April 25

A bazillion years ago, I read about a group of science/math types (I think it may have been during the Manhattan Project) who devised a way to play poker without a deck of cards. As I recall, the idea was that you could pick any imaginary hand you liked (you wrote down what it was) - then you bet, bluffed, etc on the basis of your imaginary hand. Sadly, I don't recall the details - and now I'm trying to dig up the actual rules. Presumably, the rules would have to reduce the amount you won if you picked a high hand - or else everyone would go with four aces and a king (or whatever the highest hand is in Poker). So I kinda imagine your winnings with that kind of hand would be very low indeed - but winning with a pair of two's would bring in the big bucks. Something like that must have been involved.

Does anyone have the faintest clue about this? I may be extremely hazy on the details here - this is something I probably read about in the 1970's!

SteveBaker (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if everyone goes with a royal flush? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the rules result in nobody earning any money...but that's why I'm trying to find the original rules. SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that rather than the Manhattan project it was probably created by a bunch of game-theory types, but who knows. Searching I found a pdf explaining a one-card version of poker [1] but everything else I found for cardless poker was about electronic systems that don't use physical cards. Searching further, my guess is that it was John von Neumann, who worked on the Manhattan project and later did seminal work in game theory. This NY Times article mentions that he played a lot of poker while with the project. Here We go! After much searching (while typing this reply, as you can tell), I have found This, which is a complete schematic for the game, which was mentioned in this obituary of Robert Floyd. apparently he deserves original credit, not von Neumann. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well - circumstantially - that sounds like the right thing - but this is nothing like I recall having read. The Floyd paper is a complicated, theoretical way to literally play a completely standard game of poker without cards. (We actually have an article about it Mental poker). From what I understood, this was actually a playable game and it wasn't so much that the cards didn't exist as that you could pick your own hand. But I read this an awful long time ago - and it's perfectly possible that my memory is completely screwed! SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would lead anyone to choose a weak hand? Sounds like a bizarre game. Choose the highest possible hand every time, unless it is something like 7 card stud hi-lo, where a weak hand could win. Edison (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that the pot is rigged to pay more depending on the strength of your hand, to encourage and reward bluffing. So someone who decides on a royal flush will win if it comes to a show of cards, but the system will mean actually all that happens is (say) they don't lose any money, and the pot carries over to the next hand. I'm just guessing, but that's what I'd do, with the pot "buying" hands and with lower hands worth far more. Sounds like it could be fun. No idea how he game would finish, though. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the maths types over at that desk if they could have a whack at figuring out what any of the rules might have been. Hopefully that'll start you (and I) on your way to playing, Steve. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Edison, if all players did what what you suggest, it would degenerate into a waste of time after 2 rounds, and nobody would ever win. There's an inbuilt incentive to choose a hand lower than the highest possible hand. The trick is guessing what other players may do, and choosing a hand that's higher than that; but it only needs to be marginally higher to win. It would take quite a few rounds before players would start cottoning on to any sort of workable strategy - which would be immediately undermined by the strategies of others because they're free to choose any cards they think will work. And again, and again ... Fascinating concept. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely related off-topic anecdote: My Dad and Step-Mum have been known to play "Desperate Desperate Desperate Bridge", which is Bridge played with 2 players (instead of the usual 4) and no cards. A key feature of the game is remember what cards have already been played, since you can't play a card twice. Since all 52 cards are used in a game of bridge, you can't just choose to only use the best cards (you don't decide on your hand before your start, you just make up cards as you go along). It started out as Desperate Bridge, which is bridge with a pack of cards and 3 players. This works well because in regular bridge one person is always the "dummy" in each hand and doesn't do anything, so most of it is a 3 player game anyway (I'm not sure of the origins of this game, but I don't think it was their original creation). They then extended that to Desperate Desperate Bridge, 2 players, with cards, and then finally they started playing it when they didn't have any cards. The same principles can't really be extended to poker, but the idea of playing card games without cards is a very general proposition. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are four players, write on four pieces of paper, 1, 2, 3, 4. These stand for highest, second highest, third highest and fourth highest hand. Then after each person has picked their hand, one of the four pieces of paper is picked. Obviously, the four numbers must not be visible. After one is picked then that's the hand that wins the round and betting can be made based on what poker hand you have chosen. Of course there are other poker games that can be played without cards. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That essentially has card, though - those pieces of paper are just taking the play of regular playing cards. The game also wouldn't work since the hand you are basing your bets on has no relation to whether or not you win. --Tango (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that one could avoid the "everyone picking the highest possible hand" problem by saying that the winning hand is disqualified if it is the highest hand chosen by any of the players. Having to pick the second highest makes it impossible to win with the highest possible poker hand - and by implication (a variation of the Unexpected hanging paradox) any high-valued hand is unlikely to win. That would make it possible to pick any hand in the middle of the range and still win. Once you've de-fanged the "picking a high hand is good" strategy - you leave people picking more reasonable hands. Multiplying the size of the pot by some number that's zero for the best possible poker hand down to (say) ten for the weakest possible hand would add incentive to go for lower-scoring hands. Bluffing and betting should handle the rest.

