, but is it really the case that if you "friend" someone, you can't unfriend that person later? That sounds just nuts, for so many reasons.
And even if you can't do it yourself, surely contacting support and have them do it for you should be possible?
It's interesting to ask yourself this: Are you actually going for minimal time (i.e. a race) or maximum calories burnt (i.e. exercise / training)? If it's the second, then completing the course in less time (or effort) is a bad thing.
No, that is only true if you go very slowly. Let's say you run 10K in 50 minutes, and that's your absolute personal best. If you instead run 10K in 55 minutes, you will spend less calories. Yes, you exercise five minutes longer, but at a more convenient pace, so you spend less calories per minute. This breaks down at even lower speed, where you will spend even fewer calories per minute, but add too much time, for an increase in total calories spent.
Obviously, what pace is the most energy efficient varies depending on fitness and loads of other factors. But as a general rule, going 10% slower than your absolute max is usually more efficient. And, as you note, "efficient" may not be what one is after if, for instance, weight loss is the objective. Then spending more calories is better.
I've always whined about progress (over a 90 year life)
FYP
I have a Polar 625SX. It stores heartrate info for easy transfer to the computer. There are two files generated. Both are proprietary, but one is considered secret and the other is well documented. I can't remember what the contents was of the first file, but the second, readable, file had all the HR, speed and distance information I needed. I have written some simple programs that calculate kilometer times and other basic stuff, so I can confirm that it works and is as simple as you can hope for. As for privacy, that data is stored locally. There are loads of applications on the web you can use to load that data to, but I have never seen the need for that. If you are the least bit serious about this, do note that Polar, Suunto and Garmin all are high quality options. The Nike+ stuff is terrible and should be avoided. You can't configure it and the precision is just god-awful. My wife has it. According to that, she would probably win the Olympics in most distances. She is fit, but not that fit...
Personally, I think one of the best indicators of over-high car prices is the explosive growth of car rentals and the aftermarket. No, wait, that doesn't make any sense!
Agreed, most hobbies cost way, way more than WoW. One of the few cheaper ones is online poker, and obviously only if you don't suck at it. Then again, if you play poker to win, the proper way to do it is to grind, and that is pretty boring. (Unles you are a world class player. Chances are, if you read this on /., you are not a world class player.)
My understanding, after listening to Mr Cheney, is that waterboarding isn't torture, so you'll have to think of something else, I'm afraid.
15% isn't normal. Madoff's stated returns were less than that, and even that was high enough to be considered borderline incredible. Even 5% is high if the investment is very low risk.
Running a legitimate fund may or may not be difficult. Running a ponzi scheme is much simpler (in terms of people needed to do it).
So, there's dozens of pro online players that have made millions playing, and the vast majority of losers are losers because of the rake? WHAT?!
No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. The skill and results of all players is essentially normally distributed, but the rake shifts everyone quite a bit to the left. So there is a fairly large set of players who are losers overall but who would be winners playing in a rake free environment. (Ceterus paribus, which a rake free environment wouldn't be.)
This does not mean that "the vast majority of losers are losers because of the rake". But it does mean that a sizeable minority of losers are losers because of rake. Some site a few years ago said that ~5% of players were serious winners, ~10% were "casual winners" and the rest essentially losers. And stats reveal the reasonable normal distribution of results. This means that roughly 1 player in 3 is a loser because of rake. (In reality less because of rakeback and promotions.)
But just like stock returns, this curve has fairly large kurtosis and skewness. Some people are compulsive gamblers with no skills and no self control, and they are obviously *huge* donors.
You ban gambling because there's some jackass at the other end just taking in money for doing nothing.
Not true. They provide entertainment. It may not be entertainment to you, but you are of course free to refrain from participating. By your logic, we should outlaw opera. After all, I hate opera, so why allow it?
No. Chess is a game of complete information; poker is a game of incomplete information. Any strategy has to involve some element of speculation about what other players are going to do. That's an art, not a science.
This is not correct. It is almost certain that there is a poker strategy that is unexploitable, and which does not take opponent information into account. This is simple game theory.
That said, we are very very far from having such a strategy available. And, more importantly, while such a strategy can't be exploited, it doesn't extract the maximum amount of money from the opponent(s). In fact, unless the opposition is completely crappy, it may not even beat the rake. So in real life, taking opponent action into account will be needed.
Guess what they find? That the dealing is random, that some people are consistent winners and, because of the rake, most people are losers.
Has it ever happened that people have colluded at the tables? I have no proof that it has happened, but I am willing to bet my life that it has happened some times. Of course it has. The thing is, most of these colluders are not skilled enough to make money out of it. Playing good poker is difficult. Successfully colluding is actually no less difficult. If you are bright enough to do that, you can win alone, just as easily.
Think of it this way: assume that you are a winning player. Would it be to your advantage to play five out of ten hands on one ten-handed table, or to play one hand on five different tables? If you think the former is better you are completely incorrect.
So you can't spell "there" but expect random users to spell at least somewhat reasonably? Fail, in my book.
I am a Swede. I can agree that when the weather is fine we try to be outdoors, but again, this does not mean that we shut down our Bittorrent clients. My computers run 24/7, all three of them.
Can you prove this, or are you just talking out of your ass?
It is completely the latter. Unemployment is expected to rise in Sweden (like in most of the western world) but it hasn't happened yet to that extent. And even when unemployment rises, internet subscriptions won't drop by much.
Ehh, no? I can't imagine the weather having much impact on Bittorrent traffic. It's not like you sit and watch the downloads after you have started them, do you? You start the download, then do something else (on or off the computer). There may be a summer reduction in Internet traffic due to students leaving campus, but I really doubt that has anything to do with the weather.
My kids know that they can't have everything they want. That won't stop them from asking, but they do take no for an answer. But suggesting that they are this ignorant is, well, just that.
Like every other parent in the world, I obviously think that may kids are far more intelligent than any other kids ever. But in this case, I know for a fact that they are *exactly* like every other kid.
As a third option, I offer "we don't buy stuff the kids add to the list".
Two days ago I would have said that you were wrong. Yesterday I had a discussion with my 9 year old daughter. She wanted an iPod. I told her she already had an mp3-player. She looked at me like the conversation had been:
Daughter: "I want a bike!"
Wise father: "But you already have a desk"
Look on daughter's face suggesting her father had completely lost it.
I tried to ask her what the difference was between an mp3-player and an iPod. Of course she couldn't tell me. That didn't make her change her mind in the least. She ended the discussion by adding "iPod" to our grocery list and leaving the kitchen.