IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
What IQ measures for (logic, reason, memory) are correlated with intelligence but they are not what intelligence is. Intelligence is what I said: the ability to actualize the fulfillment of a desire.
The current education system transmits knowledge and sorts by IQ, but it doesn’t teach young people how to increase intelligence. This cannot sustain.
what if I desire to punch someone in the face and break their nose, and I’m strong enough to actualize it. would that be intelligence?
what if I desire to punch someone in the face and break their nose, and I’m strong enough to actualize it. would that be intelligence?
Intelligence would help you increase the probability of achieving that outcome with the lowest risk possible for yourself and the lowest collateral damage, avoiding those outcomes is still part of your desires, you have to map the complete map of your preferences out and intelligence is what helps you achieve the best possible result (or to tend toward that) in that model.
A stupid person with that strength will attack first chance he has suffering a lot of negative consequences. Or not attack missing the benefits of attacking his target.
A moderate intelligence person could attack the target when no one is around.
A smart person could trick target to attack first in public allowing you to respond with full force if that is allowed in your jurisdiction
what if I desire to punch someone in the face and break their nose, and I’m strong enough to actualize it. would that be intelligence?
Who are ‘you’ really? What do you truly desire?
These are wisdom questions and why I stated before that you can’t be highly intelligent without having wisdom.
Logic is a crutch for minds that are restricted to rule sets
Way too much emphasis on logic for this thread to be truly intelligent
If you're playing blackjack (assuming infinite shuffled deck) and you have 15 vs a dealer T then how does the the fact that if the next card will help/hurt you, the same card would mostly also help/hurt you if the dealer gets it effect the ev of taking a card?
e.g if next card was a T then you bust but would have lost anyway when the dealer got it.
e.g if next card was a 5 then you improve a lot but the dealer hand would have been weakened significantly if they had got it.
Does this make taking the next card lower ev then the odds otherwise dictate.
If you're playing blackjack (assuming infinite shuffled deck) and you have 15 vs a dealer T then how does the the fact that if the next card will help/hurt you, the same card would mostly also help/hurt you if the dealer gets it effect the ev of taking a card?
e.g if next card was a T then you bust but would have lost anyway when the dealer got it.
e.g if next card was a 5 then you improve a lot but the dealer hand would have been weakened significantly if they had got it.
Does this make taking the
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but in general, the EV calculation is the result of what happens on all possible runouts between you and the dealer. You can't change the EV of hitting by hitting or the EV of standing by standing.
It's possible, but again I'm not sure because you seem to struggle to write coherently, that this is analogous to the poker newbie question of "how do I account for folded cards when working out the odds of my draw coming in?" In a specific case the dead cards will help you and other times they will hurt you, but as long as the card distribution of the muck is the same as the distribution of the stub, they don't affect the EV calculation. An unseen card is an unseen card. Same with hitting vs. standing in blackjack.
It's coherent enough. I'm sure you'll cope but please ask if anyhting is confusing
If you share the next card i.e if you dont take it then the dealer gets it then you restrict the set of ev calculation (e.g I can't hit a 3 while dealer would have hit an A if I stick). Does this change the odds?
DS will know why I ask this question.
It's coherent enough. I'm sure you'll cope but please ask if anyhting is confusing
If you share the next card then you restrict the set of ev calculation (e.g I can't hit a 3 while dealer hits an ace). Does this change the odds?
DS will know why I ask this question.
I don't understand what "I can't hit a 3 while the dealer hits an ace" means.
Again, the EV calculation should already take all this into account - if it doesn't, you've done the EV calculation wrong.
i edited it for you
e.g I can't hit a 3 while dealer would have hit an A if I stick
Some may think that intuitively a reason not to take a card would be that you might hit a T but in this case that doesn't matter because the dealer would otherwise have got that T and you lose anyway.
What does "I can't hit a 3" mean? Just give your cards, and the scenarios you see happening when you hit or stand.
The answer is going to be that the specific scenario you've constructed is balanced by a scenario where you hit and set the dealer up with a bust card when he would have otherwise beat you. The EV calculation is the "average" of all these situations.
Some may think that intuitively a reason not to take a card would be that you might hit a T but in this case that doesn't matter because the dealer would otherwise have got that T and you lose anyway.
Some may think that intuitively a reason not to take a card would be that you might hit a T but in this case that doesn't matter because the dealer would otherwise have got that T and you lose anyway.
So were you asking a question, or just trying to show off to Sklansky that you understand the basics of how EV is calculated? If it was the latter, you definitely might want to work on making your prose comprehensible. I still don't understand what "I can't hit a 3" means.
You'e goign to have to try athe whole sentence in one go.
"I can't hit a 3 while dealer would have hit an A if I stick". It's not a complicated idea.
No to your other bit.
You'e goign to have to try athe whole sentence in one go.
"I can't hit a 3 while dealer would have hit an A if I stick". It's not a complicated idea.
No to your other bit.
I do not understand this sentence. Do you mean your hand is a hard 13? Or that the card you would draw if you hit is a 3? What does "can't" mean? Your sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game of blackjack.
If i drew and would have hit a 3 then if I stick the dealer gets that 3.
So if I compare the ev of hitting vs sticking I only need to consider the cases where if i hit I would have got x and if i stick the dealer gets x
So if I compare the ev of hitting vs sticking I only need to consider the cases where if i hit I would have got x and if i stick the dealer gets x
What? No, obviously to calculate EV you need to consider all possible runouts. What you just said is somewhat equivalent to "to calculate the EV of chasing a flush draw I need to consider only the cases where I hit my flush draw".
?
If the next card is fixed then either I get it or the dealer gets it. It's the same card.
why doesn't that change the odds compared say to if there were different (infinite) decks for dealer and player.
?
If the next card is fixed then either I get it or the dealer gets it. It's the same card.
why doesn't that change the odds compared say to if there were different (infinite) decks for dealer and player.
Are you talking about card removal effects? I assume you aren't, since you're referring to an infinite deck.
If you are referring to card removal effects, the full calculation takes them into account. If you hit and you get a 10, the shoe the dealer draws from now has one fewer 10. If you're not talking about card removal effects, I'm not sure what you mean.
As you say 'inifinite' is to negate any card removal considerations.