Chinese Blackjack (Ban-luck)

Chinese Blackjack, otherwise known as "Ban-Luck" to some Singaporeans, is interesting in that it is an almost symmetric game between the player(s) and the dealer. This is because the payouts and scoring rules are identical for both player and dealer, which contributes to the simplicity of the game. In fact, if the dealer chooses to play in a particular fashion, namely hitting his cards before revealing the players' hands, then it does become a perfectly symmetric game.

Conversely, a dealer's house advantage comes solely from being able to selectively reveal some players' hands before hitting. In other words, the dealer has an advantage in that he is able to first beat hands which are likely to be weaker (by being busted), and that he is able to further build up his hand to confront stronger hands.

Out of a pure curiosity, I was considering some potential strategies for Chinese Blackjack. However, most player strategies are likely to have a minimal impact, due to the inherently limited strategic nature of the game. Chinese Blackjack forces the player to draw til at least 16, in which case it is (by statistical reasoning) unwise to draw further. The only exception to this rule is when one has a 'soft' hand, comprising of one Ace. Though I have yet to perform a through analysis of the mathematics, I believe that it is better to hit in this case. There is a small chance of improving one's hand, but the main issue is to confound the dealer's opponent model by tricking him into believing that you have a busted hand.

As a dealer, there is much more room for strategic analysis. It is quite possible to compute, via extended Monte Carlo simulation, the probability of a 4, 3 card hand being busted (assuming the basic opponent model given by the hit-til-16 rule). Furthermore, with some computing power or pre-computed tables, it is possible to obtain the precise odds of a player's hand being superior to yours, and the odds of a drawn card improving your hand, given the already exposed hands. However, I have my doubts regarding the feasibility of such implementations.

Rational Egoism

Egoism is often equated to selfishness. This may be an overstatement; rational egoism is to selfishness as farsightedness is to shortsightedness.

Egoism asks for the individual to maximize his self-interest. Some believe that this necessarily leads to selfishness, but this conception is false. A rational egoist must come to the conclusion that in many cases, it is not possible to improve one's position without also improving the position of others. This may be imagined as the construction of a sort of self-interested altruism, where one gives up immediate self-interest in exchange for a greater yield, accumulated over time and many agents.

It is possible to derive at a form of "golden rule" based on the concept of rational egoism; one simply asks himself, for each action, whether the benefit of performing this action outweights the downsides of having the action performed against oneself. Of course, this construction suffers from the same problems as the golden rule itself, but it is nonetheless a good guide for moral actions.

A major issue with rational egoism is the issue of observer-less actions, or secret actions. If an act cannot be observed or traced back to the agent, then it seems to behoove the agent to behave in the most selfish manner possible. Conversely, an agent is motivated to act altruistically only if he is convinced that his action is able to affect others to behave similarly. This issue is worth addressing, but it cannot be adequately contained within the space of this margin, and must hence be discussed at a later date.

How to Become More Wise

Here is a guide to becoming more wise.

1. Determine a method or benchmark by which the level of wisdom can be quantitatively evaluated. Lacking this, it is impossible to know whether you have become wiser, and hence you will surely fail in the quest for wisdom.

2. Having obtained a means of measuring wisdom, the next step is to brainstorm a number of potential wisdom increasing activities. Then, in a controlled fashion, test each of these activities, and record the change in wisdom effected by each activities.

3. Based on the previous wisdom data, choose the activity that is most effective at boosting your wisdom. Repeat the activity until you are sufficiently wise.

The above procedure is a scientifically sound way to raise your wisdom.

Thoughts on Recruitment

It seems to me that when companies are hiring, they are not looking for the most competent person for the job; rather, they are looking for the person that is mostly likely to be competent for the job.

I have heard of the battery of tests some companies subject applicants to. I have also heard of comments on the apparent uselessness, or rather, the low correlation to working ability, of these tests. These may indeed be true, but the tests ought to be understood in another framework. The tests are not meant to measure your competence, but rather, your incompetence. A high score on a reasoning test does not grant you improved standing in the employer's eyes, but a low score essentially disqualifies you from the running.

