Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Speed Metal is love (Score 1) 121

as someone who saw Carcass and Obituary in Nov, and who is about to see Napalm Death (and Voivod, and Black Crown Initiate, and Ringworm, and ...)... WTF does your post have to do with anything?

OH!

You're saying that these intense, but short, broadcasts are examples of interstellar speed metal; a-la Napalm Death's sub-second song "You Suffer" ... ?

then say so!

Comment Re:This has been know for a while... (Score 3, Insightful) 121

don't be a hater; it's a solid "B" effort from the parent-post. You can argue it down to a "C", but that's as far as you'll get. Lulling the reader into submission (your complaint about it taking too long) is an actual STRATEGY. Are you familiar with how certain readers can gloss over typos? That's what our beheaderaswp is using as a trapping action. Now you can also argue that the barb "never going to give" isn't worth burying with the lead-up, but while humor bursts from the unexpected there is also a joy in the familiar. I'm sorry if this attempt isn't up to your standards, but it hits the standard.

Comment Re:Rubbish, and reversed (Score 4, Informative) 154

the detonation of the atomic bomb is a perfectly reasonable way to mark the beginning of a new epoch, because there is a very real and easily identifiable geologic marker for that event (radioactive isotopes & plastic in the topsoil.) if millions of years from now aliens discovered our planet and looked through geological data, and wanted to classify periods based on that data, it's a safe bet that the sudden proliferation of radioactive isotopes and appearance of an entirely new substance (plastic) would be something that they noticed.

as for the necessity of defining a new epoch - would you deny that humans have profoundly changed the planet? no value judgements being made here, just straight facts, the planet is WAY FUCKING DIFFERENT than it was 1000 years ago due to human population explosions and human construction. also, lots of newly-extinct species.

but, i at least agree with you about nuclear power being the solution to a lot of our problems, if we would stop being such pussies about it. that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, though.

Comment Re:Real world results? (Score 1) 340

that's because humans are terribly bad at sticking to a gameplan or making 'random' decisions.

the correct play in many situations is going to be something like "based on the current size of the pot, and that it costs $X to call, i should raise 20% of the time, call 40% of the time, fold 40% of the time" because that is what a simple lookup table will tell you. math doesn't lie and can't be bluffed or intimidated.

a computer is shockingly effective at sticking to a gameplan like that and otherwise completely ignoring the opponent's actions. humans, not so much. the computer simply cannot be exploited and you cannot out-strategize it. the best you can do is break even.

note that perfect-play only means 'dont ever lose' which is totally different from 'win the most you can.' a really good human poker player is going to be much better at fleecing noobs than this bot, but this bot will always slowly beat anyone, even the best of the best, unless they also play perfectly (and thus tie.)

Comment Re:Yes, but... (Score 1) 340

you will be bled dry before you hit a big hand. we are talking heads up short stack. you can only afford like 10 - 20 blinds total before you are out! good luck waiting on AK!

the ironic thing is, you will probably hit your AK after you have been bled down to like 2x the big blind. congrats, you just doubled up! your opponent is still sitting on a stack 10x your size. better hope your next two hands are AK too!

Comment Re:Bets (Score 1) 340

if hand = [2, 7] {
            int x = Math.random();
            if (x > 0.97) {
                            raise();
            }
            elseif (x > 0.9) {
                            call();
            }
            else {
                            fold();
            }
}

there, you just got bluffed by a robot. easy peasy!

Comment Re: Bets (Score 1) 340

the robot is actually far better at making rational decisions than you are. the robot is not intimidated, cannot be bluffed. it does not care what you do, it just makes the best play in every situation.

the best play will not be 'if my hand is X and the table is Y, always fold'. you are correct that you could potentially exploit completely predictable behavior. that would not be a perfectly-playing robot.

the best play will be 'if my hand is X and the table is Y, fold 75% of the time, call 15% of the time, raise 10% of the time'

you cannot outsmart that strategy, you cannot trick it, you cannot even 'read' it - the best you can do is also play the odds perfectly.

otherwise you will slowly lose all your money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...