Category Archives: fun

Gambling advertising legal silliness

Google AdSense ads on intrade.comThe absurdity of gambling laws in the US leads to such silliness as:

  • In 2007, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! paid millions in penalties for placing gambling ads, something they haven’t done since they were told to stop in 2004.
  • Yahoo! can quote prices from intrade, but can’t link to intrade.
  • Google can’t advertise for intrade/tradesports, but can place AdSense ads on intrade.com and tradesports.com. In other words, Google can’t sell eyeballs to gambling sites, but can sell eyeballs on gambling sites.

The proverbial wisdom of crowds

I am fascinated by thingnaming.

In some ways there is no more straightforward way to certify your influence on the world than to count the number of times people use a word or phrase you invented.

On this count, James Surowiecki is a champion.1 His catch phrase the wisdom of crowds — a brilliant feat of thingnaming — has in four short years spread to over 2.1 million nooks and crannies around the web.2

In fact, BusinessWeek reporter Jennifer L. Schenker recently termed it the “proverbial wisdom of the crowd”. [Finding faces in the e-crowd, Businessweek, Dec 24, 2007, p.70]

At first I meant to poke fun at Schenker for attributing this adjective associated with adages of ancient origin to a four-year-old artifact.

However, digging further, I noticed that Schenker is right. Another use of the word proverbial is “having become an object of common mention or reference”, for example “your proverbial inability to get anywhere on time”.

Interestingly, a pun on Surowiecki’s phrase appears in the same issue of BusinessWeek. Stephen Baker’s long (yet remarkably content-free) piece on cloud computing is titled Google and the wisdom of clouds.

It’s amazing how crucial a good thingname can be to the success of a thing. Thanks James!

1Of course, beyond thingnaming, Surowiecki wrote a fantastic book that helped catalyze an industry, among his other plentiful contributions and accomplishments.
2For examples of unsuccessful thingnaming look here and here.

The Economist makes up

Here’s an update on my fractured relationship with The Economist magazine.

To my pleasant surprise, Alan Press, Vice President of Marketing & Circulation at The Economist actually posted a comment on my blog agreeing to cease and desist their renewal scare tactics!

We agree, the language is bad. We are discontinuing the use of this letter going forward, and will replace it with a message that makes clear how much we value readers like you.

(I didn’t notice the concession at first, as his comment got stuck in my Akismet spam folder for several days.)

I thought this was a stand-up gesture. I temporarily felt all warm and fuzzy about the good old days when The Economist and I first met. In all seriousness, I do appreciate the public comment and the prompt/effective action.

So are we getting back together?

That’s none of your business!

In any case, I’m happy to see blogplaining/freedbacking actually have an effect.

My ugly breakup with The Economist

Have you ever broken up with someone and their reaction was so ugly that that it made you realize how glad you are to be out of the relationship?

Me either.

But that’s how I felt after dropping my subscription to The Economist magazine.

Here is the text of my final renewal notice:

Dear David Pennock,

Your timing could hardly be worse.

Just as the world is connecting,
opening up unprecedented opportunities …

…you go and break your connection to The Economist.

Is it the bottom line? Cost cutting? It’s true you’ll save a bit by cutting The Economist. But think what you’ll lose. Bottom lines don’t replace communication lines. Won’t you please use this opportunity to reinstate your subscription and restore your special world-connection?

Or, as I interpret it: “Please please please, you stupid cheapskate.” I guess there’s nothing like a pretentious magazine marketing department scorned.

Sorry, Economist, you have a lot going for you and I enjoyed our time together, but it’s time to move on.

Checkers bot can't lose… Ever

Mathematicians, third graders, and talkative defense department computers alike all know that there is an infallible way to play tic tac toe. A competent player can always force at least a tie against even the most savvy opponent.

In the July issue of Science, artificial intelligence researchers from the University of Alberta announced they had cracked the venerable game of checkers in the same way, identifying an infallible strategy that cannot lose.1

It doesn’t matter if the strategy is unleashed against a bumbling novice or a flawless grandmaster, it can always eke out at least a tie if not a win. In other words, any player adopting the strategy (a computer, say) makes for the most flawlessy grandmasterest checkers player of all time, period.

The proof of correctness is a computational proof that took six years to complete and was twenty-seven years in the making.

Tic tac toe and checkers are examples of deterministic games that do not involve dice, cards, or any other randomizing element, and so “leave nothing to chance”. In principle, every deterministic game, including chess, has a best possible guaranteed outcome2 and a strategy that will unfailingly obtain it. For chess, even though we know that an optimal strategy exists, the game is simply too complex for any kind of proof — by person or machine — to unearth it as of yet.

