Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Guest Post

Pixabay
Today, we’re going to talk about cognitive abilities vis-a-vis gameplaying. Mindpower has been attributed to successful outcomes in skill and strategy-based games. But how far does mind power go when an element of luck is involved? Every strategy-based game features knowns and unknowns.
These variables need to be assessed through probability analysis. Players understand what proverbial cards they have been dealt in any particular game such as chess, battleships, professional sport, blackjack, poker, or World of Warcraft et al. But, it’s variables that can throw a wrench in the works.
Our discussion begins with fascinating insights into the mind of chess players and blackjack players. Both of these games put player against player (or dealer) in pursuit of victory. In chess, players have multiple pieces on a board, each capable of moving in a specific direction/s.
These rules-based games feature carefully contrived statistical analyses regarding actions which should be taken when certain situations present. Let’s take a look!
In a game of chess, the player has to make a series of decisions based on the position of the pieces on the board and the possible moves that can be made.
The chess player has to consider the following:
A player with strong mind power will be able to quickly assess the situation and make the best move possible. They will also be able to anticipate their opponent’s moves and counter them accordingly.
In blackjack, the player is trying to beat the dealer by getting as close to 21 as possible without going over. You’ll have to be au fait with stuff like blackjack card values, etc., and experience is key – but you can pick it up quite easily.
The blackjack player has to consider the following:
A player with strong mind power will be able to quickly assess the situation and make the best move possible. They will also be able to anticipate the dealer’s moves and adjust their strategy accordingly.
Card counting is an intractable component of professional blackjack play. Granted, it is done on the QT, but it’s an important skill that blackjack professionals learn.
The essence of blackjack card counting is as follows:
The goal of card counting is to get an edge over the casino by betting more when the deck is in the player’s favor and less when it’s not. While card counting does require some mind power, it’s also important to note that it’s not illegal and it’s not cheating. Provided you don’t use any electronic devices, or equipment, unobtrusive mental calculations of high and low cards remaining in the deck typically go unnoticed.
It’s simply taking advantage of the fact that the odds are not always in the casino’s favor. Players who are able to count cards effectively will be able to increase their winnings over time. However, it should be noted that card counting is not a guaranteed way to win, as the deck can still be shuffled at any time, and the player can still lose their bet.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Jericho Chambers | by Margaret Heffernan | March 2019
Some years ago, I joined a conference hosted by one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capitalists. It was the kind of event I knew well, when all the CEOs funded by the VC gather together to compare notes on what they’re seeing in the market place and are provided with (or subjected to) some pearls of wisdom from those with more experience.
Once upon a time, I was one of those CEOs, now I was supposed to dispense wisdom about willful blindness. I don’t remember much about the conference beyond its opening which went something along these lines:
There is nothing wrong with medicine that getting rid of doctors won’t fix.
There is nothing wrong with education that getting rid of teachers won’t fix.
There’s nothing wrong with the legal system that getting rid of lawyers won’t fix.
… our host stopped just short of saying there was nothing wrong with democracy that getting rid of voters won’t fix….
I sat up and paid attention. This was not the tech sector as I’d known it. All those years back in what I’ve come to think of as Internet 1.0 we had been full of curiosity, wondering what new wonders we could invent with this new tech and how we might develop it to enable, empower and even liberate everyone.
“We were idealists, we were naïve”
We hadn’t gone into it to make money – there wasn’t any in the beginning. And we hadn’t gone into it for power – there wasn’t much of that either. We were idealists, we were naïve.
How things had changed. Now the full force of Big Tech was marshalling its overwhelming power against … teachers? Doctors? This was definitely different, a calculated attack on society as we know it.
Since the early days tech has become so much bigger, richer, more aggressive. It tricks kids into spending money, newly weds and parents into buying stuff they didn’t know they were buying, recruiting subjects for experiments no one knew they were part of, siphoning off data. Who knows what else can be laid against its door?
This is not the way to build trust. It is a way to build distrust. And nowhere is that deeper than in discussions about artificial intelligence.
But first, what do I mean by trust? According to Veronica Hope-Hailey’s rich research, it is a mix of 4 ingredients
But even in its early phase, these four qualities are notably absent in corporate experiments with AI. Instead, there are a whole bunch of problems that, thanks to diligent investigators, keep being brought to light.
No consent
Earlier this year, it was revealed that Pearson, a major AI-education vendor, inserted “social-psychological interventions” into one of its commercial learning software programs to test how 9,000 students would respond. They did this without the consent or knowledge of students, parents, or teachers.115
This doesn’t appear to be consistent with Pearson’s values nor does it exude integrity.
