Myths in the Movie 21
- Thread starter Guynoire
- Start date
i think i noticed another mistake in the movie not mentioned anywhere... i saw kate bosworth with 77 vs a dealer 6 right when ben is coming into the table. the dealer is flipping over the hole card and busts (so she stood her hand... i'm not aware of any game where u would do that). all the cards are panned across once is it was pretty tough to catch... hopefully someone can confirm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8di2N1MDBc&feature=related
good vid outlining inaccuracies in the movie.
good vid outlining inaccuracies in the movie.
Nobody's commented on this, so I will.
The big advantage of computers is that their memory is essentially infinite. If nothing else, they'll snap a good picture of you at the cashier cage and use an automated program to retrace your steps and figure out your counting system and bet spread. Even if you waited a year before hitting the casino again, they might be able to nail you at the cashier when you try cashing out the second time.
Humans can't remember every single hand played by every single patron at every single table at every single casino. But I bet there will be a computer that can do it, eventually if not right now. Facial recognition is difficult, but keep in mind that the computer doesn't need to nail a face exactly - just limit the options enough so that a surveillance technician can ID someone quickly. And keep in mind a computer will remember what you wore last year - show up with the same MIT sweatshirt and that'll narrow the field really quickly. :laugh:
The big advantage of computers is that their memory is essentially infinite. If nothing else, they'll snap a good picture of you at the cashier cage and use an automated program to retrace your steps and figure out your counting system and bet spread. Even if you waited a year before hitting the casino again, they might be able to nail you at the cashier when you try cashing out the second time.
Humans can't remember every single hand played by every single patron at every single table at every single casino. But I bet there will be a computer that can do it, eventually if not right now. Facial recognition is difficult, but keep in mind that the computer doesn't need to nail a face exactly - just limit the options enough so that a surveillance technician can ID someone quickly. And keep in mind a computer will remember what you wore last year - show up with the same MIT sweatshirt and that'll narrow the field really quickly. :laugh:
I watched the movie last night after finding link here. It's just OK. I have no intentions to become a team player where conspiracy is involved. Sure, I'll stand with everyone else at the table hoping the dealer goes bust, but that's as far as I'll go to being on a team.
I think the very first bet Be makes is wrong. If I remember correctly, he sits at the table throws down $2000.00 places a $2000.00 bet and then doubles down.
Another thing I noticed is that the size of the bets seems to be above the average house limit. We never get to see the type or limits at the tables he plays at, so we automatically believe it's within limits.
I think the very first bet Be makes is wrong. If I remember correctly, he sits at the table throws down $2000.00 places a $2000.00 bet and then doubles down.
Another thing I noticed is that the size of the bets seems to be above the average house limit. We never get to see the type or limits at the tables he plays at, so we automatically believe it's within limits.
It could have been a cover play. She was the spotter, and her bets were significantly lower that Ben's BP bets. Screwing up a good hand every now and then would throw them off the scent of her as a counter. Plus, if she makes a real boneheaded move as soon as Ben sits down, the table's attention will be on her, rather than the new player.
Although a computer can have (effectively) infinite memory, it still is limited by how fast it can process. And that's the real killer.
Suppose it takes 1 second to compare a face against one face in the database. You have ten people in the database. One person walks through the door. If they're a match, they're recognized. If they aren't, they're added to the database.
The only way to tell if they're a match is to iterate through every face in the database so far. (There may be some way of paring it down based on some heuristics or catagories, but let's put that aside for a moment).
So that means that for every person who comes through the door, you have to iterate through every face in the database. Ten people in the database, and ten people walk through the door. That's 10 * 10 = 100 lookups. Except really it's more. The first person walks through, 10 lookups. Now there's 11 people in the database. The next person walks through, that's 11 lookups. Now there's been 21 lookups. And so forth.
Your runtime is now growing out of control. In order to add 1 person to the database, you have to go through n operations, where n is the number of people already in the database.
Hopefully, you can sort that data and at least train the software to search intelligently. Think about finding a single card in a partially sorted deck. "Find me the Ace of Spades" in a deck that is sorted into black vs. red cards, and the subsorted into High and non-High cards:
step 1: throw away the half a deck that is red
step 2: throw away the half a deck that is Low
step 3-16: flip through the remaining 13 cards that might have your As.
Much better than flipping through 52 cards.
The trick to this mythical software are these two things:
1) Think of all the many, many, many attributes that make up a human face
2) A computer doesn't know the meaning of "brown hair" until you teach it.
And, as other posters have mentioned, some very simple disguises will fool it.
The facial recognition software made for an interesting plot device. It was something that would be sufficiently "world changing" for the security firm, and that most audiences would grok right away, and that represents a theme that they could use (man vs. machine).
