Showing posts with label July 07. Show all posts
Showing posts with label July 07. Show all posts

Thursday, July 7, 2016

How ‘Advantage Players’ Game the Casinos

03387bf0-9bc9-4dd5-84fc-931473032e3a

As the casino’s racks of $5,000 and $25,000 chips were being depleted and refilled, phones rang in the gaming pit. Edgy casino personnel crowded the table. Sun recalls six men in suits watching her intensely.  When a partner failed to bet quickly enough, she grabbed his chips and made the wager herself. Cheung Yin Sun wanted to get through the eight-deck stack of 416 cards before Aria personnel could recognize what was going on.  She feared that their play would be discovered and “that they wouldn’t let me cash my chips.” Sun ended the game prematurely — but ahead by $1,100,000 ($1.1 mil). At the cashier’s cage, she pressed the casino employees, whose hands she says were trembling, to hurry and convert the chips to dollars. Few gamblers take such substantial sums in cash, usually preferring a check instead.

Over the coming week, Sun and her highly organized group used the same strategy to beat more Las Vegas casinos, including Treasure Island and Caesars Palace. They made a trip to Foxwoods Resort Casino in Mashantucket, Conn. Eventually Sun recruited the celebrity poker pro Phil Ivey, who is also known as a high-stakes gambler at craps and baccarat.  During the next year, he wired seven-figure sums to various casinos and did the betting. Sun did the edge-sorting of the cards and tipped off Ivey whether to wager on banker or player. Their combined winnings in Atlantic City, London and other places were in the eight figures.

Over the course of four sessions of gambling at private tables at Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa in Atlantic City alone, the pair won $9,600,000 ($9.6 mil).

Cheung Yin Sun. is known for having won more than $20,000,000 ($20 mil) from casinos in less than five years.  Elite Western gamblers and rattled casino bosses know her as Kelly, a fast-talking, sunglasses-wearing advantage player in her 40s. Her father, now deceased, was a wealthy factory owner based in Hong Kong. She says she lost $20 million of his money playing baccarat and slot machines. She claims to be unbothered by having blown a fortune in gambling dens around the world. In fact, she all but brags about her losses.

How ‘Advantage Players’ Game the Casinos – The New York Times


Filed under: Uncategorized

Who is Donald Trump’s base? Why is he popular? Why are people voting for him? Why do people like and support him?

They’re mainstream of USA society, who disagree with the elites on the direction that the country should take.  Trump supporters look to Brexit and see only one thing: Freedom.  The elites favor globalism. The mainstream favors nationalism. The majority feels it is attacked by aggressive minorities. The city elites favor immigration, the more the better, legal or illegal. The mainstream does not like that. The elites secretly detest American national identity. The mainstream likes it and does not want to see it dissolved in a bunch of random people held together only by money and the taste for ethnic restaurants.  The mainstream feels it has no representation. Everyone has candidates pandering to them: big business, gays, lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, minorities. The mainstream feels abandoned by both Republicans and Democrats.  It’s nation-state supporters, the core of the nation that feels unrepresented.  In a quagmire of special interest groups, passive-aggressive “victims”, obnoxious Social Justice Warriors professing supposed Superior Virtue of the Oppressed , a handful of rainbow-style mentality advocates who comically imagine against the evidence that they are the oppressed mainstream of the society – the mainstream is not that.  They value independence, sovereignty, controlled borders, no illegal immigration, national character, national identity, are distrustful of global institutions. An exact opposite of metropolitan “elites”.  American politics, like politics everywhere actually, has simply become more polarized. It’s not about money or education. It’s about outlook on life: what a country should be, and whether the direction that it takes is good or bad in perception of the people, like the Brexit.  Basically, elites do not talk at all about political polarization, that would be… inconvenient. They like to believe other things, in spite of demonstrable data: Apparently cats got their tongues.  But in general, I should actually like that – nothing turns voters off more than condescension of the elites. It’s actually good that they are so blinkered.

Answer by Marcin Krol:

There’s a wealth of actual data available if you bother to google for them, here are some good sources:

Who Are Donald Trump's Supporters, Really?

The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support

Clearly, they’re mainstream of USA society, who simply disagree with the elites on the direction that the country should take.

Uneducated hicks who do not understand the world?

Such people do not have median income of $72K/year (Trump supporters) vs $61K/year (Sanders, Clinton supporters).

It’s a conflict of worldviews more than that of dollars or government services. Example:

Trump supporters look to Brexit and see only one thing: freedom

Minutes later, when describing his already notorious golf press conference in Scotland on Friday morning after the Brexit vote to an adoring crowd, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said: “I gave an answer about the pound because somebody asked me about the pound.” He added: “It sounds like I care about the pound. No, I care about the country.”

Note the source: The Guardian. Even the left in UK is not as blinkered re Trump supporters as most of the American elites.

The elites favor globalist outlook. The mainstream favors nationalist outlook. The majority feels it is attacked by aggressive minorities. The city elites favor immigration, the more the better, legal or illegal. The mainstream does not like that. The elites secretly detest American national identity. The mainstream likes it and does not want to see it dissolved in a bunch of random people held together only by money and the taste for ethnic restaurants.

The mainstream feels it has no representation. Everyone has candidates pandering to them: big business, gays, lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, minorities. The mainstream feels abandoned by both Republicans and Democrats. Check this out:

Yes, it’s nation-state supporters, the core of the nation that feels unrepresented.

In a quagmire of special interest groups, passive-aggressive “victims”, obnoxious Social Justice Warriors professing supposed Superior Virtue of the Oppressed , a handful of rainbow-style mentality advocates who comically imagine against the evidence that they are the oppressed mainstream of the society – the mainstream is not that.

They value independence, sovereignty, controlled borders, no illegal immigration, national character, national identity, are distrustful of global institutions. An exact opposite of metropolitan “elites”.

The icing on the cake? As of today, Trump would get 33% of Hispanic vote. Therefore, the support for Trump is nothing what the elites desire to think it is.

American politics, like politics everywhere actually, has simply become more polarized. It’s not about money or education. It’s about outlook on life: what a country should be, and whether the direction that it takes is good or bad in perception of the people. The Brexit is a good example.

Basically, elites do not talk at all about political polarization, that would be.. inconvenient. They like to believe other things, in spite of demonstrable data:

Apparently cats got their tongues.

But in general, I should actually like that – nothing turns voters off more than condescension of the elites. It’s actually good that they are so blinkered.

Who is Donald Trump's base? Why is he popular? Why are people voting for him? Why do people like and support him?


Filed under: Uncategorized

How intelligent is George W. Bush?

This question is very deceptive. Bush’s intelligence is not really the question. His effectiveness as a leader is what is being asked, really. I think Bush was at best a mediocre intelligence. I think I did better than he did in school and I think I am smarter than he is. But that’s just ny opinion. I also think he was a great and effective leader who accomplished almost all of his objectives. He was a great leader the same way the leader of the lemmings is great enough to lead all the lemmings off the cliff. Bush got his idiot followers to devastate the nation. He could lead, but he couldn’t make good decisions or the correct choices and he almost always re-inforced failure.  Bush was stupid and he made bad choices over and over and when they were discovered to be wrong he doubled down on them and lost again. It’s never too late to make a losing bet. It’s easy to ask if Bush was stupid but all you have to do is see the results of his very effective leadership to know the answer — he was a moron of the highest caliber who not only destroyed Iraq and killed, wounded and displaced millions of people, but also brought this nation from its zenith in power, prestige and prosperity to its nadir in shame, derision, disrespect, financial bankruptcy and debt (not to mention losing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ossetia, North Korea and Somalia) in just 8 short years. He gave Al Qaeda every single thing they wanted. He fought the Iraq war for the benefit of Iran, who turned out to be the only real victor.  George W. Bush was a blind moron whose actions devastated this country at a time when we could have been doing a thousand good things like building bridges or going to Mars or replacing schools. Instead he mortgaged the future to lose a major was in the Middle East.

Answer by Jay Bazzinotti:

This question comes up from time to time on Quora and it is very deceptive. Bush’s intelligence is not really the question. His effectiveness as a leader is what is being asked, really. I think Bush was at best a mediocre intelligence. I think I did better than he did in school and I think I am smarter than he is. But that’s just ny opinion.

I also think he was a great and effective leader who accomplished almost all of his objectives. He was a great leader the same way the leader of the lemmings is great enough to lead all the lemmings off the cliff. Bush got his idiot followers to devastate the nation. He could lead, but he couldn’t make good decisions or the correct choices and he almost always re-inforced failure.

And I never thought his father was a doddering fool. Anyone who mistakes the former head of the CIA as a fool is really STUPID. Old Bush had people tortured and killed, you better believe it. But he did it in secret the way you’re supposed to do it. Young Bush, being stupid, had many people tortured and killed, many of them innocent. But he HAD to let it be discovered that we were doing this, discovered either by accident or design, on an industrial basis such as at Abu Ghraib.

But then he denied we tortured anyone when everyone knew it was true. The fucking photographic evidence was incontrovertible. The testimony of the tortured innocent screamed loudly. He settled with them for millions without accepting culpability. Only an idiot would believe we didn’t torture people. Even Trump is screaming about how we should do it more.

Why would Bush deny that we tortured people when it was clear that we did? He obviously must have thought it was effective. So why wouldn’t he scream it loud and proud from the rooftops — “if you fuck with us we will torture you!”? Why didn’t he just come out and say it? It’s because he was ashamed of what he was doing. He was stupid to do it, the Army didnt want to do it and he was ashamed of the damage it would do to the US. His actions at Abu Ghraib probably recruited thousands for the enemy and instilled hatred for the US, possibly for generations. We were supposed to be “liberators”, greeted as “liberators”, hailed and loved. And yet here we were torturing people on an industrial scale. It may have been a secret here for awhile but it was no secret to the Iraqis who were supposed to greet us as liberators. They knew what was happening. The actions at Haditha (and others) and the cover-ups all the way to the top sent a message to the Iraqis that the US stood for absolutely nothing. Our ideals were false. George Bush gave them that “epiphany”. The installation of Bremer and Sanchez, probably the two most incompetent people in government was idiocy. The instutionalization of ideology over practicality was astounding in its stupidity.

Bush was stupid and he made bad choices over and over and when they were discovered to be wrong he doubled down on them and lost again. It’s never too late to make a losing bet. It’s easy to ask if Bush was stupid but all you have to do is see the results of his very effective leadership to know the answer — he was a moron of the highest caliber who not only destroyed Iraq and killed, wounded and displaced millions of people, but also brought this nation from its zenith in power, prestige and prosperity to its nadir in shame, derision, disrespect, financial bankruptcy and debt (not to mention losing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ossetia, North Korea and Somalia) in just 8 short years. He gave Al Qaeda every single thing they wanted. He fought the Iraq war for the benefit of Iran, who turned out to be the only real victor.

Now THAT is an achievement that speaks for itself.

Read for your enjoyment and disgust:

“Fiasco” by Thomas Ricks, the foremost military writer in America and a former Bush confidante

“Life in the Emerald City” by reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran. You absolutely will not believe his story

“We Meant Well” by Peter van Buren of the US State Department stationed in Iraq during the war

“Maher Arar”, on Wikipedia and in the NYT, the Canadian who was renditioned and tortured by Bush as a result of mistaken identity

“Why We Lost the Iraq War” by Maj General Dan Bolger who served on the CoS during Iraq

You cannot read any of these books and come away with any conclusion other than George W. Bush was a blind moron whose actions devastated this country at a time when we could have been doing a thousand good things like building bridges or going to Mars or replacing schools. Instead he mortgaged the future to lose a major was in the Middle East.

How intelligent is George W. Bush?


Filed under: Uncategorized

Does US want to move toward a society where money can buy privileged access, at the expense of effort?

be educated. That means hearing all sorts of different sources of information, and critical thinking. You are being manipulated. So am I. At least in theory. It’s up to me and you and everyone else to recognize that, to think about our own rational self-interests.

Answer by Dave Haynie:

The USA isn’t a single organism… it’s a complex mix of individuals and collectives. It doesn’t have a unified “want” for money buying privileged access. However, there are plenty of elements in American society — and pretty much all societies — that want this. Pretty much to a person, they are the people who already have some level of privileged access, and desire more.

If you do not want a society like that, you need to be careful about your political choices. Privilege, Plutocracy, etc. thrives like most unpopular things do: a small number of people are successful at manipulating a large population to make political choices against their best interests. As well, they can often be successful at insulating themselves from politics, at least to an extent.