Bias
96 percent of the world’s code has been written by men. And there’s an army of scientists (if you need them) who have demonstrated that WHAT is made/ written is a reflection of those who make it. (In art, this is deemed a virtue.) So it means that we already start in a deeply troubled, profoundly unrepresentative place.
Using AI for hiring selection has been shown – by Amazon – to be ineradicably biased because, trained on historical data of overwhelmingly male employees, it selects…overwhelmingly male employees, and deselects women. After 2 years of trying to fix this, even Amazon has given up. But not all companies have. So when AI meets diversity policy, what you get is … at least NOT consistent.
Inadequate data sets
Deducing mood, psychological state, sexual orientation, intelligence, likelihood of paedophilia or terrorism through “analyzing” facial expression keeps being shown to be inaccurate, outdated, biased, and based on inaccurate datasets. This is not benevolence.
Training AI to seek “criminal face” using data consisting of prisoners’ faces is not representative of crime, but rather, represents which criminals have been caught, jailed, and photographed. A high percentage of criminals are never caught or punished, so the dataset cannot adequately represent crime itself. We are back in the land of phrenology…or worse.
We all know there are some scientific research programs best not pursued—and this might be one of them.
Illegality
Hiring AI used by fast food companies has been shown by Cathy O’Neill to screen out those with any hint of history of mental illness – a move specifically prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But attempts to investigate this so far have been stalled by claims that the AI is a trade secret and cannot be disclosed. One law for humans – another for machines. This isn’t integrity in action.
Socially deaf definitions of success
Attempts to use AI to allocate school places more fairly in Boston backfired completely when it turned out that nobody programming the AI had the faintest idea – let alone experience – of the way that poor families live, the timetables that working 3 jobs imposes on them and their children. Not only were results worse – they came wrapped in insult. This isn’t benevolent and it was, frankly, incompetent.
These are real cases. There are more. Each one might be nit-picked apart but the key issue is this:
AI oversteps a fundamental boundary between objective analysis and moral judgment.
When such moral judgments are made, people deserve a chance to understand and to validate or to contest them. Claims of trade secrecy specifically militate against this. Ethical issues are treated as legal and policy issues – a way of sidelining them that is completely synonymous with the way that hierarchies and bureaucracies facilitate, indeed drive, wilful blindness in organizations.
AI simply amplifies both the risk and the lack of accountability to an unimaginable scale. You could say it delivers the status quo PLUS. So AI has the capacity to increase and sustain marginalization, corporate malfeasance and inequality.
All of the companies involved in developing it know this. That’s why there’s a whole roster of organizations all trying to figure out how to make AI the commercial goldrush it promises to be – while also hoping to silence fears that anything could possibly go wrong. But there are 2 difficulties with their approach:
“It would be both naive and counterproductive to say law enforcement shouldn’t have these new technologies. They’re going to, and I think they’re going to need them. We can’t have police in the 2020s policing with technologies from the 1990s”[1]
“‘Sit down. Shut up. When I want something from you, I’ll ask’, is the tenor of so-called public consultation”
This is the language of propaganda: telling people that these new technologies are inevitable- when they aren’t – and that they’re unequivocally productive – when they aren’t – and therefore there is no need, no POINT in asking questions. ‘Sit down. Shut up. When I want something from you, I’ll ask’ is the tenor of so-called public consultation.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Financial Post | Geoff Zochodne | Feb 19, 2019
Fintech welcomes competition, but big banks seem lukewarm on opening the financial system to third partiesUpstarts in the financial sector say the data-driven concept of “open banking” could inject a healthy dose of competition into Canada’s highly concentrated financial services industry — but it may take some convincing to get the bigger players to embrace the idea.
Last week marked the deadline for submissions to the federal government’s consultation on the framework, which if adopted could allow consumers and businesses to make their financial transaction data available to third parties.
That information is currently controlled by banks and other financial institutions used by the consumer. If that data was portable, however, other parties could potentially use it to better price or tailor products or services, such as an app that would let a customer keep tabs on all of their accounts at various banks through a single dashboard, without violating their bank’s terms and conditions. Open banking could make switching accounts easier as well.
A spokesperson for the Department of Finance Canada said they had received more than 95 submissions for the consultation, the results of which will be made public in a form that is still being determined.
Among the parties who made submissions in favour of some degree of open banking were Toronto-based alternative lender Equitable Bank and Portag3 Ventures, a venture capital fund backed by Power Corp. of Canada that has invested in fintech companies such as robo-advisor Wealthsimple.
