Re: Books on why programmers think more than coding

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 10/13/04 

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:03:55 GMT

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > (business _is_ risk, after all; A sophisicated poker game
> > but a poker game nonetheless ;)
>
> Not quite. A poker game is zero-sum (equal winners and losers)

What on Earth are you talking about? You're trying to "Barnum" the crowd
with "fancy talk" into believing that you carry authority and that what I
say is some "terrible sin" to the "false gods" because you know the "one
truth" or some such nonsense...to rule by fear, as always..."Jaffar,
Kree!", indeed...

There's no "zero sum" in poker at all...there's no set amount of
players...only _ONE_ person can be "winner" in any particular round,
everyone else is a "loser" that round (so no "equal winners and losers" on
a per round basis at all)...the cards are dealt at random BUT many
variations (it is in itself stupid to say "poker is this or poker is
that"...WHICH variation? The "chance" and "skill" differs between standard
poker, stud poker, etc....it's not solely one game but a term that covers a
whole "family" of card games) allow a (very) limited form of "skill" in
selecting cards to be replaced...all variations (played for money) have
localised rules for betting so the amount a person wins or loses per round
(and there is only _ONE_ winner per round) is completely
_variable_...(unless otherwise agreed) players may bring any amount of
money they choose to the table to stake...the only "rule" regards the stake
is that all players must pay an "ante" simply to be included in the round
(value of which is variable)...as the number of players is variable but the
number of cards is fixed, then the chances of being dealt any particular
card is variable regards the number of players...the chances of getting
particular winning sequences (a "good hand") varies on the nature of the
hand and the player can choose between _overlapping_ possibilities (that
is, a "pair" features cards found in "three of a kind" and a "full house"
and "four of a kind"...a player is at Liberty to "press their luck"...for
example, "ace, one, two, queen, queen"...you could risk losing the queens
for a "run" or a "flush" (low chance but a "flush" is the best winning hand
possible) or you could lose the "ace, one, two" to try for a "three of a
kind", "full house" or "four of a kind" (kinder odds but not as good a
winning hand)...or you could be entirely insane - seeing that the ace and
the queen are the same suit - and go for the "struck by lightning" chance
that you'll also get "king, jack, ten" of the same suit and have the
unbeatable "royal flush")...sometimes "suit precedence" is used - spade,
diamond, club, heart in order of descending "strength" - and ties are
impossible or suits are ignored and "dealer wins by default" is practiced
(again, exact rules vary massively...it's unbelievable with such possible
variation that anyone could make any "broad brush" statement about "poker
always being zero sum" as you've just done)...

Indeed, go to Las Vegas and the dealers are all taught to detect (and
jettison from the casino) any "card counters" because these people play
mathematically ("count" the cards...re-calculate odds of getting a
particular card) and _CAN_ change their chance of winning considerably...if
poker were "zero sum" then there'd be no need (and they'd play the more
standard variation rather than the more "rigged in our favour"
ruleset)...that's not how casinoes operate...take roulette, for
example...the odds offered on particular possibilities is fixed _just
below_ its actual likelihood of turning up completely by chance...then the
casino can relax and let probability take its course...the more times the
game is played, the more the actual possibilities that appear match the
expected statistical chance of them showing up...they rig the "odds" that
they pay out on to be _just below_ that statistical chance...and, simply,
they may win or they may lose, but, OVERALL, they will win to the
_statistical_ "average chance" that they will win, on average, so, as the
odds they give are _loaded_ slightly below that true statistical chance, th
ey'll "win" overall...all the casino needs to do is just keep on playing,
over and over...the more they play, the more they get to that "average" and
that's been precalculated as a "win" in their favour overall...same tactics
used with horse racing but that the odds are altered on-the-fly according
to how much people are betting on a particular horse to recalculate an
"average" risk across all the horses...same trick...they may lose sometimes
but _rig_ the odds so that, overall, they will "win" (the more times you
take a chance, the more it begins to level out at its statistical
probability...the more times you flip a coin, the greater the overall "on
average" chance of it levelling out to its statistical 50 / 50...casinoes
and bookmakers depend on that...and as they don't go out of business too
often, then you can be sure that it's a reliable "trick" to follow)...

