Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

181–190 of 213 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I disagree. That's not how the majority of corporations exist today, nor reflects how most people believe they should operate. It's the behavior of a small percentage of large corporations, largely supported by people like you throwing their hands up and going "well, that's just the way of it!" Expecting corporations to behave ethically is no different than expecting people to behave ethically -- and we should…

The laws exist to remove legal culpability. It's not throwing our hands up, it's recognizing the source of the problem. Until we fix the laws, the entire point of a corporation is to diffuse legal responsibility. Yes, it needs to change, but it can't change from the ignorant position that we're fixing leaks and will eventually have a waterproof system. It's intentionally setup to be this way and nothing short of an e…

The profit-driven focus hinges on one interpretation of a court case, and nothing at all to do with liability shielding from corporate status.

Similarly, the punishments doled out aren't constrained by matter of law from being effective, but rather, by the dynamic of the system and the willingness of the public to accept it from judges and prosecutors.

My point was that you've been propagandized to believe that the law permits the current system, when really the present system is likely illegal already and instead results from the lack of political will to replace corrupt government officials who enable poor corporate behavior.

The system would be much better if we actually enforced it... Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal.

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws exist to remove legal culpability. It's not throwing our hands up, it's recognizing the source of the problem. Until we fix the laws, the entire point of a corporation is to diffuse legal responsibility. Yes, it needs to change, but it can't change from the ignorant position that we're fixing leaks and will eventually have a waterproof system. It's intentionally setup to be this way and nothing short of an e…

The profit-driven focus hinges on one interpretation of a court case, and nothing at all to do with liability shielding from corporate status. Similarly, the punishments doled out aren't constrained by matter of law from being effective, but rather, by the dynamic of the system and the willingness of the public to accept it from judges and prosecutors. My point was that you've been propagandized to believe that the l…

> The system would be much better if we actually enforced it.

Right. But ...

> Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal.

No. Many of us demand that but nobody listens because they know they don't have to.

Realize that making the laws unenforceable is the intent. This is what I mean by patching vs replacing. Let's say we managed to get a few hundred bankers arrested for 2008. Then what? They change the rules slightly and next time we don't.

Instead we need to repeal all limited liability for any group. That way in the future it's not us vs them, it's us vs us, which is winnable.

And I agree that's it's already illegal. But it's constitutionally illegal, we don't grant government the right to create a privileged class and yet it did. And if our ancestors were dumb enough to sign off on this, we don't have to be.

We, the people, don't have to be bound to the muck that is our common law. The government is ours to charter as we wish and if huge swaths of it aren't working they can be thrown out wholesale. If we get bogged down in trying to navigate our(!) ruleset we've already lost the game.

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

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two - you go into any casino and use card counting techniques (like the ones the MIT team used) and within ten minutes, the pit boss will cut you off because its obvious what you're doing. When I was a blackjack dealer we had people counting cards all the time. Most were very easy to spot and were touristing. They never got harassed, but when you got one you would usually chase him away because for some reason they…

This is interesting, what are some examples of things you'd do to make them uncomfortable?

It really depends on the situation and the person. You could call them out on what they are doing. Burn extra cards or change up your shuffle. Slow down or speed up the game. Have a quiet conversation with the pit boss. Ask for new cards. Steer conversation in a particular direction. Flirt. Make mistakes. The list goes on.

When you play cards 5 hours a day with 2 1/2 hours of breaks there is a lot of opportunity to think about how to maximize your tips.

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

#184

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…

In the broader scheme of things, isn't the casino setting itself up for trouble? If someone lost significant money, can't they now file suit claiming the casino likely used a similar scheme to force the game in the casino's favor?

No - the only choices in baccarat seem to be related to betting, so marking the cards wouldn't benefit the casino.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that this is in Atlantic City, it hasn't really happened.

You don't think that gambling has brought money into Atlantic City?

Has it brought more than the things it displaced?

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

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think that gambling has brought money into Atlantic City?

Has it brought more than the things it displaced?

I have no idea, I'm just interested in hearing thoughts on the topic, I don't know anything about atlantic city.

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

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it brought more than the things it displaced?

I have no idea, I'm just interested in hearing thoughts on the topic, I don't know anything about atlantic city.

Everything I've ever read says that the gambling revenue in just about every city that tries casino revitalization is more or less offset by the local small businesses the casino squeezes out. And at this point so many places are getting casinos you aren't going to get a lot of tourism.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The modern American take on a corporation is the existent majority of successful corporations. That's certainly how casinos operate. I'm not saying this is the kind of corporation I want--on the contrary, I despise that such organizations are allowed to exist. But saying that corporations shouldn't act immorally when they can make more money by acting immorally is like saying termites shouldn't eat wood. It's the nat…

Again, I disagree. That's not how the majority of corporations exist today, nor reflects how most people believe they should operate. It's the behavior of a small percentage of large corporations, largely supported by people like you throwing their hands up and going "well, that's just the way of it!" Expecting corporations to behave ethically is no different than expecting people to behave ethically -- and we should…

I think you're deeply misunderstanding my position.

I don't think we should accept and normalize this behavior from corporations, I think we should reject corporations as valid entities with a right to exist entirely.

Expecting corporations to behave ethically is not a reasonable expectation. Unlike individual humans, corporations only have incentives to make money.

I think policing is necessary, but it won't ever work as long as we treat corporations as capable of ethics. It should be assumed that corporations will do the wrong thing the instant it becomes profitable. Corporations should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

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

#189

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…

so the casino always uses these cards. Sun bought a set of the cards from that casino and studied them. Sun was also not a player, she was just the interpreter while Ivey was the better. if the rationale of this case stands, then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata under the New Jersey Casino Control Act If that fails then the New Jersey Casino Control Act should be ch…

> then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why would the dealers of all people sue Borgata?

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

#190
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so the casino always uses these cards. Sun bought a set of the cards from that casino and studied them. Sun was also not a player, she was just the interpreter while Ivey was the better. if the rationale of this case stands, then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata under the New Jersey Casino Control Act If that fails then the New Jersey Casino Control Act should be ch…

> then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata I'm probably missing something obvious, but why would the dealers of all people sue Borgata?

because they are participants in the game
Post reply on HN