Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back • Hacker News Board

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#141

Post by Hupriene » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #43

misja111 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my reading of the opinion is that, regardless of if you take advantage of it or not, the game is no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, and therefore is void. If this is true, it means that any game ever played with those 'marked' cards is void. Since Baccarat is a winning game for the casino, it would mean that this verdict could cost the casino many times more than what it has won against Phil Ivy. Ma…

The "marking" in this case is not inherent in the cards; but is rather a combination of an assymetry in the cards, and the dealer rotating a non-random subset of the cards (thereby turning the assymetry into a "marking"). Further, in order for a marking to count, it has to "tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determi…

Do you really think that a losing gambler would be able to bring a suit against a casino because a dealer placed cards in a slightly uneven way that seemed suggestive to the gambler and caused him to make sub-optimal bets? Even if it could be shown that the dealer had studied the psychology of cards for that very purpose?

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#142

Post by chmod775 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

ht85 wrote: post #130

The tone of most of the comments is very surprising to me. Many seem to argue that the ruling is wrong or too harsh, which I don't really see the basis of. I personally think that unskilled gambling should not be a thing, but in the current state of things I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud. A lot of people seem angry that the odds are always in favor of the casino, and comment in a…

> I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how else would that work for the gambling industry?

> As for their card trick, they both knew very well what they were doing, that is was at best immoral if not illegal.

There is no shame in doing anything within your abilities and the law to take money away from a business either.

As for their card trick, the casino agreed to all their demands and took the risk that something was going on they did not understand, with the expectation to take money from individuals in a way (gambling) that is at best immoral.

You may see what I did there.

For me it works both ways. Neither side can claim the moral high ground in this game they both agreed to enter - the only thing that stands out to me is that the side that isn't used to losing, lost.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#143

Post by solatic » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #13

techsupporter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker. I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips…

The article links to the Judge's opinion [0]. The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b): "a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result…

Still convinced that it won't hold up on appeal.

If the judge considers the cards to be marked because of manufacturing flaw that made the cards not perfectly symmetrical, then that manufacturing flaw would be present in all the casino's card games, rendering them all invalid and illegal and opening up the casino to lawsuits for return of losses from illegally operated games, which were illegal essentially because of a technicality. This would likely result in the casino going bankrupt.

If the judge considers the cards to be marked because they were rotated, then the judge has effectively outlawed a consensual agreement between the casino and the player regarding game conditions, which is neither in the spirit not the letter of the referenced law. True, the player exploited information asymmetry because he was aware of information that the casino was not, but that's a perfectly acceptable advantage which casinos exploit all the time when they don't explicitly explain to casual players how the rules of their games mathematically guarantee a house advantage over the long term.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#144

Post by AlexDanger » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

milesvp wrote: post #129

KVFinn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating It's funny -- I'm as vulnerable as anyone else to a million addictive game mechanics that build on the same impulses that make gambling addictive. But actual real-life casino slot machines just don't work. I need to be like, evaluating the loot drop's fire resistance on a new helmet or whatever for it to be addictive. When you just push a button over and over aga…

I'd bet you're under 35 ;) I've heard several reports that casinos can't get millenials to play slots, and I suspect it's because they're very unsophisticated compared to even the most basic video game.

That's interesting, do you work in the industry?

Things have come full circle - slot machines paved the way for gamification techniques and IAP. Flashing lights, the sounds, the 'I almost won' near-misses from the big jackpot...all finely tuned to get that dopamine squirting and keep you on the machine. Very Pavlovian.

Video games (IAP in particular) are just rehashing the psychological tricks that slot machines have used for decades. Its just the games are newer and offer a bit more depth.

I'm sure in good time we'll see more advanced slot machines to entice the smartphone generation.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#145

Post by twothamendment » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

asher_ wrote: post #29

gizmo686 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article links to the Judge's opinion [0]. The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b): "a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result…

Response to your edit. I still think this was the wrong opinion. If the cards are not shuffled that is a clear violation of the rules of the game. No such violation occurred here. There are no such rules about card orientation because usually casinos use ones with symmetrical backs.

Casinos use cards that they hope have symmetrical backs. In this case they were not symmetrical. Now who's fault is that? The player didn't bring the cards to the table, the casino did. If they want to cry foul and say those games are void so they don't have to pay out $10M, how much do they have to give back to players who used those same cards? They can't have it both ways. Were the games that were played with faulty cards valid or not? If not, time to start refunding a lot of money.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#146

Post by Ajedi32 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

ht85 wrote: post #130

The tone of most of the comments is very surprising to me. Many seem to argue that the ruling is wrong or too harsh, which I don't really see the basis of. I personally think that unskilled gambling should not be a thing, but in the current state of things I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud. A lot of people seem angry that the odds are always in favor of the casino, and comment in a…

> What if it had been a scheme to defraud a tech company? Using a weakness in the system to extract millions? Would we read "too bad, they should eat that loss and take it as an opportunity to improve their process"?

Remember when the Ethereum DAO got hacked? I seem to recall a lot of people making that exact argument.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#147

Post by EdHominem » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #76

croon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the ruling above saying just that? Otherwise they're having their cake and eating it too. So which is it?

They know it now ; they did not know it previously.

Right, but it's not dependent on intent. The other casino didn't intend to leave the deck unshuffled, this casino didn't intend to buy marked cards.

But, they did. So the games played with those cards(/unshuffled decks) shouldn't count.

If the law doesn't function in both directions it isn't law, it's codified graft.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#148

Post by sleepychu » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

ht85 wrote: post #130

The tone of most of the comments is very surprising to me. Many seem to argue that the ruling is wrong or too harsh, which I don't really see the basis of. I personally think that unskilled gambling should not be a thing, but in the current state of things I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud. A lot of people seem angry that the odds are always in favor of the casino, and comment in a…

The difference between their trick and the superstition seems to be only in success rate, to me.

If the casino allows the players to perform arbitrary actions within the limits of the rules in order to try and improve their luck I fail to see how Ivey and Sun can be considered to have defrauded the casino by performing their selected and previously agreed actions.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#149

Post by sleepychu » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

ht85 wrote: post #130

The tone of most of the comments is very surprising to me. Many seem to argue that the ruling is wrong or too harsh, which I don't really see the basis of. I personally think that unskilled gambling should not be a thing, but in the current state of things I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud. A lot of people seem angry that the odds are always in favor of the casino, and comment in a…

The difference between their trick and the superstition seems to be only in success rate, to me.

If the casino allows the players to perform arbitrary actions within the limits of the rules in order to try and improve their luck I fail to see how Ivey and Sun can be considered to have defrauded the casino by performing their selected and previously agreed actions.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#150

Post by kosei » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

This reminds me of the ESPN article in 2012:

"SEPT. 10, 12:30 P.M., CASINO DE MONTREAL "Hi, this is Phil Ivey," he says into his phone, from the back of a limo sent by Casino de Montreal. "I need you to transfer $1 million from my account, please."

There is no self-consciousness, no hint of understanding that the rest of the world doesn't make requests like this. "I know it's a lot of money, but I like to gamble," Ivey says. "It's just in me. I try to manage what I do playing craps or blackjack. At the end of the year, I don't want the amount I gamble there to be bigger than what I win playing poker.""

http://www.espn.com/espn/magazine/archives/news/story?page=m...