The UofA team’s accomplishment is significant, marking a major milestone in artificial intelligence research. Checkers is probably the first serious, popular game with a centuries-long history of human play to be solved, and certainly the most complex game solved to date.

Next stop: Poker

Meanwhile, the UofA’s poker research group is building Poki, a computer player for Texas Hold’em poker. Because shuffling adds an element of chance, poker cannot be solved for an infallible strategy in the same way as chess or checkers, but it can in principal still be solved for an expected-best strategy. Although no one is anywhere near solving poker, Poki is probably the world’s best poker bot. (A CMU team is also making great strides.)

Poki’s legitimate commercial incarnation is Poker Academy, a software poker tutor. An unauthorized hack of Poker Academy [original site taken down; see 2006 archive.org copy] may live an underground life as a mechanical shark in online poker rooms. (Poki’s creators have pledged not to use their bot online unidentified.)

Poker web sites take great pains to weed out bots — or at least take great pains to appear to be weeding out bots. Then again, some bot runners take great pains to avoid detection. This is a battle the poker web sites cannot possibly win.

1Technically, tic tac toe is “strongly solved”, meaning that the best strategy is known starting from every game position, while the UofA team succeeded in “weakly solving” checkers, meaning that they found a best strategy starting from the initial game board configuration.
2The best possible guaranteed outcome is the best outcome that can always be assured, no matter how good the opponent.

Betcha loses a battle; Not the war?

That didn’t take long.

Betcha is (was) an honor-based peer-to-peer betting service based in Seattle. On July 9, the Washington State Gambling Commission swept into Betcha’s offices, Gestapo style, confiscating everything, right down to their Programming PHP manual. Founder Nick Jenkins is now staring straight in the face of our country’s unconscionable forfeiture laws: you know, the ones that give law enforcement the right to sell Nick’s stuff on eBay and keep the proceeds, without ever charging him with a crime.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on the raid. The vast majority of the commenters sided with Betcha, urging Washington State officials to find better uses for their time and tax money, lamenting Washington’s ever-growing “Nanny State” credentials, and decrying the seemingly corrupt and hypocritical gambling politics involved.

To Nick and other Betcha employees and investors: Thank you for taking this risk and putting your stake in the ground, even if the current outcome is not what you’d hoped for. I hope you have the wherewithal to see this through to your day in court so that, if nothing else, we can get some clarity in the law. Here’s to hoping you’ve simply lost a battle and not the war.

Readers: Go to Betcha’s site to sign up for email updates and find out how to help.

Betcha's gambit

Betcha is bold. To say the least. The founder Nick Jenkins is either crazy, brilliant, or, like many founders, both. Betcha is a platform for peer to peer betting not unlike gottabet, betfair, or intrade. Except for two (intimately related) details: (1) all debts are on the honor system, and (2) it’s based in Seattle, WA, UIGEA. Betcha makes no bones about it ( no “wink wink” here): they expect users to bet on anything and everything including sports. But because coughing up is not strictly enforced, the site evades the letter of the gambling laws. To engender trust, Betcha verifies its users’ credit cards and tracks their reputation scores, but in the end all payments are voluntary. The site earns money via listing fees.

I can’t help but admire Jenkins and Co., and I hope their gambit succeeds: my heart is with them even if my head is a step behind. (For more legal discussion see Tom Bell and The Boston Globe.)

And as much as I like the concept, I do have to ding Betcha for one of the most convoluted, head-scratching explainers I’ve heard in a long time:

“As an open, honor-based betting platform, Betcha is like an auction site, Las Vegas, a marketplace of ideas, and The Golden Rule — all rolled into one. [1]

[1] “The Golden Rule” refers to the idea that you should do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. It is the fundamental principle behind most of the world’s major religions. And while we aren’t here to push religion on anyone, doing well by others is a principle we’d like to see more of.

Whaa? Four (weak) analogies plus a long-winded footnote? C’mon, Betcha, please KISS.

Pushing email

DictionaryRecently my daughter, nearing 2 1/2, was playing with an old laptop we keep in the family room. She was pressing keys and buttons to varied effect, her giggles contagious. Suddenly she called out, “I’m pushing email! I’m pushing email!” My wife & I couldn’t stop laughing. We had never explicitly taught her the word “email”, though she had clearly caught on to that thing that mommy does in the office every day or so.

The phrase “pushing email” makes perfect sense to a toddler, to whom a computer is simply a toy with more buttons than usual.

But that got me thinking: The phrase also makes perfect sense to an email-drenched 36 year old. “Pushing” is exactly what emailing feels like. The constant influx in various queues (work, personal, filtered), to be dealt with one at a time: Delete? File? Mark? Reply? Hold? Route? More than any other communications medium, email involves connecting one peer to another: introducing, forwarding, routing, re-routing, and mediating. At any given time, hundreds of threads intersecting me may be in midstream somewhere awaiting a “push” from someone (usually me!). Not to mention the physical aspects of typing and mousing.

