Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 221 posts

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#21

Post by codegladiator »

luckylion wrote: post #14
codegladiator wrote: post #8

> In the 2017 judgment, Superior Court Justice Chantal Chatelain found that rock paper scissors is not simply a game of luck. > the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence The court can ask him to defeat 10 other people in that game consistently to prove that ? But then he could argue the others were also skilled ?

"not simply a game of luck". Of course there's luck involved. There's luck involved in tennis as well. Would you consider tennis a coin flip?

I can insist that there is skill in coin toss too.

I think what we want to look at is how much luck/skill percent is there. If tennis was luck overpowering skill, it wouldn't be an international sport in my opinion.

So rock paper scissors is 90% luck + 10% skill. A kid can potentially beat a professional rock player. Same is not the case for tennis.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#23

Post by Invictus0 »

codegladiator wrote: post #8

> In the 2017 judgment, Superior Court Justice Chantal Chatelain found that rock paper scissors is not simply a game of luck. > the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence The court can ask him to defeat 10 other people in that game consistently to prove that ? But then he could argue the others were also skilled ?

Some players consistently make it to the final rounds in RPS tournaments [0].

[0]: https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper...

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#25

Post by codegladiator »

Invictus0 wrote: post #23
codegladiator wrote: post #8

> In the 2017 judgment, Superior Court Justice Chantal Chatelain found that rock paper scissors is not simply a game of luck. > the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence The court can ask him to defeat 10 other people in that game consistently to prove that ? But then he could argue the others were also skilled ?

Some players consistently make it to the final rounds in RPS tournaments [0]. [0]: https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper...

Oh wow that's news to me, I had no idea there was a world competition for this ! Guess i'll have to edit my other comment now :-/

edit: wait something looks odd at http://www.worldrps.com/ , is it really an internationally recognized competition ?

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#26

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly »

>The court also upheld the lower court's conclusion that the $517,000 wager was excessive.

Quebec courts are not arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is not a game of skill.

They only ruled that the bet was "excessive" which is against the law.

IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho.

I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment though and took out the mortgage on his house!

My friends would try every angle to weasel their way out of a $100 light hearted bet!

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#28

Post by paulcole »

gruez wrote: post #19
tapland wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nontrivial fraction of people form their selection when _starting to_ move their hand down the final time. It's very much possible to counter that.

Isn't that cheating?

If your opponent is playing poorly, it’s unethical not to take advantage.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#29

Post by cesarb »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #16
throw0101a wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is RPS a game of skill? If you do a 2/3, or 3/5, etc, then maybe. Numberphile did an episode on how you're more likely to win by following a particular strategy: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudzYPHuewc Presumably this works best if the other person is not following the same strategy. The paper that they reference (PDF): * https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf

I just watched that video. Fascinating. Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one. I guess it gets a bit like poker where you are trying to appear "loose" then suddenly play tight or whatever. I was wondering…

> Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one.

Reminds me of Iocaine Powder: https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~e...

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#30

Post by IggleSniggle »

paulcole wrote: post #28
gruez wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that cheating?

If your opponent is playing poorly, it’s unethical not to take advantage.

Hard disagree. Better games make affordances for players of differing skill level (like Go for example), but in games where this is not possible, the ethical calculation is more complex (although I would argue the ethical calculation isn't really relevant in a game, as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems).

Whether or not the specific examples constitutes cheating is up for negotiation by the participants.

Post reply on HN