I really wish I could remember the original place I read about this! SteveBaker (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fun party-trick variation on that strategy is the dollar auction. --Sean 12:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Michael Frayn's Copenhagen Bohr mentions, if I recall, that Heisenberg and Weiszaecker played chess without a chessboard (mental chess, I guess, though they weren't blindfolded). Not sure if that is what you had in mind but thought I'd put it out there as it sounds similar. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not very similar: nothing is hidden in chess. —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I know that. The similarity is in atomic physicists coming up with clever, mental ways of playing games. That's what I meant, obviously. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah. —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to buy a new casio G-9000 MC watch . i wanted to know ; what are the specialities of this watch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.251.46 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.casio.com/products/Timepiece/G-Shock/G9000_Series/product/G9000MC-3/content/Technical_Specs

What's so special about it? Seems like a pretty typical $15 digital watch...except they are charging $100 for it. It's shock-resistant, mud resistant, has stopwatch and world timer. Meh. SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to buy one if you don't know what is special about it? --Tango (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things that make it different from the $15 model are: Their marketing department has determined there is a market willing to pay $100. They have (hopefully) done quality testing on the components. (One reason why your Dollar store has watches is that they don't.) You might get lucky and they honor their spare parts obligation and be actually able to supply a replacement part for a broken one in a couple of years. Same goes for their warranty. So, you are buying the bragging rights of owning a $100 watch and the comfort given you by the belief that it might also offer the quality as advertised. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they claim "shock resistance" and "mud resistance" - I don't see anything that makes it particularly robust. I'm pretty sure the electronics are the usual stuff that every watch has - and it's well-neigh impossible to break the electronics of a $15 watch - all digital watches are pretty shock resistant - that term relates to clockwork watches - where a hard knock can indeed damage them and shock-resistance actually means something rather than just being words they stamp on the case. They carefully don't say it's waterproof - or even "water resistant" - so it's pretty certain that it's not. For $100 you could buy maybe half a dozen cheaper watches with the same features (and probably identical electronics). Is it really likely that this watch will last six times longer than a cheaper model? That's REALLY unlikely IMHO. Bragging rights are highly overrated - you MIGHT impress your friends the first time you show it to them - but after a week - they'll either be sick of you going on about it - or they'll have forgotten all about it - but your $100 is gone and your watch isn't special anymore.

If you want a watch that makes an impression - this is another sub-$100 watch. It has a gold plated case and a leather strap - it's both analog (classy!) and digital (practical) - and it keeps perfect time because it monitors a radio signal from an atomic clock so it stays PERFECTLY accurate and you never have to set it. You can SEE that it's not a $15 watch - it actually looks like a $100 watch. Or if you want a watch for it's features, consider this: this one for under $50 which has a compass and a thermometer (and stopwatch and such) and is water resistant to 660 feet. If you really want a quality $100 DIGITAL watch for the sheer style of it, go to a company like Fossil - for $80 they have a watch that works as a Wrist PDA with calendar and address book and who-knows-what - it has a USB port so you can connect it to your computer. Because they make fewer watches than Casio/Sony/etc - you'll have something that's a lot more unique.