The Power of Education and Truth

One of the hallmarks of a free society is education. Educated people tend to be curious about their world, and wary of hucksters, snake oil salesmen, frauds, and manipulators. If you look at Europe today, many countries offer free or very low cost college. They do this both because a more educated population yields a richer society, but also, a more educated population makes better political choices. Educated people practice critical thinking, they are not so easily mislead by those seeking to manipulate a population.

Toward this end, the stance on education and science of a candidate is a strong indication if that person is looking in the long term for an egalitarian society or some kind of plutocracy or oligarchy.

The Power of Competitive Elections

Given that we’re in an election cycle right now in the USA, in a Presidential year, it’s often just assumed that most elections are competitive. Because, after all, the Presidency generally is. Sure, there are years with one Party or another doing very well… President Obama won both elections with over 50% of the vote, the first two-term majority in most of our lifetimes. Ronald Reagan won an amazing 58.8% of the vote in 1984, claiming all but one state and relegating Walter Mondale to the second-worst Presidential election performance in history.

But there are quite a few elections in the USA that are not seriously contested. A specific example is the US House of Representatives. Representatives are, in theory, very close to the current will of The People. That’s how the House was designed: representatives by districts of roughly equal population, two year terms. The People’s House.

But just about anything that’s corruptible will eventually be corrupted. And because there are no specific rules about Congressional Districts (aside from some potential Federal oversight), states can draw them rather arbitrarily.. a practice known as Gerrymandering. And that ability can lead to things like this:

Those are the actual shape of a few Congressional districts. Districts are supposed to include roughly the same number of people, within a state anyway. That’s at least one obvious metric of fairness — my vote shouldn’t count more than yours based on where I live. On years divisible by ten, such as 2010, the Federal Government conducts a census, and states re-draw their Congressional districts based on that census. That’s on the surface good and proper.

However, as with those featured above, the districts are drawn for political gain. In the case of North Carolina, that snaky-looking thing is the 12th district, which is drawn that way to deliver a 64% African-American district. Not surprisingly, in modern politics, that’s a guaranteed Democratic district.

But there’s some of the problem. In drawing it that way, perhaps African Americans in North Carolina are given a district they completely dominate. But this sold Blue district also makes the surrounding six districts more reliably Red.

And none of that is my actual point in this article. Rather, I’m concerned about uncontested districts. In theory, your Representative represents you and your neighbors… I mean, bloody hell, it’s even in the person’s official title. But it’s also the case that, in order to win an election in these days of media influence, the average Representative in 2012 had to raise $1.6 million. To me, that’s real money.. I had a hard enough time raising the $1600 I needed some years ago to participate in a 3-day breast cancer walk.

So to the point: a candidate from a very competitive Congressional district probably has to actually represent a good chunk of that district’s people — ideally all of them, at least as far as possible. A candidate from a perfectly safe district is far more likely to be “The Congressman from Exxon”. Uncontested districts, and similar uncontested elections in other contests throughout the USA, are some of the enablers of corporatocracy, at least as long as we allow public officials to be bought by the rich.

The other obvious problem with this is that it doesn’t actually balance populations to voting outcomes. In the 2014 election, there were 13 Representatives being elected in North Carolina. The Republicans won a state-wide 55% of the vote, to the Democrats 43%. You’d sort of like to hear that the Republicans won 7 Representatives, the Democrats won 6. Or even 8/5. But no… thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats took 3, the Republicans 10. And sure, this has worked the other way, too. True Blue Maryland is a contender to districts as weird as those in NC.

The Power of Lies in Elections

The most protected of protected speech in the USA is political speech. If you are a political candidate or organization, speaking about another candidate, you can literally say just about anything about that person. Read more here: False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not

In this case, I have to come down in support of the lie. Yup, that’s how I roll on this. And here’s why: if you outlaw lies in politics in any way, you can only do that by empowering some arbiter of lies. Remember the last section, how the duty to apportion Congressional districts among voters was mutated into weird political manipulation and, in many cases, a minority rule?

The only cure for this is, again, Education and, perhaps, promotion of the idea that being smart about the vote is your patrotic duty. Because it simply is. Complacency makes the manipulation of the masses by the wealthy very easy. The problem is that being non-complacent is kind of a balancing act. If things always go my way, I might stop thinking deeply about how that happens. And if things never go my way, I might well decide I have no power, and opt out of exercising the power I actually have. In fact, that’s pretty much how you get uncontested votes — everyone “just knows” there’s no chance of not electing the same guy you had last year.

