Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

(I think it actually installed the entire application into the roaming folder ???? I don't want to believe it but it was 1.2 gigabyte large.)

[silverspawn]

Lots of luck today. If the next 10 days also go like this, I think I may consider my lifetime poker luck about even

[silverspawn]

Okay GPT-4, in response to you answering my question perfectly, I will now delete the conversation without saying thanks.

[silverspawn]

Ok why does the theorem that says that any finite sequence of natural numbers can be transformed into a single natural number without information loss not have a name? I posit that this should be more interesting to normal people than the Incompleteness theorem. And the proof is so simple that normal people can understand it, too!

[Jimmmmm]

Something like, "Concatenate them, inserting '100...001' at the start and between each consecutive pair, where '100...001' contains one more 0 than the longest string of 0s found in a number in the sequence" should work, right?

So, { 53, 10001, 270 } becomes 1000015310000110001100001270.

 (You could reduce the length of the resulting number by using a cleverer [but potentially more confusing] separator.)

[silverspawn]

Something like, "Concatenate them, inserting '100...001' at the start and between each consecutive pair, where '100...001' contains one more 0 than the longest string of 0s found in a number in the sequence" should work, right?

So, { 53, 10001, 270 } becomes 1000015310000110001100001270.

 (You could reduce the length of the resulting number by using a cleverer [but potentially more confusing] separator.)

I think that would work. I was trying to construct a counter-example, but your "one more" rule means you can always identify what is and isn't a separator, and from there it should be unambiguous.

The construction I learned is a lot more mathematically elegant (and even bijective!) though maybe not practical. It's (x0, x1, x2, x3, ..., xn) -> p0^x0 * p1^x1 * ... * pn ^ xn where the pi are prime numbers. So e.g., 120 = 2* 60 = 2*2*30 = 2*2*2*15 = 2*2*2*3*5, so  f((3,1,1)) = 120.

[Jimmmmm]

Ah yes, much more elegant, and follows easily from the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. Essentially using the primes as a sort of multiplicative base.

Although, it's only bijective if you exclude sequences of length 2 or more which end in a 0 (obviously 0s are necessary in general).

[silverspawn]

Pillage definitely hands out ruins

[silverspawn]

Ah yes, much more elegant, and follows easily from the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. Essentially using the primes as a sort of multiplicative base.

Although, it's only bijective if you exclude sequences of length 2 or more which end in a 0 (obviously 0s are necessary in general).

That's true! But I think there's a simple fix: we map (x0, ..., xn) to p0^x0 * ... * pn^(xn+1)

So (mostly looking at a few to convince myself that this works, also I'm curious how they enumerate)

* () maps to 1
* (0) maps to 2
* (1) maps to 4
* (0,0) maps to 3
* (1,0) maps to 6
* (0,1) maps to 9
* (2) maps to 8
* (3) maps to 16
* (2,0) maps to 12
* (0,2) maps to 27
* (0,0,0) maps to 5

Yeah, seems legit. I think.

[faust]

It is however not bijective because no sequence maps to 0 

[silverspawn]

For some reason the question of how sequences will be enumerated is really interesting to me, so I wrote a script to compute a couple

1 -> []
2 -> [0]
3 -> [0, 0]
4 -> [1]
5 -> [0, 0, 0]
6 -> [1, 0]
7 -> [0, 0, 0, 0]
8 -> [2]
9 -> [0, 1]
10 -> [1, 0, 0]
11 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
12 -> [2, 0]
13 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
14 -> [1, 0, 0, 0]
15 -> [0, 1, 0]
16 -> [3]
17 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
18 -> [1, 1]
19 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
20 -> [2, 0, 0]
21 -> [0, 1, 0, 0]
22 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0]
23 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
24 -> [3, 0]
25 -> [0, 0, 1]
26 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
27 -> [0, 2]
28 -> [2, 0, 0, 0]
29 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
30 -> [1, 1, 0]
31 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
32 -> [4]
33 -> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0]
34 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
35 -> [0, 0, 1, 0]
36 -> [2, 1]
37 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
38 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
39 -> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]
40 -> [3, 0, 0]
41 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
42 -> [1, 1, 0, 0]
43 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
44 -> [2, 0, 0, 0, 0]
45 -> [0, 2, 0]
46 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
47 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
48 -> [4, 0]
49 -> [0, 0, 0, 1]
50 -> [1, 0, 1]
51 -> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
52 -> [2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
53 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
54 -> [1, 2]
55 -> [0, 0, 1, 0, 0]
56 -> [3, 0, 0, 0]
57 -> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
58 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
59 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
60 -> [2, 1, 0]
61 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
62 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
63 -> [0, 2, 0, 0]
64 -> [5]
65 -> [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0]
66 -> [1, 1, 0, 0, 0]
67 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
68 -> [2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
69 -> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
70 -> [1, 0, 1, 0]
71 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
72 -> [3, 1]
73 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
74 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
75 -> [0, 1, 1]
76 -> [2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
77 -> [0, 0, 0, 1, 0]
78 -> [1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]
79 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
80 -> [4, 0, 0]
81 -> [0, 3]
82 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
83 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
84 -> [2, 1, 0, 0]
85 -> [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]
86 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
87 -> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
88 -> [3, 0, 0, 0, 0]
89 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
90 -> [1, 2, 0]
91 -> [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0]
92 -> [2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
93 -> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
94 -> [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
95 -> [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
96 -> [5, 0]
97 -> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
98 -> [1, 0, 0, 1]

[silverspawn]

It is however not bijective because no sequence maps to 0 

[silverspawn]

It is very annoying when someone you talked to, after you present them with evidence for X, simply adjusts their model to retroactively fit the evidence, even though you deliberately tried to clarify what does and doesn't count as evidence for X ahead of time

[silverspawn]

very annyoing

[silverspawn]

very very very annoying

[heron]

roulette

Not sure if you were only talking about cheating without technological aids, but people have successfully cheated at roulette multiple times already, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons

[silverspawn]

roulette

Not sure if you were only talking about cheating without technological aids, but people have successfully cheated at roulette multiple times already, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons

I was mostly thinking of cheating because I sort of model it as "actually kind of legitimate way to win the game" in my head, but this is also interesting. (Almost everything related to gambling methods/cheating/security is interesting to me, idk why.)

