Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager, If ID is wrong it was an honest mistake

Categories
Intelligent Design
Just For Fun
Philosophy
Religion
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A scandalous documentary about Christian gamblers was released in 2012 with me listed in the credits. 🙂

The documentary is about a group of Christians, the Holy Rollers, that took the casinos for 3.5 million dollars. Myself, by comparison, I’ve accumulated a relatively paltry sum of $30,000 or so over the years. I’ve been tossed out of casinos and abused because I tried to use my brain in the casino. Casinos, like Darwinists, will say: Expelled No Intelligence Allowed!.

I took Turtle Creek Casino in Michigan for $6,000 before they illegally backroomed me. Similarly, I was forcibly escorted out of Hollywood Tunica (thankfully Hollywood got sued for $729,000 for pulling such stunts on other honest players like myself in an illegal way). My photo was then circulated to various casinos via the S.I.N. network:

American casinos refer to these local agreements they have with each other to immediately fax information on suspicious or undesirable players as a S.I.N. (Surveillance Information Network), an appropriate acronym.

I then started wearing quasi disguises and countermeasures to foil the S.I.N network and Facial Recognition Systems. My favorite quasi disguise was the pimp look. Unfortunately, my pimp persona got busted, and the casinos started circulating photos on the S.I.N. Network of me in my pimp outfit…I was walking into casinos, and they were already waiting for me. I had to call it quits…

And as somewhat documented in Lauren Sandler’s book Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement in the course of my casino adventures, I was pulled over for suspected drug trafficking which I described at UD in 2006 New Face of Evangelical Christianity

She reported that I pay my bills by playing cards. Well, I did not say that, but I did tell her over dinner that I won about $1,400 over the previous few weekends when I visited the casinos. She kidded me that it was rent money, but that was her perception, and it was nothing I said seriously.

She reported that I traveled to upstate New York for a card game after an IDEA meeting. That was true. But she missed the really juicy part of the story. After visiting the casino, I was put under arrest for 45 minutes by state troopers and border patrols for suspected drug trafficking up near Akwesasne, New York. About 8 squad cars descended on me. That was really cool. They released me after they determined I was just a harmless tourist….

Apparently the police thought I completed a drug deal at the casino. Come to think of it, some guy with a Mowhawk and lots of jewelry was at my table betting $400 a hand….

But my casino adventures pale in comparison to the accomplishment of my dear friend and mentor Michael Canjar professor of mathematics. He took Turtle Creek for $60,000 before they showed him the door. Canjar’s total winnings were around $250,000, a large portion of which was donated to charity…

Canjar was professor at a Catholic school in Detroit, and he managed to even recruit one of the nuns and other professors in his holy crusade against the evil casinos. Canjar reminds me of Father Fahey:

BOSTON — When the Rev. Joseph Fahey sat at the blackjack tables, he once said, it was “all for the greater glory of God.”

The Rev. Fahey, assistant for finance of the New England province for the Jesuit order, donated tens of thousands of dollars to his order with the help of card counting — the same skills that landed him on blacklists at casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, N.J.

Card counting involves keeping track of the proportion of high and low cards as cards are dealt from a deck.

The Rev. Fahey died Wednesday of an apparent heart attack at the age of 65.

“Many Jesuit missions owe a great debt to him and his abilities at the card table,” said John Dunn, who worked for the Rev. Fahey at Boston College High School.

As president of the school from 1988 to 1998, he boosted its endowment by 500 percent, financing an athletic center, library and computer laboratory.

He had a doctorate in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was ordained a priest in 1968, and was a teacher and administrator at Holy Cross College and Boston College.

He treated Boston College students to a lesson on card counting on the last day of each semester.

But Canjar and Fahey’s crusade against the evil casinos was out done by the crusade waged by the Holy Rollers:

Beyond the Holy Rollers there were several generations of the MIT Blackjack Team, Tommy Hyland’s Teams, Ken Uston’s Teams and others. I heard of one non-blackjack team once referred to as “punters” who supposedly made 2.5 billion, but their methods are guarded secrets…

Curiously, one skilled gambler by the name of Kevin Blackwood really likes ID:

There are many things about God and the Bible I still don’t quite comprehend, but I do believe firmly in an intelligent design behind the universe. I recommend Michael Behe’s excellent book, DARWIN’S BLACK BOX, for more information on the irreducible complexity of the universe.

How is it possible to beat a game of pure chance? It can be done if the rules of the games allow you to gain an advantage through Expectation Values (or Expected Values). The principle is known as Statistical Arbitrage.

Mathematician Blaise Pascal is considered the father of the notion of Expectation Values (or Expected Values). Pascal was a skilled gambler, and the notion of expected values was originally applied to gambling but has now found application in economics, finance, physics (particularly quantum mechanics).

Pascal is one of the most brilliant, and most tormented, figures in the history of mathematics. Forbidden by his father to study mathematics… was troubled by constant illness, including recurrent migraines and what proved to be cancer of the stomach. His various contacts with illness and death from 1646 on, and his own near death in a carriage accident late in 1654, together with the influence of a morbidly religious sister, turned him toward the Jansenist version of Catholicism. On this, his mental energies were increasingly expended.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/statistics/tales/pascal.html

The notion of expectation values has played a role in a minor scuffle over ID. See: The Law of Large Numbers vs. Keiths, Eigenstate, and my other TSZ critics and SSDD: a 22-sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins?.

So how does this apply to ID?

If ID is wrong, it was at least an honest mistake because even Dawkins will admit, the world looks designed.

Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived ­ including Newton, who may have been the greatest of all ­ believed in God. But it was hard to be an atheist before Darwin: the illusion of living design is so overwhelming.

Richard Dawkins
You ask the questions

But in view of expectation values, what is the better wager? Darwin or Design? To answer that question, let me make a variation of Pascal’s Wager. At a personal level, suppose one accepts ID and it turns out to be false. Suppose further that a person presumed the Intelligent Designer was God, but in the end there was no God, no ID. What is the loss? But if ID is true, and further if the Intelligent Designer is God, so much might be gained. Will you throw your soul away because of the flawed ideas of Darwin, Dennett, and Dawkins?

Even though I’m a Doubting Thomas ID-ist and creationist, despite all the pain in the world, I find it too hard to believe the universe was some mindless accident. From all that I’ve learned in the world of skillful wagering on uncertain truths (of which there are many in skilled gambling), at a personal level, as far as which wager has the most favorable expectation value, I’d take Design over Darwin any day…

Image courtesy of Salvador Cordova.
me on the Las Vegas Strip near Mandalay Bay Casino, with Luxor and Excalibur Casinos in the background

PS

What was one of the nicest experiences in my casino adventures. One that ranks highly are the intelligently designed Fountains of the Bellagio Casino set to Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody:

Comments
keiths: Evolution wasn’t important in my deconversion from Christianity, but it did play a role in my final move from theism/deism to atheism.
Evolution was not important in my lost of faith in the Old Testament (particularly the Torah) as a source of actual history. Textual criticism, obvious lifting of other sources (such as Sumerian creation tales), and the fact that modern archeology has all but nailed the last coffin nail in any notion that something like the Exodus happened the way the text says it happened. However, at this point, opposite of your experience, the more I learn of the Modern Synthesis, the less confidence I have in it as anything close to a sufficient explanation. It's the best science we have, but it's not good science. It's as soft as it gets. And for me, as an engineer, what I see going on with regard to cell replication, and the internal protein based processes within cells is loud (albeit intuitive) evidence that some super-intellect has been involved. Time will tell.CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
keiths, your story is nearly exactly the same as mine. And probably many thousands of others. Thanks for sharing. One difference, however, that I have with you. I have had, many, what you might call, “numinous experiences.” Which is to say, I have had mystical experiences that transcend ordinary “space-time reality.” So while I’m not a theist in the traditional sense, I am 100% certain that consciousness transcends the “material universe”, that consciousness is primary, and our conscious experience of space-time (via brain interfaces) has a purpose, and that other entities on the same consciousness/interface nature exist that are a lot more intelligent than humans that are guiding earth’s evolution and progress. I don’t expect you to agree, but there’s a lot more going on than meets the eye. And I am not unique in my experiences. Why am I relating this? Because you seem like a sincere fellow, and your particular station at which you find yoruself is not the end of the line. There is much more beyond it.
I had some reluctance to post about my casino adventures because it was scandalous and some people in ID circles expressed concern that I was associated with the underground subculture of Advantage Players, but maybe that got some people to loosen up in this discussion and talk about stuff they normally wouldn't. The last several comments by KeithS and this comment by CentralScrutinizer and Mark Frank's comments about his reasons for engaging in debate have made this discussion worthwhile for me, and hence I'm glad I came out of the close about my checkered past. I also had to come out of the closet regarding my unsavory associations with Advantage Players, because so much of my understanding of life and ID is seen through the lens of skilled gambling. Many of my future posts at UD will relate the way I see ID through the lens of Advantage Play. Advantage Players recognize they will be wrong frequently, but Advantage Play is about wagering on the best bet in a sea of uncertainty, not necessarily betting on what is ultimately true (impossible if one isn't God Himself). This post was an expression of how I've come to have peace about my doubts about ID, creation, YEC. It's the best bet for me personally given what little I know....scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
keiths, your story is nearly exactly the same as mine. And probably many thousands of others. Thanks for sharing. One difference, however, that I have with you. I have had, many, what you might call, "numinous experiences." Which is to say, I have had mystical experiences that transcend ordinary "space-time reality." So while I'm not a theist in the traditional sense, I am 100% certain that consciousness transcends the "material universe", that consciousness is primary, and our conscious experience of space-time (via brain interfaces) has a purpose, and that other entities on the same consciousness/interface nature exist that are a lot more intelligent than humans that are guiding earth's evolution and progress. I don't expect you to agree, but there's a lot more going on than meets the eye. And I am not unique in my experiences. Why am I relating this? Because you seem like a sincere fellow, and your particular station at which you find yoruself is not the end of the line. There is much more beyond it.CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, Probably not much. I'd probably just try to take the gun away from the guy.CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
KeithS, Actually, that's some of the bests posts I've ever read from you. Thank for taking time to look back 8 years back in the UD archives. Though my pastors would cringe to hear me say this, I'm not an inerrantist, I don't know that I ever was. More on that later... I was raised in a Roman Catholic home, accepted Old Earth and evolution, believed in God. I became an Old Earth creationist while catholic and then became a Presbyterian. I nearly lost faith in 2000-2002 timeframe when my dad was terminally ill. This was also the time after the 9/11 attacks. I was almost, but not quite an agnostic... I then read ID literature written by agnostics and atheists: Denton, Hoyle, Berlinski, Shutzenberger, Jastrow, Yockey, and later Jack Trevors. They're work was influential because I didn't want evangelistic tracts, I wanted something modestly impartial. I felt the TalkOrigins website to be too biased. Jack Trevors is an atheist, and his work on OOL has been influential on me... I also read mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, whom I quoted above. Russell actually persuaded me of the futility of materialism if true -- that the payoff in the end was zero. I also read the book Solar System Evolution and ironically that book ended so many chapters with "this is an major unsolved problem", I began to think the problem isn't solvable except via special creation. The debates on the net convinced me Darwinian evolution could not be correct, it wasn't on the same footing as electromagnetism. Common descent is a good argument but not Darwinian evolution. I then began inquiring about the geological ages, and am convinced of the youth of fossils and indications of a global cataclysm. I also now believe in the deterioration of the genome. Further, I began to have doubts about mainstream cosmology. I got accepted into an engineering program that was rich with physics for engineers in the space industry. So I got to learn cursory astrophysics, relativity, and cosmology. I fumble through the topics as you can see, but I wanted to learn. Now that I actually know what is debated, I can see why FLRW expanding space has dissent from secular quarters.... I have in the back of my mind some astrophysical observations that suggest light has travelled in a "superluminal" fashion or how ever you want to term it. When I learned of "superluminal" in cosmology class it was the first I'd heard of this as mainstream. Astronomers say the stars at the edge of our observation look awfully "old" or not much younger than stars close. Alternatively one could say, there is not much change in age of stars the farther out you look, which could mean the stars are either all old or they are all young! In any case a solution to this problem is superluminal velocity. John Hartnett wanted me to be his student as well. Maybe a good thing I wasn't, I probably would have disappointed him as I'm not that good a student. But Hartnett is a successful YEC physicist, or successful physicist period. I do not have the answers I'd like to have, but the gist of this post is that I can't comfortably write off a bet on ID, creation, and even YEC. Even if they have a remote chance of being true, the payoff at a personal level would be immeasurable. Bertrand Russell, ironically, made me believe the futility of the world if there is no God, that this whole business of us "making our own meaning" is as delusional as false religion making its own beliefs. Don't mean to offend you, but that's how I feel. If I didn't believe in God, I'd probably just want to be doped up all the time to drown out the sad state of the human condition.... Now what if YEC becomes more credible, then no matter how distasteful the Old Testament may be, no matter how cruel it makes God look to us, I would have more reason to respect it. My acceptance of the Bible today begins with ID, the possibility of creation, even YEC -- not the other way around. Anyway, I'm not saying we should agree, but I like your above postings more than anything else I've read from you because I can identify such as the issues of genocide and slavery and God's fearful cruelty. I had posted on UD my thoughts on the matter since I felt it on the minds of many: Mallicious Intelligent Design and Questions of the Old Testament God.scordova
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer #87 This one will do:
..... if I met up with you, and I had a gun, and I wanted to shoot you just for the fun of seeing you squirm, what are you going to say to me to convince me otherwise as you stand there pissing your pants?
MarkMark Frank
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
Sal, So as I think you can see, my deconversion started with my concerns about the truth of the Bible. Doubts about a young earth were more important than evolution in that regard. I shed my faith in layers. Evolution wasn't important in my deconversion from Christianity, but it did play a role in my final move from theism/deism to atheism.keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
Sorry for the long quotes. I'm not trying to pull a BA77. This is the last one, from May 7, 2009:
For what it’s worth, I was raised in a Christian home and had a strong faith as a child and a young teen. My pastor even asked me to consider whether I had a calling for the ministry. I had a Mormon friend with whom I would argue religion for hours, and after one such argument I realized that it was dishonest not to apply the same critical scrutiny to my own beliefs that I was applying to his. I found, to my shock and dismay, that my own beliefs held up no better than his. A painful period of soul-searching followed. I felt that what I had believed so strongly had to be true, and that it was impossible that my parents, my minister, and other trusted elders had taught me something that wasn’t true. It seemed impossible that so many Christians, whose faith was so palpable, could be wrong. I thought that my doubts must be a sign of weakness in me, and I felt ashamed and guilty that I had reneged on my confirmation vows. I beseeched God for guidance and for evidence of his existence. But the spark of that idea — that if Christianity (or any other idea) were true, it should hold up to critical scrutiny — never left me. I realized that knowing the truth was more important than clinging to a set of comforting beliefs, and so I remained determined to examine my beliefs critically. The process was slow and painful, and I gave up my beliefs in stages, but in the end I concluded that atheism was the only tenable position. So here I am. Though the process of discarding my Christianity was painful, I have found that the search for truth is exhilarating and that life is as wonderful, interesting and joyful for me as an atheist as it was for me as a Christian. And to my relief, it’s no longer necessary to fight the evidence in order to rationalize my faith.
keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
From December 16, 2005:
“Ask God to help you understand.” I did that many times and quite sincerely when I began losing my faith as an adolescent. I tried to ignore my doubts and let the Holy Spirit do its work. I read Christian books. I talked to ministers, one of whom introduced me to C.S. Lewis. I read Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, and The Screwtape Letters. For a while, I managed to prop up my trust in the Bible. But the problems with Christianity remained, and I was forced to jettison my faith. “He gave you a brain. Don't use your brain to question his credibility. Use it to understand what he is saying to you.” It’s not God’s credibility I’m questioning, but the Bible’s. And I AM using my brain to try to understand what he is saying, if he is there at all, by rejecting sources like the Bible that are clearly not from him. I have been accused by Christians of arrogance for believing that my human intellect is equal to the task of deciding whether the Bible is true. But what choice do I have? None of us is born already believing in the truth of the Bible. We have to decide to trust it. That decision is our responsibility, especially by the time we become adults. We can’t push the responsibility onto someone else by saying “so-and-so believes the Bible and I trust him,” because the obvious response is, “How did you know that so-and-so was correct?” We can’t say “the Bible says it’s the Word of God” because then we are assuming the truth of the claim we are testing. We can’t say, “I know the Bible is true because the Holy Spirit makes me feel its truth”, because we know that other religions have followers who feel just as sincerely and fervently that their beliefs are true. We have to use our intelligence. The responsibility is inescapable. Suppose we have souls, and that after our deaths God questions us about our beliefs. I will be able to say honestly that I used my intelligence, to the best of my ability, to seek the truth, and that I rejected the Bible because it did not appear to be God’s word. What will you say if God asks why you accepted the Bible with its contradictions, its inaccuracies, and its unflattering portrait of him? Will you be able to honestly say that you tried your best to evaluate it before deciding to believe in it?
keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
Another one, from December 18, 2005:
Josh [Bozeman -- remember him?] stoops to putting words in my mouth again: “It's okay tho, the full 1/3 of the world's population is probably okay with your view that they probably aren't men and women of conscience, considering they could worship such an immoral God.” I do think that most Christians are men and women of conscience. I grew up as a Lutheran, my grandfather was a minister in the church, and my mother is still practicing. I have many friends and relatives who are Christian. These are good folks, and I resent Josh’s cheap attempt to imply that I doubt the strength of their consciences. As a young Christian I was taught to revere the Bible and to take it literally. I had a crisis of faith when I noticed that the science I was learning was in conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible. This conflict ended up as an important factor in my eventual loss of faith, but another contributor was my discomfort at what I was reading in the Bible about law and morality. As just about every American kid does, I learned that slavery was wrong and felt the truth of it in my gut. It was therefore a shock to learn that the God of the Bible not only tolerated slavery, but also treated slaves unfairly (and brutally) under his law. This was not the God I had learned to love and worship. My pastor told me that most of the Old Testament laws had been superseded by Jesus, and that I should focus on the new law rather than the old. But I was still uncomfortable with the idea that God had done something seemingly immoral in the past. The pastor told me that what God did was by definition good, and that if what God did conflicted with my moral intuitions, then my moral intuitions needed to be modified in suitable humility. I tried to do that and was successful for a while. In the long run I arrived at the conclusion, as most of us do, that things are not good because a just God defines them that way, but rather that a just God does them because they are good. Having felt a similar urge myself, I sympathize with the need that Josh and some other Christians feel to whitewash the Old Testament and thereby align Jehovah with their morals. They want to take the Old Testament seriously, but they cannot reconcile its seamier parts with their morals except by distorting its words and messages. This takes a toll on them. Many (perhaps most) other Christians don’t even know about the strange things in the Bible, like the slavery verses and the serial genocide. They imagine the Old Testament God as a stern but always loving and just deity. I think of this God as the ‘Sunday School God’. The God they worship in their hearts is the Sunday School God. He is a far better God than the one described in the pages of the Old Testament. They’re simply not aware of any discrepancy between the two. You can hardly fault their consciences for that. Other Christians know about the problematic verses but don’t take them seriously. These Christians often see the Old Testament as the all-too-human attempt of a nomadic desert people to personalize and mythologize the ineffable God they were worshipping. These folks have no problem with the God of the Old Testament, because they see him only as a crude approximation to the real God of Christianity. They need not trouble their consciences. Josh cops out: “Keiths, you hate Christianity and you hate the Bible, so you will continue to distort everything you see within it- so I won't even deal with the many items above you confuse.” That may be the right strategy, Josh. It’s certainly easier to play the hate card than it is to construct a rational argument to show why I am mistaken. It also deflects attention from the fact that you’re unable to answer my challenges. And this way you can accuse me of distortion without having to provide any evidence for your charges.
keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Sal, Since you asked, here are some bits about my personal history of deconversion, taken from old comments at UD: December 7, 2005:
Gumpngreen writes: “Well, there are people out there that have claimed dinosaurs fossils were put in the earth as a test of some odd sort.” Aquinas (the poster, not the saint) writes: “Personally, I find it theologically dangerous and philosophically absurd to say that God deceived us in such a way.” I was raised as a biblical literalist (Missouri Synod Lutheran). For us, the Bible was the inspired word of God, front to back. It was intended to be read by all people, with no priestly interpretation required (this was a big issue for Martin Luther), so God made sure it was understandable and straightforward. The six days of creation? Six 24-hour days. The rainbow as a symbol of God’s promise not to send another global flood? Yep — rainbows didn’t happen before Noah’s time (I guess refraction is a postdiluvian phenomenon; no word on how Adam and Eve’s eyes were able to function without it). It was a sin to doubt any part of the Bible. Furthermore, doubting the Bible could lead you to doubt Jesus, and doubting Jesus could land you in hell if you died in a state of unbelief. So as a child I avoided questioning the Bible, and spent many an anxious night lying in bed, wondering if I “really” believed, and whether I might find myself in hell before morning: Now I lay me down to sleep; I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take. (And if He refuses…) I know that many of my Christian and ex-Christian friends suffered the same fears as children. Around age 12, reading what geology and astronomy had to say about the age of the heavens and the earth, doubts started to surface which I was unable to suppress. Giving up my faith in the authority of the Bible was unthinkable, but I could see no way to reconcile Genesis with what science had discovered. You can probably see where I’m going with this. It finally occurred to me that because God placed such a premium on faith, he might want to test it. After all, God explicitly allowed Satan to test Job’s faith in a horrendous way, and God Himself tested Abraham’s faith by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac. Imagine Isaac’s terror when his own father tied him up, placed him on the altar, and raised the knife to kill him. Imagine Abraham’s anguish at being commanded to do this. I felt that if God would subject Job and Abraham to such severe tests, he could certainly subject us to the much milder test of planting fossils and arranging rock layers to make the earth look ancient, or creating light already in transit to the earth from distant galaxies, to see if we really trusted His Holy Word. I felt an enormous relief at this realization, because it allowed me to maintain my trust in the Bible without forcing me to doubt the empirical discoveries of science. I discussed the idea with my pastor and he sort of half-heartedly agreed. I think he was uncomfortable, as Aquinas (the poster) is, with the idea of God doing something so deceptive. On the other hand, he may have sensed that this dilemma was threatening my faith, and so he didn’t rule it out. In any case, this accommodation in my thinking mitigated the crisis, and I continued to believe in the literal truth of the Bible for another couple of years. Eventually I allowed myself to question the Bible as I would any other book, but that is another story. My point is that people who believe that fossils are a test of faith aren’t necessarily being unreasonable, if you grant the truth of their premise that the Bible is literally true and should be interpreted straightforwardly.
keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
Mark Frank: So you don’t have an answer to the very question you are asking me?
I've asked a few. To which do you refer?CentralScrutinizer
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
I heard of one non-blackjack team once referred to as “punters” who supposedly made 2.5 billion, but their methods are guarded secrets…
I found data on one of the "punters". Alan Woods (aka Mr. Huge): http://computerprediction.com/alan-woods-worlds-most-successful-gambler
My friend and mentor Australian Alan Woods, passed away on January 28th 2008 at the age of sixty-two. He was, without a doubt the world's most successful horse-race gambler. It was estimated that at the time of his death, he was worth over £320m ($670 million US). For twenty years, he was regarded as one of the worlds best gamblers (or punters) and was generally named as one of the three biggest bettors alive. We called him...Mister Huge.He did not see racing as a sport of horses and humans, he only saw it as a never ending string of statistics and numbers. He did not socialize with the upper crust of racing. In fact he couldn't even recognize common names of Jockeys, trainers, or important racing personalities. He would brag that he had not been to a racetrack for over twenty-five years. He was the best of the game and had little interest in the beautiful animals that make up the sport. Alan was strictly a numbers guy. .... He was a losing punter at university and never developed gaming interest until later on. He was a mathematician and worked as an actuary in the 1970s. His job was to figure out how long you would live if you smoked two packs a day and didn't exercise. The insurance companies would then sell you insurance based on his numbers. In the mid 70?s, he was intrigued by reading a copy of The Revere Point Count Strategy on blackjack card counting. This was his initiation as a serious gambler, long before he was known as the Worlds Best Gambler. For three years he undertook disguises to avoid identification as he traveled from Australia to Las Vegas, playing alone or with teams of blackjack pirates. In 1982 he was tired of the travel, fake identities, and dodging the casino bosses .... For twenty years, Woods would rise to the zenith of this business and become one of the world's largest horse players. His teams of computer experts and money running agents made it all work. He directed his empire them from a luxury high-rise apartment in Manila. Over the journey he had his ups and downs but it?s reported that during one race day in 1995, Woods made $8 million. It was estimated that in the 2006-07 season, Woods accounted for 2% of the $71.46 billion total Hong Kong Jockey Club betting turnover.
scordova
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Semi OT, but related to the posts about psychopathic behavior: psychopathic criminals recidivate at a much higher rate and much earlier than other criminals. They make up about 15% of the prison population. The characteristics of psychopathy (a personality disorder) include loyalty to themselves only, lack of empathy or guilt, and being without conscience. When asked to what extent do nature and nurture influence the development of the traits and behaviors that define psychopathy, the answer is both. A study of 271 twin pairs (done by Blonigen, Carlson, Krueger, and Patrick) noted "substantial evidence of genetic contributions" in the personality construct of psychopathy. Subsequently, a study of 1,090 adolescent twin pairs (by Larrson, Andershed, and Lichtenstein) showed that "a genetic factor explains most of the variation in the psychopathic personality." (all sources: Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, by Paul Babiak PhD, and Robert D. Hare, PhD, 2006).Barb