Equitable, Canada’s ninth-largest independent lender, said a framework that supports the idea of customers owning the rights to their own financial data would increase “the competitive intensity” of the banking industry.
Andrew Moor, president and chief executive officer of the branchless bank, said Equitable’s view is people should shop for the best banking services they can get.
“We don’t really think that that’s necessarily provided by one institution,” he said in a recent interview with the Financial Post. “And open banking makes all of that much easier.”
Portag3 Ventures, meanwhile, predicted in their submission (published on its website) that open banking would “stimulate” competition in the sector.
“Facilitating improvement in competition has been a specific driver for Open Banking in the (United Kingdom), Australia and New Zealand,” the submission stated. “Canada lacks a specific focus on competition in regulating financial services, especially compared with the U.K. and Australia, countries with very similar banking sector market structures.”
The current consideration of open banking comes as technology is disrupting industries around the world.
Despite the sea change, Canada’s banking sector has remained under the control of a handful of financial institutions — Portag3 noted that, in Canada, the top-six banks hold 90 per cent of assets “and also dominate in all aspects of retail banking.”
While Canada’s major lenders have spent billions on technology and innovation, including partnerships with upstart financial technology players, they appear to be lukewarm on open banking — or anything that risks opening the financial system to third parties.
Sue Britton, chief executive officer of the FinTech Growth Syndicate, said the types of fintechs that financial institutions are currently partnering with are more business-to-business firms that complement a bank’s operations, rather than compete with it.
“Those types of companies, they’re not partnering with financial institutions,” Britton said in a recent interview. “The primary focus of the Canadian financial institutions is to largely build things themselves and continue to more improve things like the customer experience than the price we pay.”
Nearly all of the big five banks did not respond to questions for this article. However, the Canadian Bankers Association’s submission to the open-banking consultation divided the industry group’s concerns, and potential remedies, into four areas highlighted in the government’s consultation paper: consumer protection, privacy and confidentiality, financial crime and financial stability.
As an example, the CBA said that when more parties are transmitting and storing financial-transaction data, the risk of identity theft increases too. Third parties that store log-in credentials, such as usernames and passwords, could also be more susceptible to cyber-attack if their controls are lacking.
“We believe open banking can enhance the financial services landscape for Canadians,” a CBA spokesperson said in an email. “Along with the benefits it could provide, key risks should also be addressed.”
Even if there are concerns around security, the banking sector is still preparing for whatever form of open banking may come.
A report published in January by consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers included a section featuring Bank of Montreal CEO Darryl White, whom the study said saw open banking “as an exciting development for Canada.”
“If we can figure out how to solve for security, transparency and control, we can have an open banking system in this country that could work very well, in my view,” White is quoted as saying.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Crowdfund Insider | | Feb 20, 2019
The world of business equity raising is still dominated by men. Melinda Gates wrote in ReCode back in 2017:
“We like to think that venture capital is driven by the power of good ideas. But by the numbers, it’s men who have the keys.”
Gates argued that this was “more to do with historical inequalities than it does with innate ability.”
At the time of Gates’ comments, a U.S. analysis found that just 2% of venture capital finance went to start-ups founded by women, and with women comprising just 9% of the decision-makers at U.S. venture capital firms, the lack of female VC representation seemed a compelling reason as to why. The situation a year on shows no sign of improving.
Recently, a UK VC & Female Founders report for the Treasury discovered that for every £1 of VC investment, all-female founder teams get less than 1p.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss said it was “incredible” that in 2019 men had a “virtual monopoly on venture capital.”
Even within the more disruptive, and arguably progressive, realms of crowdfunding, women are underrepresented – Crowdcube found that only 18% of their funded pitches are led by females or a joint team which includes a female.
As well as being hard to believe in this day and age, this status quo also makes terrible business sense.
Businesses largely led by women do better than male-dominated ones. And this isn’t a new discovery.
Multiple studies have shown this, and just recently, a report from US accelerator Mass Challenge found that for every dollar invested, a company founded by men generated 31 cents – compared to 78 cents produced by start-ups with women on the board.
Truss says she wants to see more women starting up businesses to “supercharge economic growth”. Whether our economy can be “supercharged” given the uncertain times we face, I’m certain that investing in female-founded or female-led businesses is one of the smartest things investors can do.