Though casinos certainly wouldn't consider it legitimate. They tend to view things less as "what's fair" and more as "what threatens our prospects to make money". Even card counting in Blackjack, which to me feels obviously legitimate, can apparently get you kicked out (though it's not illegal).

[silverspawn]

It took two years to develop the computerized system. By 1978, it was working and the group went to Las Vegas to make money at it. Eventually the system was split between two persons: an observer and a bettor. The observer would tap input signals with the foot, the bettor would receive output signals underneath their shirt. The average profit was 44% for every dollar. However, there were problems: in one case the insulation failed and the bettor received electric shocks from the solenoids. But she kept placing bets, so the observer, who in this case was Farmer, left the table, so that the bettor would be forced to leave as well. Afterwards it turned out that the solenoid had burned a hole into her skin. Some members of the group had already left because of trouble juggling the academic schedule with the Eudaemons, but the burning incident caused the two leaders to disband the group. Collectively they had managed to make about $10,000.

This would make for a pretty great movie scene

[silverspawn]

Speaking of blackjack, the whole counting thing is just intuitively ridiculous to me. Like, you've designed this game that only gives a very slight edge to the bank, with this in-built, relatively easy-to-do, and (to me) totally legitimate feeling strategy that can tilt the odds in your favor (from -.5% to +.5-1.5% according to GPT-4) and is also not illegal and very hard to detect. So now you gotta spend significant resources coming up with clever ways to kick out people who employ it. What a bizarre way to design a gambling game.

[silverspawn]

Compared to this, poker makes infinity more sense as a gambling game. Because there the casino's edge doesn't depend on player skill, so it has a profit with actual 0% risk and negligible (or in case of tournaments, also 0) variance. And since the casino doesn't mind, players can actually legitimately play for positive EV if they're good

[Jimmmmm]

Speaking of blackjack, the whole counting thing is just intuitively ridiculous to me. Like, you've designed this game that only gives a very slight edge to the bank, with this in-built, relatively easy-to-do, and (to me) totally legitimate feeling strategy that can tilt the odds in your favor (from -.5% to +.5-1.5% according to GPT-4) and is also not illegal and very hard to detect. So now you gotta spend significant resources coming up with clever ways to kick out people who employ it. What a bizarre way to design a gambling game.

The "strategy" basically being to understand the game and pay attention.

[silverspawn]

The "strategy" basically being to understand the game and pay attention.

Yeah, exactly. It's bizarre that you're not supposed to do that.

[silverspawn]

So I think I was right that players on GGpoker are very soft. They also don't fold. So I think you just gotta play a very straight-forward style. Which is very different from what's profitable a bit higher up, where it's all about abusing said very solid style.

[silverspawn]

Played a bunch on GGPoker now. Observations:

- People are really soft. Bigger difference than I had expected. On PokerStars, at [the same stakes actually about half the stakes even though both is called 5ct/10ct because stack size and anti], every once every few sessions you see a player doing something obviously stupid like preflop all-inning with a bad hand or calling down with his full stack with a  middle pair. Here, it's like once per session per table, unless i got a biased sample.

- There is a super awesome animation of a dancing guy playing when someone wins a big pot. I think you can't turn it off

- The are actually sparkling effects when you hit a good hand. Like I just completed flush and it had an animation to show me. Maybe I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Thanks, GGPoker!

- There's money raining down! So some players randomly get cash. I think this is a thing until the end of January. And wouldn't you know it, I actually got 2.5$ or something, which is not insignificant relative to the rake.

- If two people go all-in, the last cards of the flop are revealed VERY SLOWLY. Sometimes, you even have to press an extra button.

- When the pot is won before the River, there are bunny(? idk why) themed cards dealt. When you click on them, it shows you what the remaining cards would have been

- People can express themselves using various dumb emotes and there's even a chat box

- HUDs like from PockerTracker are disallowed; instead you automatically get some very basic data about players. So you should take tons and tons of notes. This aspect is actually quite relevant and interesting

- Once when I won an opponent's entire stack (we went all-in preflop and I had AA vs KK; this was pure bad luck from my opponent; going all-in there is 100% the right play), I won some kind of tournament ticket as an extra reward. There is just so much random shit on this platform

- There's a thing called 'straddle' where several people can decide to post extra money before seeing their hands for some reason. This is obviously something you should never do.

So yeah, in other words, it's a giant dumb spectacle. But you can just play regular poker (though no sit&gos for whatever reason), and honestly this is probably more profitable than the pokerstars tournament I was specializing in. It's also much easier. On the first day I tried to be clever and counter the staight-forward tight-aggressive style that pokerstrategy.com teaches everyone, but that's not the way to go. The way to go is just to employ said straight-forward tight-aggressive style, with only occasional deviations. Like I said earlier, I think the more clever and bluffy play will work on higher stakes. Here, too many people just don't want to fold.

[silverspawn]

I feel like statistically, at some point in my life, I ought to have accidentally thought the socially appropriate thing and said the unappropriate thing. Kinda weird that this never happened.