computer glitches on the casino floor
http://www.lvrj.com/news/two-indicted-in-video-poker-scam-112980314.html
I'm surprised that software glitches benefitting the player exist at all. My naive assumption was that the software writers, manufacturers, and state regulators test these machines THOROUGHLY, and that quality control is very tight. There is so much money at stake! Apparently not. Wondering also about liability: could a casino sue a manufacturer for writing sloppy software?
Think of a hospital elevator. It has a button marked "Emergency By-Pass" so if the elevator is being used for patient transport they can bypass the intervening floors. Its plainly marked and requires no key or password. After all, it would not be much use in an emergency if it were complicated to use.
Is the person who wants a direct ride to the cafeteria misusing the feature or is it a design glitch?
I would think the described behavior is past posting. You go back and change your bet from one coin to Five Coins AFTER the jackpot has struck. Now THAT ability is not a feature, its a design flaw. However, the casino just puts the machine on the floor and says "Here, have a free drink and use this machine". Someone who buys the manual and studies it learns about the secret unmarked bypass button.
Heck. Its using the machine improperly but is it using it illegally?
It changes the payout AFTER the event by "capping" the bet electronically. Yet that is a feature of the machine. Its not the use of an external device such as an electric cigarette lighter that sends static into the slot machine to make it do this. The changed bet is a FEATURE of the machine, albeit an unpublicized one.
Quote: WizardHow about making this into a poll: Whether the accused are just advantage players or criminals. I plan to pose the poll myself if nobody else wants to.
I think if you knowingly exploit a machine malfunction and fraudulently obtain money thereby, that's not advantage play, it's theft. I don't see any legal difference between whether the malfunction is on a slot machine or an ATM, and exploiting an ATM machine in a similar way would clearly be against the law.
But I'm not clear exactly how activating the double-up feature was exploited here, so I can't really comment on what he did.
Quote: FleaStiffWhat I'm amazed at is how stupid the jerks were to get caught at it. Whoever found it should have kept his yap shut.
I suspect the use of the "secret" feature would be logged by the machine. The LV casinos, and NGC were on to him already. His consistent wins forced him to involve others to collect his winnings in an attempt to disguise his pattern.
I am more curious about the "double up" feature that was not turned off at the casino back east. Apparently he was able to capitalize on this feature too. It sounds like the machine may have allowed him to see the winning selection in this bonus game too. It doesn't sound like he's that stupid to have worked out two different ways to crack certain VP machines.
I would be really surprised if all of these features could be activated from outside of the machine, and even if it were, I think it is cheating. If you were playing pinball, and used a small but powerful magnet over the glass to prevent the ball from dropping between the flippers (not that I have ever done this...), would you say that it was okay to take advantage of this design flaw; that you were just a savy player taking advantage of the conditions presented to him?
Quote: MathExtremistI think if you knowingly exploit a machine malfunction and fraudulently obtain money thereby, that's not advantage play, it's theft. I don't see any legal difference between whether the malfunction is on a slot machine or an ATM, and exploiting an ATM machine in a similar way would clearly be against the law.
But I'm not clear exactly how activating the double-up feature was exploited here, so I can't really comment on what he did.
This begs the questions: If a girl passes out drunk, then is mounting and humping her criminal, - or just "advantage play?"
Again the "error loophole" absolves the miscreant of responsibility: "It was HER FAULT she was drunk, so therefore it is NOT my fault I took advantage - because I COULD." The argument is that if it is possible to do it, then it must be "okay" to do.
As a casino worker I hear this "logic" all the time.
Quote: MathExtremistI think if you knowingly exploit a machine malfunction and fraudulently obtain money thereby, that's not advantage play, it's theft. I don't see any legal difference between whether the malfunction is on a slot machine or an ATM, and exploiting an ATM machine in a similar way would clearly be against the law.
How about "exploiting" a defective roulette wheel or craps table?
Quote: SanchoPanzaHow about "exploiting" a defective roulette wheel or craps table?
I'm not sure of the example you're proposing. There's a big difference between a roulette wheel going out-of-round, which is a natural occurrence, and a slot machine malfunction, which is not. "Malfunctions void all pays and plays."
