Vegas Update #1

By -
Here at the Harrah's hotel waiting for the annual APEE conference. Yesterday I walked away from the blackjack tables when I was down about 60% of my bankroll for the trip. I sat with the most annoying guy ever.

First, he was really slow in deciding what to do (like hit his 16 against the dealer face card). I'm not superstitious so I don't care if you "take" the dealer's bust card or anything like that. But if you're slow, that's just annoying.

Second, he was inconsistent in his dumb plays (so I guess that's a good thing). The best (worst) was when he split his kings against the dealer 7 or something, then got another king. Mercifully he stayed on that hand.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised to be able to sit at a $15 table and not be crowded. I had worried that the tables would be much pricier. (My first time in Vegas.)

Anyway, I was treading water and then the shoe was about +10 and I got crushed after five or six hands. Then later the final blows occurred when the shoe was around -10 and I kept getting things that I "had" to double down against the dealer 5 or 6, knowing full well I would get a 3 and the dealer wouldn't break. Ah well.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more