And, of course, an element of psychology exists in poker too, because you
can "bluff" that you hold a better hand than you really do and actually
dupe the actual "winner" into folding their cards...it's possible to "win"
by just scaring the opponents into throwing their cards in and giving up,
even though you may not hold a good hand in any way whatsoever...you can, a
la Bill Gates (who's really used such tactics in business against IBM and
Apple, who fell for the "bluff"), win without actually having the best hand
in poker...this element of the game - the psychology - is what makes this
particular game the better analogy to business...

> and the opponents are very obvious.

Really? The number of players can change _during_ a round (as they "fold"
their cards and give up), let alone per round (a player runs out of money
and leaves, another opponent is invited in mid-way through a game)...and
one crucial part of poker playing is quite the opposite, namely to make
sure that it _isn't_ obvious who you're playing by way of "bluff"...I've
ruined it now (though I simply never play games of chance like this at
all - on principle (well, actually, on knowing the statistics and practiced
that they are all "rigged", in the end...I mean, if they weren't, casinoes
and bookmakers would never get into the industry in the first place ;) - so
it doesn't matter...but were I playing you, then my very first "bluff"
would undoubtedly (because it has good odds of succeeding with most men to
"get macho" and automatically presume that, somehow, women wouldn't know
how the game is played...a ludicrous notion, in fact, as the rules of the
game can easily be looked up in a book, which isn't a particularly "macho"
thing at all...but, hey, while the game revolves around "bluffing", then
let them have their delusions of grandeur ;) be to act the "dumb
bimbo"...you know, call things by the wrong names delibrately...keep asking
what the rules are again..."which hand beats what hand again?"...that sort
of thing...once I get a good hand, I then keep up the "naive enthusiasm"
thing so people think I'm just too stupid and don't understand the
game...they'll think "easy money" and bet against me...it'll only work once
or twice but then it only needs to work once or twice...the trick with all
of these types of games is knowing when to walk away...there is no such
thing as a "winning streak", it's a psychological illusion (winning gives a
boost of "happy chemicals" to the brain...you want those "happy chemicals"
again so you want to win again, so you start convincing youself of the
mythology of "winning streaks")...

> Business like this (mature oligopolies) is seldom profitable for anyone.

Oh, you have got to be kidding...Bill Gates and Microsoft are where they
are on the strength of a few well placed "bluffs" by "Sir" Gates at the
opportune times with the right people...and he's exceptionally good at it
because he knows that the _LEAST_ number of risks taken makes the most
sense (as a good poker player knows too)...that there is, indeed, no such
thing as "winning streaks"...once you win, use that winning position to
play it safe...

> More ventures start by creating new value for everyone.

Oh, brother...nice quote from a textbook...been reading the "bluffer's
guide to business" or something, eh? Nice try...but let's _call that
bluff_...explain _properly_ what on Earth you mean by this sentence...in
detail...and, while you're at it, also explain how what I'm proposing
doesn't do that equally (in fact, better)...

Geez Louise, don't you get it? "Ventures", "new money", etc....they've got
you playing "jargonising fashions of the week"...otherwise known as "follow
the leader"...hook, line and sinker...yeah, that's right...you're
"educated" and "intellectual" _when you say what we tell you to say_ but
you're just plain "dumb" when you don't...psychological candy, my friend,
psychological candy...

> The main opponent is not other businesses, but customer ignorance and
apathy.

Wrong; The greatest opponent by far is _YOURSELF_...always was, always is
and always will be...that's not "fashion" or today's "jargon word", that's
just a fact...utterly timeless...

Blaming others for your success or failure? Oh, come on..."I'm poor" /
"Why?" / "Customer #36 was evil and wrong and completely to blame for not
buying product #27, where I was utterly faultless"...