I understand the raising investment challenges start-ups face, particularly female-led start-ups, because I’ve experienced them first-hand – both in my identity as an entrepreneur in my past business, and now in my investment consultancy role – and I would say there are a few factors at play.
Firstly, investment is not really an industry many women tend to enter. It is viewed as a bit of an old boy’s club and has a reputation for not being female friendly. People don’t tend to want to go to a party that they’ve pointedly not been invited to or where they will be in the minority.
There is also an unhealthy dose of old-fashioned sexism still at play here.
I’ve been to several board and investor meetings at investment and law firms across the city and on more than one occasion people assumed I was there as the PA or the stand-in receptionist. Not the person presenting in the boardroom to the partners of the firm. I’ve also recently been in an office filled with men whose artwork on the walls included paintings of naked women!
The gender bias of the industry is also causing a vicious circle which is contributing to locking female founders out of investment. There are very few female investors in the UK, and at the same time, investors tend to invest in sectors that they know or intrinsically “get” which makes good, solid sense. Yet if all the investors are male it makes it that much harder for female-led and female-focused businesses to secure investment.
But in the two years of raising £18 million for businesses of all sizes, including those with female founders, I have seen flashes of brilliance from the female-led camp – both in terms of women getting behind investment propositions and in how women are turning the situation to their advantage.
We recently managed The Baukjen Group’s crowdfunding campaign on Crowdcube. The brand, built on its premium Isabella Oliver maternity range and its contemporary womenswear offer, is understood by women. Its wife and husband founding team also offers the gender mix which we have found works incredibly powerfully for investors. Their raise achieved the highest number of female investors ever to invest in a company via crowdfunding – 77% of investors were women, compared to an average of 31% (Crowdcube.) It showed that women are ready to invest, and with a more democratic crowdfunding platform, they are able to play a bigger role and respond to brands they believe in.
While a lack of confidence and reticence in their approach to equity raising is holding female founders back, it is also driving them to approach investors with a more thorough and robust style.
We have found in our experience with businesses that women tend to get down to the numbers, hard facts and proof-points much quicker than men when seeking investment. Female founders should play on this trait – especially when pitching a product that male investors wouldn’t intrinsically understand.
When Trinny Woodall pitched her beauty brand to investors, she knew that women would love her brand and would recognise the benefits of her make-up and the pain points it solved. However, looking around the room she recognised that she was pitching a female-focused product to a room full of men. So instead of pitching her product, she pitched purely the numbers, the margins, the market and the size of the opportunity.
In contrast, when we are dealing with an all-male founding team it can take us weeks to cut through the bravado, whereas women often take a more grounded approach – setting forth figures and projections plainly. The irony of this is that women are less likely to pursue investment in the first place, and when they do, are less likely to ask for what they need. This is a problem.
One of the biggest solutions to the inequality of raising investment is around education. Female founders can be wary of investment because they view it as taking on debt but there are different forms of funding and it’s important to understand what funding actually means for your business. Equity funding is not debt and you won’t owe investors that money. You do have an obligation to do your best and use that funding wisely, with the aim to give a return but if it all goes wrong, investors lose their capital and know the risks involved.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
NCFA | Richard Remillard | January 28, 2019
A National ProjectOpen banking has many definitions and multiple characteristics. At its core though is the concept of empowerment – the empowerment of financial consumers, individuals and businesses alike, that comes from transferring control over financial information to clients away from established financial institutions.
Because of this potential which promises to democratize financial transactions, much has been said about open banking in recent years. And, insofar as Canada is concerned, all that talk misses the point.
Properly considered, open banking is the national project for the 21st century digital, mobile, connected economy.
The only real question is: can Canada build such a national project when it is having such difficulty getting national projects for the 20th century economy off the ground, out of the ground and out to market?
Think pipelines.
Already, there are worrisome signs.
A 2019 fearless forecast: no open banking, any time soon and certainly not in 2019. For Canada to participate in this financial innovation bold leadership will be required from committed participants unafraid to shake up the established order to bring about the birth of a new way of doing things.
Left to its own devices, the policy process today would likely grind out a classic Canadian compromise of the kind that we excel in producing, much like promoting both environmental protection and a resources-based economy. However, in the realm of open banking, allowing things to unfold as they usually do will probably lead to a middle-of-the-road that really doesn’t position Canada for leadership in financial services innovation.
The main challenge facing proponents of open banking today is to identify and then proceed to implement the winning conditions that will be necessary to overcome regulatory and bureaucratic inertia.
Some of those winning conditions would include:
Richard Remillard,
President, Remillard Consulting Group
NCFA Board Member
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |