Betting

 

Luck Be A Lady Tonight

Luck, let a gentleman see
How nice a dame you can be
I know the way you've treated other guys you've been with
Luck, be a lady with me

Betting on WWE matches? Really? Really?

World Wrestling Entertainment , “WWE is in talks with state gambling regulators to legalize betting on high-profile matches, according to people familiar with the matter.

WWE is working with the accounting firm EY to secure scripted match results in hopes it will convince regulators there’s no chance of results leaking to the public, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private. Accounting firms PwC and EY, also known as Ernst & Young, have historically worked with award shows, including the Academy Awards and the Emmys, to keep results a secret.”https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/wwe-betting-scripted-match-results.html

Betting is on random events.  The outcome of random events is…doh….random, in other  words the outcome is not known to anyone but the Absolute in advance.  In the case of sporting contests, the outcome of the event can be influenced.  That those outcomes can be influenced has been demonstrated numerous times,  e.g. the 1919 baseball World Series Black Sox scandal or the numerous point shaving scandals in basketball such as

the CCNY point-shaving scandal in 1950–51; the Dixie Classic scandal of 1961; the Boston College basketball point-shaving scandal of 1978–79, which was perpetrated by gangsters Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke; and the Tulane men's basketball point-shaving scandal of 1984–85, which led the university to disband its program for four seasons.

On 15 August 2007, NBA referee Tim Donaghy pleaded guilty to two felonies related to wagering on games that he officiated in a scheme somewhat related to point shaving. The difference in this case was that Donaghy sought to affect the outcome of over-under bets by changing calls so that both teams would score more than predicted, thus seeking to give the impression that at worst that he was merely strictly calling fouls as opposed to being outright biased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_shaving

And for those of you who are not sports fans, see Funny Girl which documents Fanny Brice’s romance with Nicky Arnstein.  

“Nicky" was short for nickel plate, a sobriquet bestowed in the 1890s when, as a boy, Arnstein rode a gleaming nickel-plated bicycle in the then-popular bike racing craze. However, he spent more time throwing races than winning them. He graduated to gambling on transatlantic liners and in European casinos, and eventually fell in with Arnold Rothstein, a loan shark, bookmaker, fence, Wall Street swindler, real estate speculator, and labor racketeer, who was best known for fixing the 1919 World Series.

In 1915, Arnstein was convicted of swindling, and the following year he entered Sing Sing to serve out his term. Fanny Brice visited him every week while he was there, and in 1918 Arnstein's wife Carrie sued her for alienation of his affection. She subsequently divorced him, leaving him free to marry Brice in October of that year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Arnstein. 

The outcome of the Academy Awards and Emmys are votes that are announced at a ceremony. It may be fancier than the ceremony on the Federal Election Day and there is also  controversy about the candidates, the voters, and the votes, but the accounting firm only tabulates and ensures the secrecy of the ballots.  By contrast, the winner of a WWE match is known, maybe not by the wrestlers until 30 minutes before the event, but by someone.  If betting is allowed on WWE matches, why not let betting before the staging of every scripted event.  I’ve got five bucks that says in the play Peter Pan, Tinker Bell lives, any takers? 😉 Spoilers are so passé anyway.  I guess there is no such thing as luck, if your name is Vince McMahon, Mark Burnett, or Donald Trump.  I guess then there is no such thing as insider trading either!

Income Taxes III

 

As Time Goes By

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss
A sigh is just a sigh
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by

Is Sam from Casablanca a System Optimizer?

The odds of becoming a professional basketball player (Pick your sport. I chose basketball because my eldest son was on his high school basketball team), if you are on your high school team is 1 in 1,920. It may be a mix of skill and luck, but humor me by saying that it is only luck. (Yes, I know that it is also skill. That same son did not even make an intramural team in college, so I know I am simplifying by saying that it is only luck). If it is luck, then it may make sense for a group say of five friends on an youth basketball team to make a pact. They will each contribute 10% of their salary into a pot if they don’t make an NBA team, but if someone beats the odds and makes it to the NBA that person will contribute 40% of their salary to that pot. The distribution from that pot will be in equal amounts regardless, 1/5 to each member of the group. If no one from the group makes it to the NBA, the payout from the pot is the same as the contribution to the pot. But if any one of the group does makes it to the NBA, the payout to each of the group is considerably more than the contribution from the non-NBA players. The one who did make it to the NBA will get 60% of that NBA salary plus 1/5 of the pot. Yes, the one who made it to the NBA is receiving less than his full salary, but the other members of his group are receiving more.