The Power of Voter Disenfranchisement and other Cheats

Some elections are won by very narrow margins. A classic case is the 2000 Presidential election, in which it all came down to Florida’s winner-take-all state election, which came down to lots of political manipulation and a recorded margin of under 550 votes in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore.

The popular story is that Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, took enough votes from Gore to allow the controversy. And that’s likely: exit polls put 66% of Nader voters who still would have voted for Gore, 33% for Bush. Gore would have won without contest if that actually happend.

But there’s the other thing: prior to the election, 173,000 voters were “cleansed” from the rolls in Florida. And most of these due to an error made by a private company paid to produce lists of convicted felons who were on the voter rolls. Oops… nearly all of these people were, worst-case, convicted of misdemeanors.

Some notices were sent out to correct the original “you can’t vote” letters sent out, but it’s estimated thousands of legal voters were turned away at the polls.

So again, a couple of things to understand. First of all, that education thing again. Know your rights. Do not accept being barred from the vote, if that happens and you know you’re legally able to vote. Argue, fight, file a provisional ballot, call the local news crew, make noise. This is your right, and it’s worth defending.

Second thing: look for the candidates, parties, pundits, whomever is trying to make voting more difficult. Voter ID laws, long voter lines, scarey billboards put up near polling locales, there are dozens of ways that The Few want to prevent The Many from voting. Do not accept this, and don’t let others, either. People trying to steal this right from you are real enemies. Know your enemies — that’s the only way to put yourself on a path to defeat them.

The Power of Money in Elections

A large part of modern electioneering is advertising. That happens because it’s well proven that people respond to well designed ads. And it’s also well proven that voters will not vote for a person they don’t know.

So for a minute, let’s look at this year’s election from the #3 guy, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate (#feelthejohnson). I kind of like Gary.. he actually seems like he’d run the country better than at least one of the candidate in the major parties this year. And unlike most third parties, the Libertarians actually have electoral ballot access in many states, and claim they’re on-target for all 50 (they had 48 states + DC in 2012, so they were at least credible). He was Governor of New Mexico — he does have actual executive experience. I found I’m about 67% in agreement with him, versus others in the high 90% range, and at least one at about 7%. There are plenty of things I don’t like about Gary. But the primary reason I’m not voting for him is simple: only the Democrat or the Republican can win. Period. End of discussion, and not really pertinent to this article.

But there’s another reason millions of people won’t vote for Gary: they have no frickin’ idea he even exists. It’s actually worse this year than ever. So ok, Mr. Johnson ran in 2012, and got 1% of the US popular vote. He did not win any states.

He’s running against the Cult of Personality like no one in history. Donald J. Trump was pretty well known, at least if you’re in the mid-Atlantic East Coast, for decades. More recently, he was well known as a game show host (“The Apprentice”) on network television. Hillary R. Clinton was First Lady, Senator from New York, Presidential candidate and Secretary of State, and voted the most Admired Woman in the World, by Americans, in the annual Gallup polls (Mr. Trump came in #3 among men this year… Johnson, not on the list).

And there’s the rub. We already know these two major candidates, at least to some extent. In the 2012 election, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney raised around $1 billion for their campaigns. Gary Johnson in 2012 raised about $2.5 million. That would be good for a House race, not close to enough to run for Senator. Much less President.

So it’s mostly just political wonks and Libertarians who know Gary Johnson. And I’ll give some credit to the media this cycle: I have seen/heard Johnson more this year than any third party candidate since Ralph Nader in 2000 (and Nader at the time was already a household name). There is no possible way, with that kind of budget, that Johnson can compete with the other two. People will not vote for a person they don’t know about.

Nuff Said… It’s Up to Us

There are plenty of other factors, but ultimately, this is still the choice of The People. My best advice: be educated. That means hearing all sorts of different sources of information, and critical thinking. You are being manipulated. So am I. At least in theory. It’s up to me and you and everyone else to recognize that, to think about our own rational self-interests.

Does US want to move toward a society where money can buy privileged access, at the expense of effort?


Filed under: Uncategorized