slymon99 (u/slymon99)

slymon99 commented on An introduction to the theory and practice of poker (2020) hopkinspokercourse.com/... · Posted by u/Igor_Wiwi

krukah · 2 years ago

100% possible. I'd ~bet~ that 99% of online poker cash games are adversarially against various forms of AI.

The future of online play will be catered more toward teaching, solving, and tracking hands, rather than playing competitively for profit. I recently started a side project in Rust to do just that, mainly for love of the game and desire to learn the language.

Hoping to release later this year and perhaps productize if it gains traction.

slymon99 · 2 years ago

I would sell that 99% number for a six figure sum if you'd like to define terms, an arbiter, and setup escrow.

slymon99 commented on An introduction to the theory and practice of poker (2020) hopkinspokercourse.com/... · Posted by u/Igor_Wiwi

galaxyLogic · 2 years ago

I'm not even familiar with the rules but I wonder: If AI can win in Chess and Go should it not win in Poker too? And when you have online poker, it should be possible to ask the AI on your laptop to play it for you? Is that what online Poker players do?

slymon99 · 2 years ago

The other answers here are fairly uninformed. AI has been reliably beating humans in NHLE since 2019 with just deep learning [1], modern solvers can play within a small epsilon of a nash equilibrium (a perfect strategy) and are effectively unbeatable.

Referencing a solver while playing (what people call real-time assistance or RTA) is definitely a problem in online poker and is always prohibited. Solvers however play in a fairly predictable way and poker sites can detect if people are using them, though I'd imagine imperfectly. Saying that 99% of online poker is vs AIs is a hilarious overstatement.

[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay2400

slymon99 commented on Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together wsj.com/personal-finance/... · Posted by u/m-ahmed

4death4 · 2 years ago

But why do cities have all the opportunity? Most likely because the capital owning class lives in cities and has been systematically draining wealth from more rural areas via globalization and the erosion of workers' rights. I'm not saying young professionals need to concern themselves with such lofty ideals, but I do think it's a valid to question why there are only a few pockets of opportunity left in the country.

slymon99 · 2 years ago

Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America?

Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology, and that these demands are better matched to the agglomeration affects of true urban density, where the best and brightest can learn from each other?

slymon99 commented on Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together wsj.com/personal-finance/... · Posted by u/m-ahmed

threeseed · 2 years ago

Housing is significantly more affordable outside inner city suburbs.

And of course everyone wants to live close to their social circle. I want to live in a mansion by the beach.

But sometimes in life you have to make compromises especially when you're young and that includes working your way up the property ladder.

slymon99 · 2 years ago

Comparing living near jobs and quality schools to living by a mansion on the beach is quite unfair - people don't solely desire the luxury of cities, they desire the opportunity for themselves and their families.

"Working your way up the property ladder"? The median sale price for a house in Westchester County, NY is seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. With insurance and property taxes and the current interest rate, that's over six grand a month. That's a hair shy of the US median household income (before taxes!). How exactly is a person ever supposed to afford that?

slymon99 commented on Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together wsj.com/personal-finance/... · Posted by u/m-ahmed

threeseed · 2 years ago

> Housing Costs Are So High

They left out the "in the trendy, inner city areas we want to live in" part.

Because whilst housing prices are rising in cities we are also seeing major declines in populations for smaller towns.

And whilst our parents were willing to sacrifice and embrace these towns which in turn became gentrified it doesn't seem current generations feel the same way.

slymon99 · 2 years ago

Cities have jobs. Cities have opportunity. Cities have diversity. Why should we expect, encourage, or even desire that young people sacrifice economic and social opportunity and mobility?

Why is the response to high housing cost in cities lecturing "current generations" about their choices? There are glaringly obvious problems in many of our cities that make housing so expensive. Is it so outrageous to try to solve those problems, and allow people to be able to live where they want to live?

slymon99 commented on Landlords Are Pushing the Supreme Court to End Rent Control jacobin.com/2023/08/supre... · Posted by u/pmoriarty

tiahura · 3 years ago

So the government should serve the interests of those that aren’t residents to the detriment of those that do?

slymon99 · 3 years ago

Yes.

slymon99 commented on New York State Senate passes prohibitions on non-competes ogletree.com/insights/new... · Posted by u/hhs

rrobukef · 3 years ago

You still lose as you won't get raises, bonuses or promotions. You may lose extra-legals like company cars, insurance (?), long term savings-matching. Even then your cost of living will probably increase due to not working.

slymon99 · 3 years ago

Yea, the bonus point is interesting, especially in finance where bonuses can be > 100% of base. You can't insist on firms paying last years bonus, or else people would just quit and get a non compete if they had an insane year. But paying only base also seems a bit unfair.

A thought I had was you'd have to pay whatever their new offer is paying. The argument is that if you want to prevent someone from working, you should have to pay them their worth - which, in the case of someone resigning with a competing offer - has just been priced by the hiring market!

slymon99 commented on New York State Senate passes prohibitions on non-competes ogletree.com/insights/new... · Posted by u/hhs

bshipp · 3 years ago

If companies actually paid employees not to compete they would be able to keep them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but--at least where I live--non-competes lack legal authority (even before they were outlawed) because most companies don't provide compensation for limiting an ex-employee's ability to make a living in their field in the future.

So, it's conceivable that an ex-employee could receive 6 months severance in trade for a non-compete of that length, but I doubt it's very popular.

slymon99 · 3 years ago

> If companies actually paid employees not to compete they would be able to keep them

Why is this true? If someone is making $200k and leaving to make $350k, an employer may well be able to afford the $100k for 6 months to prevent them from immediately handing over IP, but not be able to match the $350k their new employer is offering.

> So, it's conceivable that an ex-employee could receive 6 months severance in trade for a non-compete of that length, but I doubt it's very popular.

It's quite popular in finance. Also, it's not a one time severance, its paid as a standard paycheck. A firm might "release" someone from their non compete while it is still active (basically saying it's no longer active and we are no longer paying you).

slymon99 commented on Surging stockmarkets are powered by artificial intelligence economist.com/finance-and... · Posted by u/axiomdata316

HWR_14 · 3 years ago

I think the major mistake in your statement is that the billionaires would lose more than a few million. But yes, they have reversed trades when people take advantage of flaws in automated market-marking scripts.

slymon99 · 3 years ago

When were trades reversed when a market maker had a bad algo? If you are doing market manipulation, sure, your trades might get reversed, but if someone wants to puke money across the tape it's absolutely legal to take it.

slymon99 commented on 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/batmenace

TheAceOfHearts · 3 years ago

> Financial research firm CreditSights estimates that 3M could ultimately be on the hook for nationwide PFAS cleanup costs of up to $142.7 billion. That’s almost triple the company’s $53 billion market capitalization, and that’s before any personal injury claims and other lawsuits.

What does this actually mean? It's just showing off a big number without giving any real context. 3M is the only manufacturer of tons of important materials as I understand it, so it's not like they can just get erased from the market. But what does accountability actually mean in this context?

slymon99 · 3 years ago

They go bankrupt, because their liabilities exceed their assets. There are three main sets of creditors - the US government who are receiving this $142.7 billion, equity shareholders who own $MMM, and bondholders. In a bankruptcy, you arrange levels of creditors by "seniority", where more senior creditors are paid first. In this case, I would imagine the levels of seniority are:

1. The US government 2. Bondholders 3. Equity shareholders

3M has plenty of assets to be distributed to the creditors - the manufacturing capabilities that you mention, intellectual property, relationships with purchasers. These assets might be sold directly on the market (this is easier with physical assets like manufacturing labs). A new corporation with new management might be established to handle liquidating the assets, or even running the business (this is what happened with FTX). Either way, it seems like bondholders and shareholders alike would get zero'd out and the US government could do what it want with 3M's assets.

To answer your question succintly: > 3M is the only manufacturer of tons of important materials as I understand it, so it's not like they can just get erased from the market

3M is a corporation and one of their assets is their ability to manufacture tons of important materials. 3M the corporation would be obliterated but their ability to manufacture tons of important material would likely be sold off.