It's utterly nonsensical, anyway: "customer ignorance and apathy"? So, tell
me, where did _YOU_ do your shopping this week? Whatever else you are, it
does not excuse you from simultaneously being a "customer" too...customers
can be incredibly shrewd and discerning, they also spend billions
continuously forever...if you're not getting some of that as it flows
around, then it's _YOUR_ fault for standing in the wrong place...

Yeah, totally...I was playing my guitar, busking, for hours inside that
closed sound=proof metal box...no customers threw any money in my hat...no,
it's not my fault for playing the guitar in such a silly place, it's the
"ignorant and apathetic" customers who didn't take hours out of their day -
while they had much better things to be doing (like, ooh, "apathetically"
spending a few billion dollars between them on busy shopping trips
everywhere...so "apathetic", they don't even bother to buy food constantly
forever, you know? That's why they're all dead...oh, wait a minute...that's
not right) - locating and opening up the metal box I was standing in,
playing, just to put a few pennies in the hat on the floor...

Business isn't war...it's more like "UN peace-keeping" (which contains some
elements of "war" but is _FAR, FAR_ more _DIFFICULT_ than "playing
war")...the enemy is NOT without (without brains and "ignorant", without
motivation and "apathetic"...total "pass the buck" nonsense for your _OWN_
failures), but _WITHIN_...

You are the greatest enemy...as witnessed by your lack of hesitation to
throw away your own freewill, just to get a pat on the back for using the
right "jargon" of the week...you certainly won't succeed if you think
"popularity" and "approval" from others is the route to success...

It's a game of chance, my friend...and time to realise that "winning
streaks" are a mythology...that it doesn't particularly matter if you were
or weren't the best (Apple, Betamax, etc.), if someone pulls off the
perfect "bluff"...

But, seeing as you seem to believe it's "zero sum", stop to consider what
that really means...if you "win", someone else "loses"? Yet you talk about
"creating new money" in the same breath...if money can be created, then it
cannot possibly be "zero sum", can it? You're contradicting yourself here,
whether you realise it or not...and, if it's "I win, you lose", then
wouldn't that mean successful businesses _couldn't_ ever be "good for the
economy"? Because as you become richer, then others would - to maintain the
"zero sum" - become poorer...well, no, that can't be true because we can
"create new money" for everyone, right? Ummm, but then that means we can
have more winners than losers...that means it can't be "zero
sum"..."customer ignorance and apathy" is the "enemy", eh? But "ventures"
themselves are holy, shiney and perfect in comparison? Right, simple
question: Where do resellers fit into that? Because they are "customers" of
other businesses...you yourself are "ignorant and apathetic" to your
supplier? Yet are suddenly "non-ignorant and un-apathetic" when dealing
with your own customers? Again, another blatant contradiction..._YOU_ are a
customer too (in the society we live in, that _must_ be the case unless
you've started some "self-sufficiency commune" in a field somewhere to "get
out of the rat race")...

Your statements are contradictory...they are tinged with "I need approval!
I need approval!" (from your "Lords and masters") jargonising, who you are
defending...you, in fact, have stated NO CASE WHATSOEVER about what I
proposed in any way, shape or form...the business I'm talking about
operates _exactly_ as before...it "creates new money" too...in no way is it
not Capitalistic whatsoever, as the only difference is that it's internally
democratic rather than monarchistic...it operates with the outside world in
_EXACTLY THE SAME WAY_, though...so, if the "Monarch" business makes a
profit, so does this one...if the "Monarch" business invests here or
invests there, so does this one...the single change proposed is that wages
are replaced with "shares"...decisions go to a vote rather than depending
the entire success or failure on the strength of the decisions of one
"monarch"...

They are false gods...remember the First Commandment...remember the
Declaration of Independence (remember why you fought Britain to have that
document and Lincoln's "As I would not be a slave, so I shall not be a
master", as you look at Bush et al build their "New Roman Empire"...should
Britain have called you Yanks "insurgents" too?)...and, of course, always
"remember the Alamo", eh? ;)...

Beth :)