Vegas Update #2

By -
OK so we're talking about liberty, free markets, blah blah at the APEE conference. Now let's talk Blackjack.

So I can't resist sitting down at my hotel's (Harrah's) single deck $10 minimum table. The house pays 6-5 on Blackjack but that doesn't seem like such a big deal. They also hit soft 17s, which I assume must help the house but again doesn't seem like a big deal.

(Now what the dealer tells me 10 minutes after I sit down is that you can't take even money when you have blackjack against the dealer Ace. Gee whiz, I thought Vegas was supposed to be fun.)

OK so I am a little hesitant with the whole I-hold-the-cards thing. The dealer starts baby-talking me through the routine, e.g. I have to flip the cards if I want to double down and so forth.

Anyway, I have an 18 (face down, mind you!) and the dealer shows an Ace. The count wasn't anything special, so I don't take insurance. The dealer checks, he doesn't have it. So I push my cards out--FACE DOWN--by my chips, to show that I'm standing.

The dealer says, "A push," and flips his seven. THEN he flips my hand.

Do you folks understand the significance of that?!?!?! I have two theories:

(A) I misheard him; he didn't say that we pushed.

(B) He realized I was counting cards (it's pretty obvious with a single player and single deck) and thought that my awkwardness with handling the cards in the face-down game was an attempt to hustle him. So he wanted to subtly let me know that he was my daddy.

Comments

  1. Anonymous7:54 AM

    Oh Yeah, he's your daddy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:02 AM

    What was your overall?

    Dan the "Push" Ayres

    ReplyDelete

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