Similarly, a university degree can be thought to be a form of accreditation. Having a university degree, or a good honors, does not imply that you are competent. However, lacking a degree, your standing in the eyes of the employer is suspect. Indeed, there may be a million sound reasons why you were unable to attain a degree, but it is far easier, and far safer, for the employer to discard you from consideration, particularly if there are multitudes of qualified applicants. After all, if you only need a good hire and not the best hire, why take a risk?

Many Years

While riding on the bus to the university today, I saw her again. She was wearing a blue long cardigan over a white v-neck tee, a style that she was fond of even then, many years ago. She seemed to have aged somewhat, and there was a hint of world-weariness in her eyes.

As she boarded the bus our eyes met and, for the slightest and yet longest of moments, stood locked for the first time in many years. Then she broke off our joined gaze, and tapped the card to pay her fare. For an imperceptible instant she seemed to hesitate, before perking up with a mustered smile and moving to occupy the bus seat beside me.

It was awkward at first, but we soon warmed up; and as we conversed, all those years of separation, of distance, seemed to melt away to nothingness. It wasn’t what we talked about, though reminiscing about our moments together was indeed nostalgic; it was the energy of the conversation, that youthful energy that we once had felt between us but then forgot, that seemed to slice past the fog of time and memory.

We didn’t notice how fast time had passed, not in our conversation, nor in our lives. Suddenly, she straightened her back and shot up her head, glancing outside the bus window.

“I’ll have to drop at the next station, I think,” she said with some tone of regret. I felt it too, for our time together was all too short compared to our time apart, which was all too long. Out of a small, tiny hope, I asked whether she would be taking the same route again tomorrow.

“No. I’m only using this as I’ve an errand to run. I don’t think I’ll be able to see you again like this,” she said before getting off the bus.

As I watched her back fade into the crowd, I thought about how similar this parting was to our last; in the end, after many years, we were once again parted by time and distance.

Better to Have Tried and Failed

It is possible to claim upon failure that it is better to have tried and failed than to have never tried before, but such words seem vacuous and empty. Perhaps there is some small truth in those words, and that it is indeed better to risk risks and experience experiences. However, it is more common for these words to be invoked to provide some measure of self-comfort, to assuage oneself of the redeeming benefits of one's failed endeavor.

It is not wrong to adopt such means of preserving one's esteem or happiness, for in fact humans are apt at devising such subtle self-lies, and that without such artificial constructs to hold the harsh realities at bay our sanity would be suspect. However, in realizing the true nature behind these untruths, one is resigned to either unhappiness or self-deception. In the former case, perhaps the only resort is to reveal the piercing truths, and to engage in schadenfreude, which is perhaps the only form of joy in a miserable world.

Smoking Extends Your Lifespan

It is commonly thought that smoking decreases your lifespan. However, our research has shown that this is untrue!

Long before cigarettes were invented for recreation, smoking was used to preserve food. Logic tells us that if smoke can preserve food, it can also preserve humans (since humans are also some form of food, as attested to by various cannibals and carnivorous predators). In fact, smoke is "an antimicrobial and antioxidant". Hence, by smoking, you will be less vulnerable to diseases and illnesses.

It is noted that a major weakness of smoking in preserving food is that "the smoke compounds adhere only to the outer surfaces of the food; smoke does not actually penetrate far into meat or fish". However, this problem is circumvented by cigarette smoking, since the smoke is directly inhaled into the body. It suffices to say that the health benefits of cigarette smoking are greatly increased over that of standing in a bonfire to be smoked.

In all, one should not be convinced by anti-smoking propaganda. The health benefits of smoking are obvious; in fact, samples of organs from deceased cigarette smokers are readily available for viewing, and the fine state of preservation of such organs should readily convince the agnostic as to the veracity of our claims.