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

#121

Post by Muted » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

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.

As others have mentioned this is indeed not true and is referred to as the Martingale betting system [0]. In the case of casino games Martingale still has negative EV. Your EV for any round n is (1-q^n)B-q^n(B^n-1) (chance of winning within n rounds times amount won minus chance of losing n rounds times amount lost) [1] which is B(1-(2q)^n) with B the initial betting amount and q the chance of losing. Since in any round your chance of losing is always slightly greater than 1/2, you will have a negative EV in any round you play, there is no number of rounds for which the EV becomes positive.

The standard deviation of this is fairly large though so that the chance of this happening is very small but nevertheless it isn't zero and what you lose is more than you can expect to win. As sleepychu mentioned, the amount you bet goes up exponentially ($1M after 20 rounds).

Aside: It is sometimes said that in order to do this "double when you lose" strategy, you need to e.g. "stick to red for the entire run". This is false. If I bet red-red-red-...-red-red I am just as likely to win/lose as when I bet red-black-odd-odd-even-...-red

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%2...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

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

#122

Post by metaphorm » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:07 PM UTC

techsupporter wrote: post #9

asher_ wrote: post #3

This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term advantage. I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are outside of his characte…

> 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…

it's not clear to me whether cards with consistent patterns due to manufacturing process ought to be considered marked or not.

certainly Ivey and his colleague were able to utilize those patterns as if the cards had been marked, but in truth neither Ivey nor his colleague did anything to the cards at all before playing.

I think the argument comes down to spirit of the law (which Ivey broke, in my opinion) vs. letter of the law (which he didn't break, in my opinion).

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

#123

Post by metaphorm » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #6

"Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" Note that, according to the judge, the "fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" is for the house to always win.

correct, and why should that surprise anyone? from the state's perspective legalized gambling is a tourist attraction, entertainment service, and tax revenue source. if the house _doesn't_ [statistically] always win the system is malfunctioning.

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

#124

Post by wmeredith » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #81

TheGrumpyBrit wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual quote from the judgment is "allowing a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his favor – to any degree - would violate the essential purpose of legalized gambling." - which presumably refers to N.J.S.A 5:12-1(4) [1], which says that legalized gambling is a "tool of urban redevelopment" to "facilitate the redevelopment of existing blighted areas and the refurbishing and expansion of exi…

I'd question whether that is actually what happens when you open casinos, but I suppose it's beside the point, legally speaking.

No better way to foster urban redevelopment than move money out of the public's pocket and into corporate coffers by exploiting inherent human weakness. I would laugh if this wasn't so sad.

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

#125

Post by ec109685 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

boulos wrote: post #20

kornish wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like, from the excerpt you quote, the relevant few words are "...or knowingly to substitute and use in any such game cards..." But he didn't substitute them, did he? The cards were already in play and he noticed and took advantage of an irregularity.

See my other note below. He requested these specific cards, and that the dealer adjust specific cards, and that they use an automatic shuffler (so that they didn't change order). He may not have done so directly, but he caused them to be substituted which is likely more than enough (IANAL, but I deal with too many).

You mean "so they didn't change orientation"

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

#126

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

boulos wrote: post #20

kornish wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like, from the excerpt you quote, the relevant few words are "...or knowingly to substitute and use in any such game cards..." But he didn't substitute them, did he? The cards were already in play and he noticed and took advantage of an irregularity.

See my other note below. He requested these specific cards, and that the dealer adjust specific cards, and that they use an automatic shuffler (so that they didn't change order). He may not have done so directly, but he caused them to be substituted which is likely more than enough (IANAL, but I deal with too many).

[deleted]

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

#127

Post by wmeredith » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

zild3d wrote: post #113

ceejay wrote: post #73

It's beyond belief that people spend money to gamble at casinos. It's one thing to know with 100% certainty that the house has the odds in their favor. But an entirely different beast to know that AND know that if you do find ways to win the casinos will still do everything in their power to prevent you from taking home the winnings.

> It's beyond belief that people spend money to gamble at casinos. You're looking at it wrong then. 1) Going to the casino isn't looked at as a profitable job, it's entertainment. You can pay to see a concert, go to a bar, or in this case (maybe) pay to have some excitement 2) Free rooms are very common 3) Free drinks are standard Instead of going to a bar and paying $8/drink, the drinks are free while you are gambli…

> Instead of going to a bar and paying $8/drink, the drinks are free while you are gambling.

This. I'd much rather sit at a cheapo blackjack table and chat with my friends for a couple hours than go scream at each other in a bar or dance club.

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

#128

Post by Steeeve » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #101

Two things. One - Ivy got greedy. Had it make it appear as though he was losing some of the games, he probably would've gotten away with it. If you lose, then win, then lose and are up at the end of the night, it's more plausible you weren't cheating. The way all of the articles I've read about it, he basically ran the table for several hours and then left. Two - you go into any casino and use card counting technique…

> 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 were really bad tippers. (chase them away by making them uncomfortable, not by asking them to leave)

Occasionally you'd get a grinder - guys that do it for a living and rotate between casinos before they wear out their welcome. They were fine too in small doses. The ones I recognized were sociable and had a system for tipping just like they had for everything else.

Guys like Ivy/Johnson... never ran into one. If this had happened in my day, a trip to the desert would have been an option.

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

#129

Post by milesvp » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

KVFinn wrote: post #24

failrate wrote: post #11

As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating, because they are designed to not only mitigate skill, but also luck, in favor of the house. The fact that the casinos have roped in John Law to steal back their winnings after they were taken fair and square is especially galling. If they were grown-ups, they would take their beating, ban Ivey and Sun for life, and change their processes to avoid being beaten aga…

>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.

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

#130

Post by ht85 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

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 way that implies that if you gamble with odds against you, you are definitely going to lose money. This is not the case at all, and typical casino odds mean that in a single event, your chance of a net win is close to your chance of a loss.

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. 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"?