And on a very large scale this is a simplification of the US income tax system, where making it in any field is a random event. The question is are you for the group, a System Optimizer, or for yourself, a User Optimizer. I'm with Sam, the piano plyer in the movie Casablanca, who, when he was presented with the chance of making more money if took a job at somewhere other than Rick’s place said . “Yeah, but I ain't got time to spend the money I make here.” Sam was clearly a System Optimizer. Play it, Sam. You played it for her, you can play it for me!

Strategy

 

Poker Face

Can't read my, can't read my
No, he can't read my poker face
(She's got me like nobody)
Can't read my, can't read my
No, he can't read my poker face
(She's got me like nobody)

You shouldn’t need a poker face.

The idea behind a poker face is that you are trying to hide from the other bettors. That is whether you have a good hand or a bad hand.  That way you can more convincing bluff (lie) when betting.  So you only need a poker face if you are going to successfully lie.

If you don’t plan on lying, then you don’t need a poker face. In a two-person game, the optimal strategy is to do anything to win, including lying.  In a three-or-more person game, the optimal strategy is to make your move on each round based on your opponent’s move in the prior round.  Kind of "Do unto others as they did unto you."  Notice this is not vengeance, retribution, the start of a feud.  If your opponent starts being nice, then you start being nice on the next round.  If someone is trying to separate you from your group so that you and they are in a bilateral contest, then expect them to lie.  If people are trying to get you to join their group for a contest, then expect them not to lie.

But wait a minute, aren’t there usually more than two people in a poker game.  Yes but every hand is the luck of the draw, a good hand or a bad hand.  You are playing against the deck, and merely betting against others.  If you drew a Royal Flush on every hand, then you would not need a poker face.

MAGA? III

 

Tomorrow

The sun'll come out tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow, there'll be sun
Just thinking about tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs and the sorrow, 'til there's none
When I'm stuck with a day that's gray and lonely
I stick out my chin and grin and say
The sun'll come out tomorrow
So you gotta hang on 'til tomorrow, come what may
Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you, tomorrow
You're always a day away

Live for today, but plan for a better tomorrow.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that everything seeks a state of lower energy and in doing so, loses some its  own energy to Entropy.  Kind of depressing isn’t it. 

But since the human life span (not life expectancy, don’t confuse the two) on average is less than 100 years, there are no tomorrows for any of us alive today in 2123.  For the individual there is no tomorrow in 2123, but for the world (neglecting the quality of that world, which is our subjective opinion) there will be a tomorrow in 2123. 

If tomorrow is better than today, then yesterday had to be worse than today, because today is yesterday’s tomorrow.  If you believe that the past, MAGA, is better than today, then you also have to believe that tomorrow will be worse than today.  And you thought that increasing entropy was depressing!

Winning V

 

The Winner Takes It All

The winner takes it all
The loser's standing small
Beside the victory
That's her destiny

Winning isn’t everything!

In any choice,   there is a 50% chance that you made one choice then there is a 50% chance that you made the other choice.  The problem is when you think that only your choice is right, i.e. 100%.  Actually it doesn’t work that way.  If you have humility, or tolerance, you are willing to concede that the choice that you did not make might be right.  In that case following the 50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong, the wisdom of crowds, etc,  then you should want to know the variance of all choices.  You can be sure that 68% of all choices are within the mean choice, the odds, plus the square root of that variance.  This is the 68/95/99 rule of normal distributions.  It is also why the scientific standard is 3 Sigma which means that 99.97% of the observations are within three times the square root of the variance.

This sounds like complex math but it is not.  95% of the travel times have an on-time arrival which means that the mean time plus 2 times one square root of the variance is 95% of the means travel time, which means that there si an on time arrival 95% of the time.  (The idea of Joe Six Pack doing Square Roots in his head without thinking is mind boggling!)  If a verdict is Guilty or Not Guilty, a unanimous jury has only a 0.02% of occurring by accident.  IOW, a unanimous jury has a 99.98% chance of being correct, assuming that it was not lied during the presentation of evidence or that it was not biased to select a Not Guilty or Guilty verdict. IOW a unanimous jury is 3 sigma.

If the jury system follows statistical rules, and travelers follow statistical rules, then shouldn’t important decisions should just be better than the odds,  a simple majority.  The winner might take it all, but the winner does NOT speak for the group, only for himself.  Or, to use a quote from my favorite movie, Casablanca, when resolving the triangle of Rick-Ilsa-Victor, “If that plane leaves the ground and you're not with him, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.” The winner in a contest of two, only takes the loser’s share, but unless the rest of the group already gave its share to the loser, that was NOT all.  We’ll always have Paris, and you can't take that away from me!

Social Media

 

Rubberneckin'

Stop, look, and listen baby that's my philosophy
If your rubberneckin' baby well that's all right with me
Stop, look, and listen baby that's my philosophy
It's called rubberneckin' baby but that's all right with me

Freedom of speech has to be balanced by a  freedom to NOT listen

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court, exploring free speech rights in the social media era, on Monday agreed to consider whether the Constitution’s First Amendment bars government officials from blocking their critics on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-decide-if-public-officials-can-block-critics-social-media-2023-04-24/

What those bringing suit seem to be missing is that freedom of speech means that I tolerate your speech, not that I agree with the point that you are making in that speech. Tolerance is NOT acceptance, it is uh,…tolerance.

Continuing to speak after your point has been heard is NOT speech, it is harassment. The question should not be "Should social media platforms allow public figures to block figures?", it should be "Should social media platforms allow individuals to harass public figures?"

It gets confusing because social media seems like a public forum to those doing the posting, but to those who operate, and advertise on, that social media platform is a private forum. If those operating the social media platforms do NOT allow public figures to block postings, then they are legally, as a private party, participating in that harassment. You can speak, including postings on social media, but public figures, like all figures, have to be free not to listen. If those are elected public figures, then that blocking, not listening, can and should be, an election issue. But if the voters in that election decide that the speech was harassment, e.g. elect the candidate any way, then that should be the end of it.

On Beyond Einstein

 

They All Laughed

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly
They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony

I have sent this to physicists, but just so it is publicly dated.

I have since corrected the relativistic mass formula on a hyperbolic surface

The formulae for momentum, force, and energy are those established by Isaac Newton.

Momentum is mass times velocity, m *∂x/∂t.=mv.

Force is the change in, differential of, momentum, m*∂²x/∂t² =m ∂v/∂t =ma.

Energy is the integral of the change in momentum, ∫ m ∂²x/∂t² ∂t.= ∫ m*v*∂v.

If m is a function of v, then this can be solved by integration by parts, and it is, ½*m*v²- ∫ m*∂v.

Classical, Newtonian, physics assumes that mass is a constant at every velocity including zero, m₀, such that:

Momentum = m₀ ∂x/∂t=m₀ * v

Force= m₀ *∂²x/∂t² =m₀ * a

Energy = m₀ ∫v ∂v = ½ * m₀ * v²

Newton’s Law of Gravity is because if a system of two masses experience a change in momentum, then that change is assumed to be due to a force ( gravity).

F=G* (m₀₁ * m₀₂)/d₁₂² , G=6.67×10-11

where d₁₂ is the distance between mass 1 and mass 2, and m_0x is the rest mass for mass x. 

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity assumes that mass is NOT a constant but is instead a function of velocity, and that the frame of reference is important. If the frame of reference is flat Euclidean space, then the Lorentz Transform applies, and this becomes:

Momentum = m₀ *(1/√(1-(v/c)²))*v

Force= m₀ *(1/√(1-(v/c)²)*v dv = m₀ *(1/√(1-(v/c)²))*a

Energy = ∫m₀ *(1/√(1-(v/c)²)v dv = m₀ *(1/√(1-(v/c)²)) c²

If this is solved by integration by parts, then you get Einstein’s triangle of energy,  mc²= ½mv²+m₀c²

A problem with this interpretation is that it allows v>c where the mass becomes imaginary, and has a paradox at v=c, where the energy has to,  simultaneously, be both infinite and zero.

In a flat space, there is no reason for a system of two or more masses to seek a lower energy system and any change in momentum of these objects would still appear to be accompanied by a force (gravity).

F=G*(m₀₁ (1/√(1-(v1/c)²)))*m₀₂ (1/√(1-(v2/c)²))))/d₁₂² ,G=6.67×10-11

where d₁₂ is the distance between mass 1 and mass 2, and m_0x is the rest mass of mass x.

If space is not flat, but is hyperbolic[1], then the equations might instead be

Momentum = m₀ * (1/(ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v/c)²))))*v

Force= m₀ * (1/(ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v/c)²))))v ∂v = m1/(ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v/c)²)))0 * ()*a

Energy = ∫m₀ *(1/(ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v₁/c)²)))) *v ∂v = m₀* (1/(ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v/c)²))))* c²

This solution does not create a paradox at v=c , and it is undefined, not imaginary, when v>c.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that the energy of a system of objects will seek the state of lowest energy and any reduction in the energy of the system will be equal to an increase in the entropy of the system. In curved, hyperbolic, space, two masses will each seek to lower their energy and approach a common center along a geodesic. This change in energy will be accompanied by a change in momentum. But while in curved, hyperbolic, space, this could be viewed in flat space as an apparent force, like centrifugal force, and NOT an intrinsic force. The apparent force of gravity is these masses seeking to lower their energy, maximize their entropy, and this is

G*m₀₁*(1/(ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v₁/c)²))))*m₀₂*(1/(ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v₂/c)²))))/exp(-d₁₂),G=6.67×10^-11

where d₁₂ is the distance between mass 1 and mass 2, and m_0x is the rest mass of mass x. 

If velocity is less than 10% of the speed of light, then there is less than a 1% difference between assuming that mass is constant or that the mass varies with velocity. In this case classical, Newtonian, physics is used because it is simpler. It is not until the velocity is greater than 82.2% of the speed of light that there is an appreciable difference between the Euclidean, flat, and the hyperbolic functions of relativistic mass.

As shown by Mabkhout[1], assuming that the universe is hyperbolic can explain many apparent paradoxes between the age and the size of the observable universe. If the universe is hyperbolic, but it is viewed from a flat frame of reference, perspective, it would appear to undergo inflation at its beginning. If the universe is hyperbolic, then there is no need to resort to dark energy or dark matter to explain its continued expansion. If the universe is hyperbolic, then the Planck Energy is consistent with the Planck Length. If the universe is hyperbolic, then the paradox of rotating galaxies can be resolved. If the universe is hyperbolic, then gravity is an apparent force, not an intrinsic force,  and no effort should be taken to include gravity as a force in the standard model. If the universe is hyperbolic, then the apparent discrepancy in the Hubble Constant might be merely be the computing of that constant in a flat frame of reference while measuring it in hyperbolic frame of reference, i.e. it is no different that the seeming paradox that a Great Circle Distance on the Earth is not the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the two points at each end of that Great Circle.

If hyperbolic geometry is used to compute statistics, then every moment, not merely odd moments, about the mean, are zero. The Standard Deviation is then a measurement of Error, not of Variance. Even a system without mean error, or any individual errors, will still have a Variance.

Just as on the surface of the Earth, Euclidean geometry is used unless the distance between two points is large compared to the radius of the earth, ( i.e. the Earth is flat locally but spherical  globally), so too the universe can be assumed to be Euclidean, flat, unless the distances and speeds involved are enormous (i.e. the universe is flat locally, but hyperbolic globally.)

 

---

[1] Mabkhout SA. Non dark hyperbolic universe. Phys Astron Int J. 2019;3(1):1-12. DOI: 10.15406/paij.2019.03.00148 accessed  at https://medcraveonline.com/PAIJ/non-dark-hyperbolic-universe.html on April 17, 2023