As an actuality-- well, when/if they do come up with a piece of software that would work on the level they represented in the movie, I can assure you it won't be spearheaded by casinos looking to save a few bucks here and there. Now, the military looking for known operatives in diverse crowd scenes...
Suppose it takes 1 second to compare a face against one face in the database. You have ten people in the database. One person walks through the door. If they're a match, they're recognized. If they aren't, they're added to the database.
The only way to tell if they're a match is to iterate through every face in the database so far. (There may be some way of paring it down based on some heuristics or catagories, but let's put that aside for a moment).
So that means that for every person who comes through the door, you have to iterate through every face in the database. Ten people in the database, and ten people walk through the door. That's 10 * 10 = 100 lookups. Except really it's more. The first person walks through, 10 lookups. Now there's 11 people in the database. The next person walks through, that's 11 lookups. Now there's been 21 lookups. And so forth.
Your runtime is now growing out of control. In order to add 1 person to the database, you have to go through n operations, where n is the number of people already in the database.
Hopefully, you can sort that data and at least train the software to search intelligently. Think about finding a single card in a partially sorted deck. "Find me the Ace of Spades" in a deck that is sorted into black vs. red cards, and the subsorted into High and non-High cards:
step 1: throw away the half a deck that is red
step 2: throw away the half a deck that is Low
step 3-16: flip through the remaining 13 cards that might have your As.
Much better than flipping through 52 cards.
The trick to this mythical software are these two things:
1) Think of all the many, many, many attributes that make up a human face
2) A computer doesn't know the meaning of "brown hair" until you teach it.
And, as other posters have mentioned, some very simple disguises will fool it.
The facial recognition software made for an interesting plot device. It was something that would be sufficiently "world changing" for the security firm, and that most audiences would grok right away, and that represents a theme that they could use (man vs. machine).
As an actuality-- well, when/if they do come up with a piece of software that would work on the level they represented in the movie, I can assure you it won't be spearheaded by casinos looking to save a few bucks here and there. Now, the military looking for known operatives in diverse crowd scenes...
Even if your runtime increases as n^2, computing power increases exponentially. So even if a casino were to just start snapping pictures of people now to have a database of customers and it's 1,000 times too many for the current computer to handle, it's a pretty sure bet that in 10 years the same computer will be able to handle it.
True, but then that only prevents matching your play to your previous play. You'll run out of disguises before the computer runs out of memory.
I absolutely agree. My point is that sooner or later, the limitations that are currently on technology will drop, so don't count on "simple disguises fool the current programs" to always work.
10 years ago, the concept of taking digital photographs of every casino patron cashing out was probably unheard of; that would probably require GIGAbytes of space and a bulky camera mounted at every window. Yet you could probably buy a $500 laptop and a $50 webcam to make that a reality today.
True, but then that only prevents matching your play to your previous play. You'll run out of disguises before the computer runs out of memory.
I absolutely agree. My point is that sooner or later, the limitations that are currently on technology will drop, so don't count on "simple disguises fool the current programs" to always work.
10 years ago, the concept of taking digital photographs of every casino patron cashing out was probably unheard of; that would probably require GIGAbytes of space and a bulky camera mounted at every window. Yet you could probably buy a $500 laptop and a $50 webcam to make that a reality today.
View attachment 799
I might add to the last sentence, if you assume the gambler in your comparison has less than a 50/50 chance, "but expecting it to decrease, and eventually to disappear over time." I mean, like where can you get a 50/50 bet? View attachment 800
I might add to the last sentence, if you assume the gambler in your comparison has less than a 50/50 chance, "but expecting it to decrease, and eventually to disappear over time." I mean, like where can you get a 50/50 bet? View attachment 800
Attachments
here's what one online dictionary says:
in·vest (n-vst)
v. in·vest·ed, in·vest·ing, in·vests
v.tr.
1. To commit (money or capital) in order to gain a financial return: invested their savings in stocks and bonds.
2.
a. To spend or devote for future advantage or benefit: invested much time and energy in getting a good education.
b. To devote morally or psychologically, as to a purpose; commit: "Men of our
generation are invested in what they do, women in what we are" Shana Alexander.
3. To endow with authority or power.
4. To install in office with ceremony: invest a new emperor.
5. To endow with an enveloping or pervasive quality: "A charm invests a
face/Imperfectly beheld" Emily Dickinson.
6. To clothe; adorn.
7. To cover completely; envelop.
8. To surround with troops or ships; besiege. See Synonyms at besiege.
v.intr.