I can’t imagine a better extension of the inbox/outbox metaphor than the image of pushing electronic papers around.

In keeping with my self-appointed hobby of amateur lexicographer (I know, I know: keep my day job), I’m going to start using the phrase. IMHO it’s both more fun and more accurate than the alternatives I can think of: “checking”, “answering”, “doing”, “dealing with”, etc.

Gotta run. You know why.

Lance Fortnow, 2002-2007


0000

0001 Recently

0010 Lance Fortnow

0011 retired from blogging.

0100 Computer scientists everywhere mourn.

0101 Was one of the first.

0110 Still is one of the best.

0111 At one time topped search “web log”!

1000 A great voice a great craftsman, search great theoretician

1001 Goodbye blogger Lance your wit and wisdom sorely missed

1010 Goodbye blogger Lance your pagerank link juice refer power withdrawn

1011 Update: Twain Jobs Favre now Fortnow: return! Demise reports exaggerations great

Challenge: Low variance craps strategy

This is the first of a series of challenge posts. I’ll pose a problem in the hopes of convincing the wise Internauts to come forth with solutions. I intend the problems to be do-able rather than mind boggling: simply intriguing problems that I’d love to know the answer to but haven’t found the time yet to work through. Think of it as Web 2.0 enlightenment mixed with good old fashioned laziness. Or think of it as Yahoo! Answers, blog edition.

Don’t expect to go unrewarded for your efforts! I’ll pay ten yootles, plus an optional and unspecified tip, to the respondent with the best solution. What can you do with these yootles? Well, to make a long story short, you can spend them with me, people who trust me, people who trust people who trust me, etc. (In lieu of a formal microformat specification for yootles offers, for now I’ll simply use the keyword/tag “yootleoffer” to identify opportunities to earn yootles, in the spirit of “freedbacking”.)


dice So, on with the challenge! I just returned from a pit stop in Las Vegas, so this one is weighing on my mind. I’d like to see an analysis of strategies for playing craps that take into account the variance of the bettor’s wealth, not just the expectation.

Every idiot knows the best strategy to minimize the casino’s edge in craps: bet the pass line and load up on the maximum odds possible. The odds bet in craps is one of the only fair bets in the casino, so the more you load up on odds, the closer the casino’s edge is to zero. But despite the fact that craps is one of the fairest games on the casino floor, it’s also one of the highest variance games, meaning that your money can easily swing wildly up or down in a manner of minutes. So on a fixed budget, craps can be exceedingly dangerous. What I’m looking for is one or more strategies that have lower variance, and are thus less risky.

So that this challenge is not vague and open ended, let me boil this overall goal down into something fairly specific:

The Challenge: Suppose that I walk into a casino with $200. I arrive at a craps table that has a $5 minimum bet and allows 2X odds. I’m looking for a strategy that:

  1. Has at least some chance of making a profit (otherwise, why bother?), and
  2. Maximizes the expected amount of time (number of dice rolls) that my $200 will last.

I prefer if you ignore the center bets in your analysis. Bonus points if you examine what happens with different budgets, table limits, and/or allowed odds. Another way to motivate this is as follows: I have a small fixed budget but want to hang around a high-limit table for as long as possible, because I get a better atmosphere, more drinks, and a glimpse of life as a high roller.

As an example, here is a strategy that appears to have very low variance: On the come out roll, bet on both the pass line and the don’t pass line. If the shooter rolls 2, 3, 7, or 11 you break even. If the shooter rolls 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, or 10, you’re also guaranteed to eventually break even. The only time you lose money is when the shooter rolls a 12 on a come out roll, in which case you lose your pass line bet and keep your don’t pass bet (i.e., you lose half your total stake). There’s only one problem with this strategy: it’s moronic. You have absolutely no possibility of winning: you can only either break even or lose. One thing you might add to this strategy to satisfy condition (1) is to take or give odds whenever the shooter establishes a point. Will this strategy make my $200 last longer on average than playing the pass line only?

For bonus points, I’d love to see a graph plotting a number of different strategies along the efficient frontier, trading off casino edge and variance. Another bonus point question: In terms of variance, is it better to place a single pass line bet with large odds, or is it better to place a number of come bets all with smaller odds?

To submit your answer to this challenge, post a comment with a link to your solution. If you can dig up the answer somewhere on the web, more power to you. If you can prove something analytically, I bow to you. Otherwise, I expect this to require some simple Monte Carlo simulation. Followed of course by some Monte Carlo verification. 🙂 Have fun!

Addendum: The winner is … Fools Gold!