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

#191

Post by TheGrumpyBrit » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:05 AM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #140

TheGrumpyBrit wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the judgment: "The Court found that Ivey and Sun breached their contract with Borgata to play Baccarat in compliance with the CCA by violating N.J.S.A. 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b) when they knowingly engaged in a scheme to create a set of marked cards and then used those marked cards to place bets based on the markings." That's the finding I disagree with, and seems to be the point that the entire judgment rests on.…

Bet placement and payment are all functional parts of a casino game. You can't ignore them when reading the regulations. If Ivey placed bets differently than he otherwise would have, then the game was affected.

But the section of the CCA Ivey is accused of breaching makes no allowance for whether or not any specific game was affected. It requires that the behaviour tends to affect the game, and given that the casino was happy to accommodate all requests and didn't see card rotation as anything more than superstition, I would argue that rotating a card would not tend to affect the game.

Even if it does, there is a specific penalty defined for breaching that section of the CCA, so it's not comparable to the Golden Nugget case.

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

#192

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:25 AM UTC

nstart wrote: post #38

dm3730 wrote: post #7

The judge had a very odd interpretation of the contract and "maneuvered", it appears one sided to me. " “By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them,” the judge wrote, “Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling as set forth by [New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission.] Ivey…

> By this judge's reckoning, you have to just be a robot that sits passively and accepts all the hand exactly as dealt and not use any strategy to play the game to your advantage. That's basically gambling. Which is exactly what the game they were playing was supposed to be. Pure chance. In fact gambling can be distilled down to that. Passively accepting your hand in the game and hoping for the best. That doesn't sou…

You know you're talking about a poker player, right? That's not pure chance at all.

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

#193

Post by dagw » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:25 AM UTC

AlexDanger wrote: post #144

milesvp wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Certainly here in Sweden they've short-circuited that entire process by making the slot machines into smartphone apps so that you can play whenever you want without even having to leave the comfort of your own home

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

#194

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:29 AM UTC

blhack wrote: post #61

While I initially thought that he and Sun should be able to keep their money (I assume she was paid handsomely for this?), after thinking about it more, I realize how livid I would be to find out that the casino had done this to better their own odds. I think that the situation is maybe slightly more complicated than it seems at first glance. To those who didn't read the article: the backs of the cards were not perfe…

>I realize how livid I would be to find out that the casino had done this to better their own odds.

That's because the casino is supposed to tell you what they're doing. A casino making decisions based on secret criteria is very abnormal. But the player almost always does so.

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

#195

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:36 AM 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 don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud.

So that means you disagree with the judge?

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

If we ignore addiction, there's no shame in running a casino. But if you play with fire and 100% agree to something with full competency, don't complain when you get burned.

>What if it had been a scheme to defraud a tech company?

Then that would be fraud. This isn't.

>Using a weakness in the system to extract millions?

When the weakness is condoned by someone that should know better, and they agree to it over and over again, and the terms of the agreement are honestly being followed, then yes they should suck it up and fix their process for the future.

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

#196

Post by jlebrech » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:01 AM UTC

wehadfun wrote: post #116

jlebrech wrote: post #65

you could exploit max bet if they allowed it. you start at $1 and if you lose you double your bet, and when you win you reset your bet back to $1.

I think the best way play $1 if you win play $1 if louse play $1 and enjoy the free drinks and conversation with your buddies.

that sounds like a plan

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

#197

Post by croon » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:07 AM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #137

croon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But seeing as the cards then are identical to other cards they're using, can they still be considered marked? That's what I mean, they're either marked or not.

Consider a deck of cards that has a triangle printed on the back. This triangle is printed exactly the same on every card, such that they are all indistinguishable from each other. Now rotate some of the cards 180°. Those rotated cards are now distinguishable from the other cards, because the card print is not rotational-symmetric. This rotation is what caused the cards to be marked, even though the printed pattern w…

I understand technically how it worked, I'm merely arguing that their interpretation of "marked", and also their interpretation of the party doing so is quite liberal, at least for a courtroom.

The player (Ivey) did not bring, substitute, touch nor coerce the casino into doing anything with the cards. His assistant asked the dealer to flip some cards and he abided willingly, supposedly on behest of the casino to accomodate a whale. They did nothing under the table.

Like most people on here IANAL, but this ruling doesn't seem right, where "right" is the letter of the law.

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

#198

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

Having seen a number of cases like this in Vegas growing up I doubt the judge will be overturned on appeal. Just like they would fine the casino if the casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation and the casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often. Changing the odds on either side of the equation is frowned upon by the judiciary.

>if the casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation and the casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often //

Like, for example, making alcohol available?

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

#199

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 12:48 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #198

ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

Having seen a number of cases like this in Vegas growing up I doubt the judge will be overturned on appeal. Just like they would fine the casino if the casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation and the casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often. Changing the odds on either side of the equation is frowned upon by the judiciary.

>if the casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation and the casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often // Like, for example, making alcohol available?

I wish I could write this in a more pithy way, but I feel like it's one of those jokes I have to explain, mostly for my own benefit, and thereby ruin it, but get a jolly good laugh out of it in the process.

So anyway, here it is:

If the casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation and the casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often.

And that's the punchline. Right? It's like some kind of self-referential / tautological definition of a casino.

To belabour the point: We noticed people tend to lose more money if we build casinos.

My work here is done.

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

#200

Post by SomeStupidPoint » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

imagist wrote: post #188

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #133

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…

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 wo…

Im sorry, but your position just sounds like uninformed radicalism.

Most corporations manage to act ethically; corporations (big and small) have non-profit motives; and limited liability is pretty much required to have a functional economy.

Your arguments are largely about scale, locality, and control structure, and nothing about corporations per se.