So if you're going to spend $100 on a watch - I think you need to do your homework - you can do a lot better than this Casio gizmo. SteveBaker (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I think you're being overly skeptical. I don't know if the watch in question is truly ruggedized, but if it is, it may well be worth the $100 to someone who needs it. I vaguely remember that many years ago Casio had an ad for the G-Shock in which the watch was hit repeatedly in an ice hockey game as if it were a puck. Under impact like that, several parts of a non-ruggedized watch may fail. I'd imagine that if the body is not rigid enough, or if it's not surrounded by shock absorbent material, the body could deform (momentarily) enough to crack the glass window. It's also possible that solder and circuit board traces can get detached under severe shock and vibration. If a watch is intended to be used in muddy environments, you want the glass window to be scratch resistant. You also want to design the buttons to resist infiltration by mud particles.

For a ruggedized watch, you probably want a smaller but rigid body protected by cushioning material on the side, and have a smaller, recessed window made of thicker, scratch resistant material. The mechanical strength of the electronics may be over-engineered for normal application. At least superficially, the G-Shock shows some of these characteristics.

Ruggedized products are usually more expensive than that their non-ruggedized counterparts, and that stands to reason: the extra protection features and design margins cost money, and the product is bulkier, and the resulting products may appeal mostly to only those who actually need them. If you're an adventurer and you're far from civilization, you want your watch to work. The fact that a $15 watch works equally well when you're in the office is quite irrelevant. --173.49.78.81 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: I'm watching Atomic Cafe right now. I've seen it before, but it's prompting me to ask for some information, since I've spent hours in the past looking for a source I can purchase:

I've always been fascinated by the visual effects of atomic explosions (seen on TV, not the actual blindness thing). The fireball and mushroom cloud are so incredible and in a way sensuous. What I'm looking for is a compilation of A- and H-test results on video. Not pictures of setting up the bomb, not descriptions of the political milieu - just the explosions, from start to stratosphere.