Quote: thlfThe way it went down was the player would pose as a high roller and ask a slot attendant to activate the double up option on the machine. Some casino's will do this for certain patrons and some will not. When he would get the double up option activated he would then play single coin. Once he had a winner he would keep doubling up until he was at a high enough payoff that he wanted to cash out or not double up again. Then with a series of button pushes (the software flaw) he was able to change his bet from 1 coin to max coins thereby increasing the payoff by 5 to 10X depending on what max coin was on the machine. Rinse lather a repeat. Adds up fast and doesn't draw a lot of attention.
Very interesting. Three follow up questions:
1) How was this sequence of double up mode + button pushes discovered? If it was leaked by a programmer/technician, there is a non-disclosure clause that can be enforced. I can't imagine that it was through trial and error in real play (how many times can you ask for a machine to be set to double up while you test combinations of buttons?). However, if the software was flawed, who is responsible for the casino's loss?
2) Is this access a design feature known to the manufacturer, that they just hope nobody would catch on to, or was it created by a lazy/disgruntled/compromised programmer sneaking a quick test mode into the code (was Oceans 13 more fact than fiction)?
3) Is it still exploitable?
Quote: SanchoPanzaHow about "exploiting" a defective roulette wheel or craps table?
How's that different? A defective crap table would be one with loaded dice. But...if the layout marking are wrong (FIELD PAYS 2:1 ON ALL NUMBERS), knock yourself out. I would call the floor over and say, "The layout is wrong, it allows advantage play and excess house losses."
Quote: AyecarumbaVery interesting. Three follow up questions:
1) How was this sequence of double up mode + button pushes discovered? If it was leaked by a programmer/technician, there is a non-disclosure clause that can be enforced. I can't imagine that it was through trial and error in real play (how many times can you ask for a machine to be set to double up while you test combinations of buttons?). However, if the software was flawed, who is responsible for the casino's loss?
2) Is this access a design feature known to the manufacturer, that they just hope nobody would catch on to, or was it created by a lazy/disgruntled/compromised programmer sneaking a quick test mode into the code (was Oceans 13 more fact than fiction)?
3) Is it still exploitable?
1) That was a question they were still trying to find the answer to. It could not have been trial and error.
2) They made it sound as if the mfg. was aware and hoped nobody would catch on, and it still could have been created the way you stated. This has happened before.
3) Too my knowledge it could be.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not sure of the example you're proposing. There's a big difference between a roulette wheel going out-of-round, which is a natural occurrence, and a slot machine malfunction, which is not. "Malfunctions void all pays and plays."
I'm not advocating that this was a legal or a serendipitous exploit, but, I wonder, if this flaw existed on multiple machines how could it be called a malfunction? If the flaw was present on multiple machines it was the programmed behavior of those machines. What happened to "we set the game, you come and get the game"?
The Double Up option was widely available until sometime "recently" (coincident with the discovery of this flaw?) so I think it's conceivable that trial and error or pattern matching could have lead to the discovery of the flaw.
When I get a 3OAK I like to tap on an (inactive) portion of the touchscreen 4 times to elicit the 4OAK :). If this worked more times than expected (or at all :)), whether due to intentional (illicit) programming of which I had no prior knowledge or due to some (unlikely) interaction of the screen and the processor, how would I know? It would be the way the game plays, wouldn't it?
Quote: allenwalkerI'm not advocating that this was a legal or a serendipitous exploit, but, I wonder, if this flaw existed on multiple machines how could it be called a malfunction? If the flaw was present on multiple machines it was the programmed behavior of those machines.
It's not a malfunction if a software flaw is present on multiple machines?
"Toyota just announced a recall of its 2010 hybrid cars. Four hundred thousand worth. The reason? A change in "brake feeling" caused by faulty antilock braking software. There is no fix for cars on the road yet." From this article.
Quote: allenwalkerI'm not advocating that this was a legal or a serendipitous exploit, but, I wonder, if this flaw existed on multiple machines how could it be called a malfunction? If the flaw was present on multiple machines it was the programmed behavior of those machines. What happened to "we set the game, you come and get the game"?
