5 ms·

Reminds me of Limitless movie. Probably gambling (no identity required to start) is good idea for the first step, and stock exchange is good idea for the second

by adontz 10y ago

Reminds me of Limitless movie. Probably gambling (no identity required to start) is good idea for the first step, and stock exchange is good idea for the second step.

downandout 10y ago
Yeah, definitely gambling to start. He could simply play through (or watch others play) a full blackjack shoe. Since he now knows the starting order of the cards, with his supercomputer mind he could easily analyze the shuffle, know the exact order of the cards after it, and bet accordingly - knowing in advance what hands both he and the dealer will have. In a place like Vegas he could easily win $1 million in one night, starting with a nominal amount ($100 for example). Then he could move onto the financial markets.
- tomschlick 10y ago
  You wouldn't get to see the shuffle though, as most casinos will use an auto shuffler that shuffles one shoe while the other is in play. 6-8 decks would be hard to figure out until maybe halfway through. Could do some analysis on the probability of a face card though that would really pay off towards the end of the shoe.
  - ec109685 10y ago
    There are a lot of games that don't use auto shuffler still.
  - downandout 10y ago
    Many casinos don't use auto-shufflers on all games, especially on higher limit games, because gamblers generally don't trust them. This applies to all casinos on the Strip that I'm aware of. Re: it being hard to figure out on 6-8 decks, the scenario presented was that his mind is a supercomputer with perfect memory and he has perfect vision. So he could very easily determine the exact order of an unlimited number of cards by watching the shuffle and knowing the starting order of the cards (that being said, you can walk into any high end casino on the strip and play up to 6 blackjack spots at $10,000 each on a hand-shuffled, double deck game - MGM, Aria, Bellagio, Mandalay Bay, Caesars Palace, The Mirage, etc). You're thinking in terms of human constraints; that's not what this hypothetical was about.
    - tomschlick 10y ago
      Fair enough, I wasn't considering the high limit rooms use a manual shuffle. Still it would be pretty suspicious to walk in, go straight to a high limit table, watch a full shoe, wait until a shuffle happens, then buy in and shoot for the max and win more than the odds say you should.
blastrat 10y ago
Finance Theory, the study of stock markets and related matters and which is recognized as an academically rigorous subfield of economics, does not offer the conclusion that being smarter is enough to win in the stock market. I suppose you could say you could subscribe to and read all the news tickers more quickly? but you'd still have the problem of knowing what to do with the info, like you'd still have to realize how a 1 degree warmer temperature someplace would affect the banana crop, along with you'd have to know everything single thing everybody else in the world knows about their local industry, which the description didn't really say you could do. To put it another way, IBM didn't conclude that they should plug their Jeopardy winning supercomputer into the market and let it trade stocks. To put it another nother way, the "perfect market hypothesis" says the best you are going to do is what the market is already doing, which is a good thing, it stops you from falling behind, but it doesn't put you ahead. Now, you might say "what about Warren Buffett", but that's probably more along the lines of the robot's buy and sell people skills, like maybe go into real estate and be a super good salesman coaxing people to buy where there is a lot of sloppy money on the table. There is not a lot of money lying around the stockmarket; while we hear of winners, they are always balanced by losers, and nobody yet knows if the two can be separated in advance.
- aphextron 10y ago
  >Finance Theory, the study of stock markets and related matters and which is recognized as an academically rigorous subfield of economics, does not offer the conclusion that being smarter is enough to win in the stock market. Renaissance would refute that point
  - blastrat 10y ago
    I understand what you are saying, but to inform other people it would be better if you indicated that you know what I'm saying. Refute the point? I disagree. if this robot could do approximately what Renaissance has been already doing, that would not create wealth, that would take Renaissance's milkshake and share it for two, or worse, by creating competition, dry up Renaissance's milkshake for both. i.e. the money that Renaissance is making is not "lying around to be taken", it's already being wrung out of the market, and is being picked up and put in somebody's pocket, Renaissance's. And for perspective, what Renaissance has been doing for all the time it has existed (65 billion in 25 years is your unicorn) is less than what Apple did, less than what Microsoft did before that, less than Berkshire Hathaway, etc. Facebook... Google... Uber is already closing in on Renaissance's value in a fraction of the time and in terms of trendline will blow past it. "Money lying on the floor of the stock exchange" is nothing compared to actual value creation. Still, Renaissance is a pretty good gig for some uber mathnerds who realize they don't actually have other ways to create value (as our robot does) so I'd give it a bump for low opportunity cost.