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
[cross posted from TSZ Bayes vs. Fisher: Comment Skilled gamblers are often called Advantage Players (APs). In practice in professional Advantage Player teams (of which Blackjack Teams are the most prominent), the issue of cheating comes up. As I’ve read the anecdotes of teams that threw out members of for cheating, Bayes theorem was usually not the method used to determine cheating, but deviation from expectation. Perhaps that’s from operational convenience, but it suffices because the frequentist approach often works and the statistics are less controversial because the sample sizes are enormous. In the case of professional blackjack, teams were probably dealing on the order of millions of hands played to determine if a player is skimming profits rather than honestly pooling them with his teammates. Honesty surely had a role in the success of the Holy Rollers. The members had a sacred obligation to be honest to one’s teammates especially since $100,000 was routinely given to teammates to go out into the casino on their own, and they were on their honor to accurately account for their winning or losses. Frequently, a player would lose around $70,000 in a few hours of play since to earn money at an expectation $2,800, that implied a potential $70,000 one-standard deviation to the downside! The variance to reach their accumulated winnings of 3.5 million must have been sickening. The team counted on honesty that the player actually lost $70,000 and didn’t skim the money. If there wasn’t honesty, the team would have easily failed. There was a stretch where the team underperformed and it was suspected people were skimming profits. It was decided that one player could not be trusted and they fired him (curiously it was the one atheist on the team, so there is probably a cultural dynamic in the decision to let him go), but the larger explanation was quality control. The team was recruiting insufficiently skilled gamblers. Not that I had some major point, but why choose the Bayesian approach when a simpler avenue might suffice in practice? My “siding with mathgrrl” post argued for using simplicity when it is available. I can see using Bayes if one has a limited sample size, but in questions of OOL, it seems the frequentist approach would work just as well to establish a defensible (not absolutely proven) hypothesis.
There is a chance the managers of the Holy Rollers team were wrong, that the chance hypothesis could have been a remotely possible explanation for their season of underperformance, but again, what hypothesis are you willing to bet on when it really counts? In the Darwin vs. Design Debate, I've decided to cast my lot (pun intended) with the Intelligent Designer.scordova
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
corrected link: Cruel Logic – video Description; A brilliant serial killer videotapes his debates with college faculty victims. The topic of his debate with his victim: His moral right to kill them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9A-c8bsjcbornagain77
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Well Mark, if you want to decrease overall Psychopathic tendencies, then nurturing belief in a soul and God would be a good place to start: There are actually studies that show that people who do not believe in a soul are a little bit more anti-social than the majority of people who do believe in a soul:
Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g&feature=player_detailpage&v=XRGWe-61zOk#t=862s What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig - May 2012 - podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960's when prayer was removed from schools) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy) http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html Cruel Logic – video Description; A brilliant serial killer videotapes his debates with college faculty victims. The topic of his debate with his victim: His moral right to kill them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes - video http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/Impact_Of_Darwinism_On_Society.html
Verse and music:
Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Foreigner - I Want to know what love is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWXMtjUZWM
bornagain77
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer
2) If you do it to someone then it sets a precedent for other people doing it to you That’s essentially the same as #1. Fear of retribution. Assuming I’m willing to risk it.
Kant would argue that it follows logically that if a rule applies one person then it applies to everyone. But I won’t argue the point.
3) Most people want to be admired and accepted by their peers This is probably true by most people. And assuming that’s true, one could kill another in a way that nobody else would find out. This sort of thing happens all the time. And if you happen to be in power, then you don’t even care if someone finds out.
It is not just a case of being found out – although that makes a difference. We often want to behave in a way that others would approve of, even if there is no prospect of others ever knowing – it gives us self respect.
Most people do not like inflicting suffering and death i.e. they are compassionate That’s not a reason likely to convince someone who does not possess compassion.
Absolutely – such a person would be a psychopath.
I’m not arguing for God or morality. I’ll let God, if he exists, fight his own battles. At any rate, even if God or some “absolute morality” exists, it doesn’t change the nature of the discussion we’re having, so no need to go down that road.