The Double Up option was widely available until sometime "recently" (coincident with the discovery of this flaw?) so I think it's conceivable that trial and error or pattern matching could have lead to the discovery of the flaw.
When I get a 3OAK I like to tap on an (inactive) portion of the touchscreen 4 times to elicit the 4OAK :). If this worked more times than expected (or at all :)), whether due to intentional (illicit) programming of which I had no prior knowledge or due to some (unlikely) interaction of the screen and the processor, how would I know? It would be the way the game plays, wouldn't it?
The double up option is still widely available just not activated. I see it every weekend here in Vegas in a local joint where a certain person I know requests that it be activated while he is playing. The casino obliges because they like his action. It requires the attendant to open the machine then via the menu items on screen activate the double up option.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's not a malfunction if a software flaw is present on multiple machines?
I think not - it's a bug, not a malfunction which, in my view, indicates an isolated incident of abnormal operation due to external influences beyond the designers' control. Malfunctions are corrected by repairing the malfunctioning machine while bugs are corrected by changing all the machines.
You and I and Toyota know that we can say "that's not the way we intended it to work" but that doesn't equate to a malfunction, but rather to a bug or design flaw. Once it's fielded you can recall it or retrofit it or correct it in many ways, but I never say that my built-in logic errors are malfunctions. And if the flaw is present on multiple machines, isn't that the way the game plays?
Again, I'm not advocating that this was a legit exploit as I don't know enough about the relationships between the participants. But if my "tapping on the glass to get a 4OAK" works enough times, I'm going to continue to do it, and, absent any collusion, wouldn't expect to be arrested for it :) That's the problem of the guy who put too much tape on one side of the coin.
But I also work in the food business. Food is one of the items that get stolen most by those who work with or near it. There's some overt pilferage, like a comapny area asking for extra samples and then keeping the excess, and there's outright theft. Knowing this you have to take precautions to minimize it. In this case the VP bug should have been detected and dealt with a lot sooner.
Quote: thlfThe double up option is still widely available just not activated. I see it every weekend here in Vegas in a local joint where a certain person I know requests that it be activated while he is playing. The casino obliges because they like his action. It requires the attendant to open the machine then via the menu items on screen activate the double up option.
Thanks for the information, I'm just a wannabe who hasn't been to LV for over two years but still remembers losing even more money on MSS' double up machines (but only doubling on pushes - how's that for a system?).
Last fall I read about the default deactivation of double up, here for example, and wondered what was meant by "...cheating scandal back east.". It wasn't until this thread that I got more details.
The link above was dated mid-Nov 2010 which is, I think, a short time frame to identify and then mitigate the flaw (by disabling the option), locate the "perps" and start developing/deploying a fix. I hope they deploy a fix versus deactivation - the only hope for my meager bankroll is more variance.
There are numerous gambling games where one can change the amount of one's wager in mid-stream, as it were. Let It Ride comes to mind, as well as blackjack. Now, let's say that the feature/glitch of being able to change one's bet in the midst of a double-up becomes apparent to a player, by whatever means or accident. That is, obviously, favorable to the player, but why should the player be tasked with realizing that is it "unnatural" to the game, or "isn't supposed to be there"?
My analogy would be the Field bet in craps. The neophyte thinks, "Wow, look at all those winning numbers, and only four losing ones! This is like a money printing press!" He isn't supposed to say, "Excuse me, Mister Dealer, but this looks like much too good of a bet for me. I feel bad about taking the house's money; I think you should fix it!"
Another decider is that the voluntary input--the component of skill--in video poker is how and when you press the buttons. If someone stumbles on (or, for that matter, is told by the nefarious disgruntled former employee) a way to press those buttons so as to maximize results, how is that different from, "If dealt KKxxx, press the two buttons that correspond to the Kings, and then hit the Draw button?" In either case, it's using a strategy, clearly allowed by the machine, to optimize results. So what if it appears "accidental"? Many video poker games turned out to "accidentally" be profitable once players figured out how to use an unorthodox strategy to maximum advantage. (One example was a game at AZ Charlie's that paid $1000 for any straight flush--using a rather bizarre strategy, the game turned out to return over 102%.) I don't think there's a meaningful distinction, and I hope that guy makes a similar argument in court (he'll lose, of course, because he's going up against the casinos, and is accused of the most heinous crime one can commit in Nevada--dipping an unauthorized toe into the river of money flowing toward the casinos), just for the record.