by adontz 10y ago

Reminds me of Limitless movie. Probably gambling (no identity required to start) is good idea for the first step, and stock exchange is good idea for the second step.

downandout 10y ago

Yeah, definitely gambling to start. He could simply play through (or watch others play) a full blackjack shoe. Since he now knows the starting order of the cards, with his supercomputer mind he could easily analyze the shuffle, know the exact order of the cards after it, and bet accordingly - knowing in advance what hands both he and the dealer will have. In a place like Vegas he could easily win $1 million in one night, starting with a nominal amount ($100 for example). Then he could move onto the financial markets.

tomschlick 10y ago
You wouldn't get to see the shuffle though, as most casinos will use an auto shuffler that shuffles one shoe while the other is in play. 6-8 decks would be hard to figure out until maybe halfway through. Could do some analysis on the probability of a face card though that would really pay off towards the end of the shoe.
- ec109685 10y ago
  There are a lot of games that don't use auto shuffler still.
- downandout 10y ago
  Many casinos don't use auto-shufflers on all games, especially on higher limit games, because gamblers generally don't trust them. This applies to all casinos on the Strip that I'm aware of. Re: it being hard to figure out on 6-8 decks, the scenario presented was that his mind is a supercomputer with perfect memory and he has perfect vision. So he could very easily determine the exact order of an unlimited number of cards by watching the shuffle and knowing the starting order of the cards (that being said, you can walk into any high end casino on the strip and play up to 6 blackjack spots at $10,000 each on a hand-shuffled, double deck game - MGM, Aria, Bellagio, Mandalay Bay, Caesars Palace, The Mirage, etc). You're thinking in terms of human constraints; that's not what this hypothetical was about.
  - tomschlick 10y ago
    Fair enough, I wasn't considering the high limit rooms use a manual shuffle. Still it would be pretty suspicious to walk in, go straight to a high limit table, watch a full shoe, wait until a shuffle happens, then buy in and shoot for the max and win more than the odds say you should.

blastrat 10y ago

Finance Theory, the study of stock markets and related matters and which is recognized as an academically rigorous subfield of economics, does not offer the conclusion that being smarter is enough to win in the stock market. I suppose you could say you could subscribe to and read all the news tickers more quickly? but you'd still have the problem of knowing what to do with the info, like you'd still have to realize how a 1 degree warmer temperature someplace would affect the banana crop, along with you'd have to know everything single thing everybody else in the world knows about their local industry, which the description didn't really say you could do. To put it another way, IBM didn't conclude that they should plug their Jeopardy winning supercomputer into the market and let it trade stocks. To put it another nother way, the "perfect market hypothesis" says the best you are going to do is what the market is already doing, which is a good thing, it stops you from falling behind, but it doesn't put you ahead. Now, you might say "what about Warren Buffett", but that's probably more along the lines of the robot's buy and sell people skills, like maybe go into real estate and be a super good salesman coaxing people to buy where there is a lot of sloppy money on the table. There is not a lot of money lying around the stockmarket; while we hear of winners, they are always balanced by losers, and nobody yet knows if the two can be separated in advance.

aphextron 10y ago
>Finance Theory, the study of stock markets and related matters and which is recognized as an academically rigorous subfield of economics, does not offer the conclusion that being smarter is enough to win in the stock market. Renaissance would refute that point
- blastrat 10y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but to inform other people it would be better if you indicated that you know what I'm saying. Refute the point? I disagree. if this robot could do approximately what Renaissance has been already doing, that would not create wealth, that would take Renaissance's milkshake and share it for two, or worse, by creating competition, dry up Renaissance's milkshake for both. i.e. the money that Renaissance is making is not "lying around to be taken", it's already being wrung out of the market, and is being picked up and put in somebody's pocket, Renaissance's. And for perspective, what Renaissance has been doing for all the time it has existed (65 billion in 25 years is your unicorn) is less than what Apple did, less than what Microsoft did before that, less than Berkshire Hathaway, etc. Facebook... Google... Uber is already closing in on Renaissance's value in a fraction of the time and in terms of trendline will blow past it. "Money lying on the floor of the stock exchange" is nothing compared to actual value creation. Still, Renaissance is a pretty good gig for some uber mathnerds who realize they don't actually have other ways to create value (as our robot does) so I'd give it a bump for low opportunity cost.