Live data from Hacker News

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

cbc.ca

61–70 of 221 posts

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

#61

> the game also involves a large part of chance I can't find the source right now, but I remember reading about a court case centered around whether Bridge (the card game) is gambling or not due to the influence of chance on its outcome. It was settled by holding a string of games that pitched players with varying experience against each other and the outcome was that better skilled ones _always_ prevailed. And so th…

Neither a bridge or poker player, but these games that have both a huge mathematical and psychological component to their strategy seem to be obvious games of skill. Even blackjack with much stricter (loosing) probabilities IMO is a game of skill because "good" players will lose at a slower rate than bad ones (even without card counting). Rock-paper-scissors just seems too simple to allow for any performance improvem…

One theory I have with RPS is if you say right before the game “I’m gonna play rock”, it may change the odds slightly to non-random. I’m not sure any sort of speech is within the bounds of a fair game though.

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

#62

> the game also involves a large part of chance I can't find the source right now, but I remember reading about a court case centered around whether Bridge (the card game) is gambling or not due to the influence of chance on its outcome. It was settled by holding a string of games that pitched players with varying experience against each other and the outcome was that better skilled ones _always_ prevailed. And so th…

Bridge is unfortunately rife with cheating at the highest levels. It's simply too easy to communicate information with your partner that you're not allowed to through subtle signals, and this is very hard to police except at the macro level using a statistical analysis of many games to determine if it seems like players are acting on more information than they should have. The only way to play Bridge without cheating is to isolate each player in a separate room, confiscate all electronics, and have them play on provided computers running electronic Bridge that only transmits bids and cards played. So never bet on Bridge.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/07/the-cheating-p...

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

#63

> the game also involves a large part of chance I can't find the source right now, but I remember reading about a court case centered around whether Bridge (the card game) is gambling or not due to the influence of chance on its outcome. It was settled by holding a string of games that pitched players with varying experience against each other and the outcome was that better skilled ones _always_ prevailed. And so th…

Neither a bridge or poker player, but these games that have both a huge mathematical and psychological component to their strategy seem to be obvious games of skill. Even blackjack with much stricter (loosing) probabilities IMO is a game of skill because "good" players will lose at a slower rate than bad ones (even without card counting). Rock-paper-scissors just seems too simple to allow for any performance improvem…

Fwiw when playing my wife at rock paper scissors I once won over 20 times in a row. The odds against this happening randomly are pretty extreme - but I know her very well and can read her well enough that it was possible. I think it's fair enough to say that there might be a psychological element there that could pull the game out of straight random chance.

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

#64
post #46

>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 thoug…

> My friends would try every angle to weasel their way out of a $100 light hearted bet! I mean, the guy went to court to weasel out of the bet.

From the article,

>the Superior Court cancelled that mortgage in a 2017 decision, which was appealed by Michel Primeau, who beat Hooper in the game of rock paper scissors — and won the $517,000 wager.

Seems like the court itself decided to cancel the mortgage and the winner was the one who decided to appeal it in court.

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

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems What? Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, “do you want to create a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems?” And having them reply, “oh yeah, I would like to play a game.”

I found it apt. Your attempted reductio ad absurdum assumes there's an injective mapping from activities to points-of-activity. This is clearly not true.

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

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither a bridge or poker player, but these games that have both a huge mathematical and psychological component to their strategy seem to be obvious games of skill. Even blackjack with much stricter (loosing) probabilities IMO is a game of skill because "good" players will lose at a slower rate than bad ones (even without card counting). Rock-paper-scissors just seems too simple to allow for any performance improvem…

One theory I have with RPS is if you say right before the game “I’m gonna play rock”, it may change the odds slightly to non-random. I’m not sure any sort of speech is within the bounds of a fair game though.

The only way I'd play Bridge with anything serious on the line would be to generate a long truly random string of moves beforehand, and then memorize them and play them.

Then, you can analyze your performance afterwards and if you're statistically losing more than you should be, you know you're giving tells.

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

#67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems What? Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, “do you want to create a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems?” And having them reply, “oh yeah, I would like to play a game.”

I found it apt. Your attempted reductio ad absurdum assumes there's an injective mapping from activities to points-of-activity. This is clearly not true.

Attempted? I thought I pulled it off.

Would love to get feedback on how to do better next time.

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

#68

>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 thoug…

Jesus, you need new friends. "Weasel" is not a word you want to associate with people you should be able to trust.

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

#69
post #51

>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 thoug…

The court argues it is a game of skill but follows up with: > it seems evident … that the game also involves a large part of chance, so that it does not take 'only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties,' They would have invalidated the bet even if wasn’t “excessive”. Presumably, the law also bans wagers on gambling activities, such as poker.

I love playing cards, but poker is just... not as much fun because there's too much luck involved compared to, say, Rummy-type games (like my biased favorite, the Brazilian Buraco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraco)
Post reply on HN