Sort of like the very end of Dr. Strangelove, but showing the full evolution of the explosions. I've found that there's a record of (I think) the Castle Bravo test series, but when I last checked, it was only on VHS. So is there such a thing - buyable video of nuclear-test explosions? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of "nuclear explosion test" DVDs on eBay but most of them are crap—poor transfers of government videos. Avoid them. Instead, if you want nuke porn, check out the film Trinity and Beyond, which is pretty easily available (e.g. it is on Netflix), and maybe its sequel, Nukes in Space. (The other films by Kuran in the series are less about the explosions than other things.) Trinity and Beyond does have some "political" milieau and test setups but it is almost entirely images of explosions (wonderfully retouched to get rid of scratches on the original films). It's probably the closest thing to what you are looking for. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget, you get William Shatner narrating! Alas, I found even T&B to be frustratingly bad in terms of raw footage. I wish there was a less dramatic, more documentary-style video that aimed to be as informative as possible (e.g., by annotating the shots for scale, which is often difficult to determine, not cutting away so quickly, and giving more technical information about what you're looking at). It's amazing that all those non-copyright government videos are so tough to find on the internets. --Sean 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can order tons of American vids here. --Sean 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, there's so much good content on Xtube that I'm not even leaving the house. I'm an idiot for doing this, of course, I realise, but so much sex and naked women, I just can't stop watching it.--Biowar9 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, there are some kinds of porn that I would never, ever, ever want to see, like violent porn, child porn, bestiality, and gay porn (not that I'm making a judgement about homosexuality that it is on the same moral level as those activities, it's just that my desire for gay porn is equivalent to my desire for the deviant kinds of porn: zero).--Biowar9 (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the question? - DSachan (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop watching porn?--Biowar9 (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many freaks on Xtube though. Some normal folk, but hell even the Goatse guy is on Xtube.--Biowar9 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility might be to start having more real life sex. The other one might be to take part in activities which you like (sports, dancing whatever) but make sure it is a group activity and try to make yourself an integral part of it so that you feel compelled to attend it. Talk to more people (especially girls, I presume you are a guy) and try to become social. Although I must say, I am a porn addict as well but I have a fair share of other good stuff as well (I go out, I do lots of sports and some work also), so I am not trying to stop myself from watching lots of porn. - DSachan (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing that this afternoon but there won't be girls there. I used to get sex before I royally fucked up my life.--Biowar9 (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving sex aside, what do you enjoy doing? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for online dating. It's also addictive, but much more fun and it has some ramifications into reality. Your energy will not be wasted! --83.57.67.37 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go and talk to a professional. Depending on where you are and your circumstances, this may involve visiting your doctor/GP or a counselling service or (for example, at university) Occupational Health. You should tell them the extent to which this is interfering with your life and your ability to do anything else. They see this sort of thing all the time, and can help far better than we can. 80.41.1.247 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Addiction (and if it is getting in the way of your life, that's what it is) is a medical condition, which we can't help you with. Go to see your GP/family doctor and they will be able to refer you to the proper help. It's a pretty common condition, they'll know what to do to help you. --Tango (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tying both themes together, I recommend Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You: A Story of Life, Love and Internet Dating by Sean Thomas here. He became so addicted to internet porn he put himself in hospital -- and then cut it out, got dating again, and eventually got married. He tells a very funny story. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stop and you can stop - then just stop. If you want to stop and you can't stop then this is some kind of an addiction and we're not allowed to help you because that's a medical matter. So either "just stop" or go see a doctor. SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For off-topic discussion, see talk page. 80.41.9.84 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Morning doves landed on the wipers, on the windshield, of my car while I was seated in the driver's seat. They both stayed there for about 1 minute on the driver's side. The car was on but I had just parked. I'm wondering if anyone knows what this may mean? I have never seen them that close before, and they are just absolutely soft and beautiful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.121.99 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cosmic warning...throughout time, people have known of the impending events following the arrival of a pair of morning doves...take it VERY seriously...it means that two birds just landed on your windshield. SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if they had been mourning doves, well, the meaning would be just the opposite. // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two mourning doves landing on ones windshield means that two birds didn't just land on ones windshield? I never did understand portents... --Tango (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's springtime, isn't it? I'd say that two birds are thinking a lot more about getting laid than anything else just now... Franamax (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KSB: we need you on this one. -hydnjo (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guy are giving terrible advice here. How could you possibly advise this person in the manner you have if you haven't first measured the strength of his kirlian aura, and without knowing the gender and exact birthdate in order to do a star chart? These need to be cross-referenced against the incident before you couuld possibly have a clue as to what it meant. You guys are way off base.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me - I'm a serious ref desk researcher - I did all of those things, and the four cards at the bottom of the tarot's celtic cross still turned up The Hierophant, The Lovers (inverted), The Queen of Cups and The Chariot - which (as I'm sure you're aware) unambiguously divines: "You've got two birds on your windshield" Sheesh! SteveBaker (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve (may I call you Steve?), your problem is that you do not have a really good grasp on phrenology. If you had measured as many skulls as I have—really got to know their crooks and crannies—then you'd know that "doves on your windshield" is not literal; for thousands of years the mention of doves landing on any vehicle (the earliest know references being to a stone ox cart) referred to a numerology code of the Rosicrucians, clearly being invoked here, that means the person believes they are on the right track to find the tetragrammaton. You're way out of your depth, but then again, I can divine from your style of writing that you are an endomorph with out of synch biorhythms.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you post a similar question in another forum about 'morning' doves landing on your window sill and all the other stuff. You seem to be seriously plagued by these critters. I wonder what your postings mean. Richard Avery (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - then what is needed is a shotgun and this web page. SteveBaker (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]