So you don’t have an answer to the very question you are asking me?
So, Mark, if I met up with you, and I had a gun, and I wanted to shoot you just for the fun of seeing you squirm, what are you going to say to me to convince me otherwise as you stand there pissing your pants?
If you know of a good way of convincing a pyschopath not to kill you under these circumstances I suggest you publicise it quickly – you can make a fortune and save some people’s lives.Mark Frank
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Sal, I'm happy to elaborate, and no, it's not too much to ask. Let me do a little searching first. I've written on this topic before, and I may be able to save myself some time and trouble by copying and pasting from my earlier comments. However, I'll also make sure I directly address your questions, including the one about the impact of Darwinian evolution on my deconversion.keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
KeithS, I know we're overwhelming you with questions, but if you have time, this issue is somewhat along the lines of this thread on Pascal's Wager.
It’s not easy to give up belief in God, though the rewards are worth it in the end. I know this from personal experience.
You're welcome to elaborate since this thread was about Pascal's wager. If it's not too much to ask, how much did your acceptance of Darwinian evolution contribute to your journey form theism to atheism? This is a good chance to speak your mind on such topics. That's why I posted this thread to explore the more philosophical (not merely scientific) issues.scordova
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
LoL! keiths, your posts make you look ridiculous. We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. And an explanation of why unguided evolution expects an ONH would help your case.Joe
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
And of course, I didn't "allude to a particularly nasty slander." I linked to a comment written by kairosfocus himself. You made yourself look ridiculous, KF. Don't blame me.keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus is back to deleting comments again:
SNIP — I instructed you by warning and you responded by alluding to a particularly nasty slander. I hope I do not need to tell you further that you have long since worn out any welcome you may have had. I will leave this for you as a way you may return: have the decency to apologise and amend your ways. Shame on you! GEM of TKI
Here's the comment he deleted:
William,
If bare possibility is enough to satisfy a Darwinist or materialists that 500 heads in row is sufficiently explained by chance, then there is no evidence that can be presented that can change their minds about either the fine-tuning of the universe or about Darwinistic evolutionary “explanations”.
“Bare possibility” is NOT enough to satisfy me, or Lizzie, or anyone else that I’m aware of. We would be highly suspicious upon seeing 500 heads in a row. However, you seem to enjoy battling imaginary foes, so have at it.
keiths
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
To be clear, I am not homicidal, and have no intention of hunting down Mark and Keith. :D FWIW, I happen to agree with Mark and Keith's conclusions, but for different reasons. My reasons are rational and emotional. BTW, I am one of those #3 types that Keith describes in his blog entry at Dr Liddle's site. But I don't think he makes his case. If you're interested, I'll tell you why soon. I look at the entire swath of information as an engineer, and I think details of what's going at the molecular level militate against his conclusion. To me, the biosystem on earth is a brilliant piece of design.CentralScrutinizer
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
AF: Easy to fall into anthropomorphism here. How to you know orcas do things “for sport”?
Sure looks like they do. But then again, how do I know other humans enjoy eating the same way I do, just because they appear to? I don't even know if other people are conscious. So to answer your question, I don't know. But they sure seem like they are. And then a cat "plays" with a mouse, then kills it, and doesn't even bother to eat it, well, same deal.CentralScrutinizer
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Alan Fox: I’m sorry for your sister’s burden.
Thank you for that.CentralScrutinizer
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
By the way, are killer whales (orcas) psychopaths because they toss sea lions around for sport before they gobble them up?
Easy to fall into anthropomorphism here. How to you know orcas do things "for sport"?Alan Fox
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
She’s being dealing with this for 25 years with no relief. Is it “wrong” for her to kill herself? Oblivion sounds VERY nice to her. Why shouldn’t she “go there” immediately?
I'm sorry for your sister's burden. I happen to think that it is one's personal choice and no one else's as to whether to live or die so long as you are able to decide rationally. I don't discount the huge problem in deciding when someone else is making a rational decision. A friend's son committed suicide while depressed but without receiving much treatment. He left his wife with a two-year-old son. It's over twenty years ago now and I still wonder whether someone, including me, could have done more at the time.Alan Fox
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
CS: Unfortunately, there ARE such people. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: That’s would make you a psychopath. But I don’t for a moment think you are.
By the way, are killer whales (orcas) psychopaths because they toss sea lions around for sport before they gobble them up? Or lions psychopaths for killing gazelles? What about cats toying with mice before they eat them? Why should humans be any different? Don't give me any claptrap about how society benefits from certain behavior. That argument only works on non-psychopaths. Psychopaths don't generally give a crap about society. They just want (need?) their human livers and fava beans.CentralScrutinizer
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5