To make investments or an investment: invest in real estate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Italian investire and from French investir, both from Latin investre, to
clothe, surround : in-, in; see in-2 + vestre, to clothe (from vestis, clothes; see
wes-2 in Indo-European roots).]
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
gam·ble (gmbl)
v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v.intr.
1.
a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.
v.tr.
1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.
2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.
n.
1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.
2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Perhaps from obsolete gamel, to play games, from Middle English gamen, gamenen, to
play, from Old English gamenian, from gamen, fun.]
in·vest (n-vst)
v. in·vest·ed, in·vest·ing, in·vests
v.tr.
1. To commit (money or capital) in order to gain a financial return: invested their savings in stocks and bonds.
2.
a. To spend or devote for future advantage or benefit: invested much time and energy in getting a good education.
b. To devote morally or psychologically, as to a purpose; commit: "Men of our
generation are invested in what they do, women in what we are" Shana Alexander.
3. To endow with authority or power.
4. To install in office with ceremony: invest a new emperor.
5. To endow with an enveloping or pervasive quality: "A charm invests a
face/Imperfectly beheld" Emily Dickinson.
6. To clothe; adorn.
7. To cover completely; envelop.
8. To surround with troops or ships; besiege. See Synonyms at besiege.
v.intr.
To make investments or an investment: invest in real estate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Italian investire and from French investir, both from Latin investre, to
clothe, surround : in-, in; see in-2 + vestre, to clothe (from vestis, clothes; see
wes-2 in Indo-European roots).]
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
gam·ble (gmbl)
v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v.intr.
1.
a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.
v.tr.
1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.
2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.
n.
1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.
2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Perhaps from obsolete gamel, to play games, from Middle English gamen, gamenen, to
play, from Old English gamenian, from gamen, fun.]
I think that I would agree with Blackjack Avenger that playing blackjack with an advantage is an investment more than just gambling. If you want to get into semantics, all investments do carry degrees of risk in turn one could call it a gamble in that sense. But there really isn't an action we do that does not carry a certain degree of risk along with it, but I don't get the feeling I am gambling with my life every time I step outside the door. If one can recognize the risks and execute their game as planned, then the overall gamble is negligible, regardless if the short term may not seem to be. Playing as a team also will reduce the variance, or the so called gambling feeling effect.
Now the problem is, there may only a small handful of players including those that post here, that really play a strong enough game, and or, enough hours, to actually call their playing more investment than gamble. I believe that the road to ruin is paved with good intentions. I'm sure that most who start out counting really give it a try, as well as I'm sure that most fall off course before it even matters. I've seen too many counters that aren't actually playing any sort of positive expectation game and not even know it. Learning how to be an AP isn't that hard, being good at it and being able to practically apply it, is. One of the first signs of a frustrated counter is the ones that feel the need to learn the highest level count out there. That usually comes from losing and getting frustrated and thinking that they need to be more advanced to win more often. I'm sorry but unless you're a pro or something close to it playing often and with a large bankroll, the extra spare change per hour is not worth it, and any pro will tell you just that. Most would be better suited keeping counts simple and picking up a few of the simpler tracking techniques. It just won't happen though. I have met counters ranging between 0-9 years of experience that can't count down a 6 deck shoe without totally losing it. I'd be willing to bet that most started out better than they are now, only because in the beginning practicing is important and gaining all sorts of knowledge is key. But it doesn't take too long before most think they have it down and thats that. Its not too long after you start getting your practice in the casino instead of home that you will see most counters lose interest, or look for different quick fixes to their game, even if they defy math logic. I will not debate anyone here on this subject as I have no idea if any of this applies to you. But I will say this, being a student of math, based on the pure number of those posting here, as opposed to those that are actually capable of playing a winning game, the odds are great that there are some here more gambler than investor whether they know it or not.
Now the problem is, there may only a small handful of players including those that post here, that really play a strong enough game, and or, enough hours, to actually call their playing more investment than gamble. I believe that the road to ruin is paved with good intentions. I'm sure that most who start out counting really give it a try, as well as I'm sure that most fall off course before it even matters. I've seen too many counters that aren't actually playing any sort of positive expectation game and not even know it. Learning how to be an AP isn't that hard, being good at it and being able to practically apply it, is. One of the first signs of a frustrated counter is the ones that feel the need to learn the highest level count out there. That usually comes from losing and getting frustrated and thinking that they need to be more advanced to win more often. I'm sorry but unless you're a pro or something close to it playing often and with a large bankroll, the extra spare change per hour is not worth it, and any pro will tell you just that. Most would be better suited keeping counts simple and picking up a few of the simpler tracking techniques. It just won't happen though. I have met counters ranging between 0-9 years of experience that can't count down a 6 deck shoe without totally losing it. I'd be willing to bet that most started out better than they are now, only because in the beginning practicing is important and gaining all sorts of knowledge is key. But it doesn't take too long before most think they have it down and thats that. Its not too long after you start getting your practice in the casino instead of home that you will see most counters lose interest, or look for different quick fixes to their game, even if they defy math logic. I will not debate anyone here on this subject as I have no idea if any of this applies to you. But I will say this, being a student of math, based on the pure number of those posting here, as opposed to those that are actually capable of playing a winning game, the odds are great that there are some here more gambler than investor whether they know it or not.
Investing and gambling aren't opposites, they're independent of each other.
Investing is the act of putting money down on something. Gambling is when chance dictates the outcome. Contrast this to popular usage, where investing means making money and gambling means losing money. There is a high correlation between investing and making money, and there is a high correlation between gambling and losing money, but those aren't the proper definitions.
AP blackjack play is a positive investment in gambling. BS blackjack play is a negative investment in gambling. A mutual fund is a positive investment in non-gambling. A government bailout is a negative investment in non-gambling. Gambling always requires some investment, but not all investments require gambling.
Investing is the act of putting money down on something. Gambling is when chance dictates the outcome. Contrast this to popular usage, where investing means making money and gambling means losing money. There is a high correlation between investing and making money, and there is a high correlation between gambling and losing money, but those aren't the proper definitions.
AP blackjack play is a positive investment in gambling. BS blackjack play is a negative investment in gambling. A mutual fund is a positive investment in non-gambling. A government bailout is a negative investment in non-gambling. Gambling always requires some investment, but not all investments require gambling.
I Never Let Kids Play Frog Baseball
So according to this AP play sounds like investing. I think there can be confusion about AP play as gambling because we use cards. One can invest in a gambling company and you are basically investing in cards. I just prefer a more direct investment approach:devil: and I am an ethical investor and I cannot allow myself to invest in casinos:whip:
So according to this AP play sounds like investing. I think there can be confusion about AP play as gambling because we use cards. One can invest in a gambling company and you are basically investing in cards. I just prefer a more direct investment approach:devil: and I am an ethical investor and I cannot allow myself to invest in casinos:whip:
Investing is indeed what you say it is, putting money down on something, but I think implicit in what BlackjackAvenger is saying is the idea of a "wise" investor, not just somebody who will put their money down on anything and call that an investment. The wise investor wants to ensure that his investment has a positive expectation of winning. If he doesn't do his homework, or pay someone else to do it for him, he is simply gambling, i.e., making an unwise investment.
Putting aside the question of whether one possesses the skill to be a successful AP, the AP "knows" that his investment in playing Blackjack has a positive expectation of winning. To me, that makes playing Blackjack an even wiser investment than any you can find on wall street. Investment in the stock of a company is based on one's assessment of a company's positive expectation for success, i.e., it is based on human judgment. Investment in Blackjack is based not on human judgment but on mathematics. Playing Blackjack is the closest thing to a sure thing that I can think of in terms of investment.
Then why isn't card counting a sure thing? Obviously, it is because one either is not proficient at counting, and/or one ignores the guidelines of sufficient bankroll, proper choice of games (rules, pen, etc.), and low enough RoR to make it a sure thing (or very close to a sure thing). Learning these things is what this forum is all about. We are all learning to be wise investors.
Putting aside the question of whether one possesses the skill to be a successful AP, the AP "knows" that his investment in playing Blackjack has a positive expectation of winning. To me, that makes playing Blackjack an even wiser investment than any you can find on wall street. Investment in the stock of a company is based on one's assessment of a company's positive expectation for success, i.e., it is based on human judgment. Investment in Blackjack is based not on human judgment but on mathematics. Playing Blackjack is the closest thing to a sure thing that I can think of in terms of investment.
Then why isn't card counting a sure thing? Obviously, it is because one either is not proficient at counting, and/or one ignores the guidelines of sufficient bankroll, proper choice of games (rules, pen, etc.), and low enough RoR to make it a sure thing (or very close to a sure thing). Learning these things is what this forum is all about. We are all learning to be wise investors.
aslan said:
.....Then why isn't card counting a sure thing? Obviously, it is because one either is not proficient at counting, and/or one ignores the guidelines of sufficient bankroll, proper choice of games (rules, pen, etc.), and low enough RoR to make it a sure thing (or very close to a sure thing). Learning these things is what this forum is all about. We are all learning to be wise investors.
sagefr0g said:
lol well just me but if i had enough disposable income or just enough disposable funds to make for a low enough ROR to make it a sure thing then i doubt i'd even bother except for the fun of it. i wonder which would be the most fun? counting the cards or counting the money that would come rolling in?