Quote: JohnzimboI hope this doesn't result in all casinos turning off the double-up feature....I like to mess with it sometimes and have turned bad sessions into good ones with it on occasion.
The next machine I find with a double-up feature, I'm going to press all sorts of buttons to see if I can change anything on it...
Quote: mkl654321Now, let's say that the feature/glitch of being able to change one's bet in the midst of a double-up becomes apparent to a player, by whatever means or accident. That is, obviously, favorable to the player, but why should the player be tasked with realizing that is it "unnatural" to the game, or "isn't supposed to be there"?
The player shouldn't. "Look, honey, I can change my bet just like in the bonus round of "Zombie Unicorns"!
Once the game has been deployed, after the due diligence of the manufacturer and the applicable gaming commission(s), it's fair game. The game can be pulled at any time, but, in the absence of collusion, to call
Quote: MathExtremist"Malfunctions void all pays and plays."
on a programming error is a CYA move. I realize ME and Dan have vested interests, but game protection is not the responsibility of the player. I'm interested in the final dispostion of the case - cheating or "AP"?
Quote: allenwalkerThe game can be pulled at any time, but, in the absence of collusion, to call "Malfunctions void all pays and plays" on a programming error is a CYA move. I realize ME and Dan have vested interests, but game protection is not the responsibility of the player. I'm interested in the final dispostion of the case - cheating or "AP"?
Here's an ethics question, then:
You're walking down the street. In front of you is a man wearing a backpack. His backpack is open and every few seconds, a $100 bill flutters out of it and falls to the ground before you. You follow him for two blocks, picking up several thousand dollars. He then turns around and notices you with the money, takes off his backpack and realizes what has been happening. If you fail to return it, is that theft?
Reno, I do think that manufacturers very thoroughly test their products. However, you can only test for what a person or team can think to test. The exploits I've seen have involved a series of seemingly random actions that result in a mispay.
I suspect in the "old days" the title of the article would not be "Two men charged in slot plot" but "Two men found dead in an alley".
My first trip to Vegas coincided with an unbelievable heat wave and a series of headlines about men working the Swing Shift having been found out in the desert when it was noticed that certain tables were consistently running at a loss. (Chip Caps were being used... the exterior was a stack of reds, the interior was a stack of blacks).Quote: marksolbergI suspect in the "old days" the title of the article would not be "Two men charged in slot plot" but "Two men found dead in an alley".
I never did figure out if it was the casino or the disgruntled conspirators upset about the divied up profits or somebody spilling the beans. I have a feeling it was the casino, though.
Quote: MathExtremistHere's an ethics question, then:
You're walking down the street. In front of you is a man wearing a backpack. His backpack is open and every few seconds, a $100 bill flutters out of it and falls to the ground before you. You follow him for two blocks, picking up several thousand dollars. He then turns around and notices you with the money, takes off his backpack and realizes what has been happening. If you fail to return it, is that theft?
ME, my point is that characterizing a programming error deployed in multiple machines as a malfunction is, in my opinion, ludicrous. To call off bets, require repayment or jail someone for profiting off of such errors goes against the "creed" of devs and the implicit contract between game vendor and customer - you deployed it, they play it. The next time one of my errors causes a systemic failure I don't think my customer will buy a "malfunction" excuse.
As for your Aqualung question, since I had no pre-arranged agreement (like a gambling proposition) with the chap, I would return the money of my own volition and, if I didn't, yes, I think that would be unethical at best and theft at worst.
I dont' see a connection between these two scenarios.
Quote: allenwalkerME, my point is that characterizing a programming error deployed in multiple machines as a malfunction is, in my opinion, ludicrous. To call off bets, require repayment or jail someone for profiting off of such errors goes against the "creed" of devs and the implicit contract between game vendor and customer - you deployed it, they play it. The next time one of my errors causes a systemic failure I don't think my customer will buy a "malfunction" excuse.
As for your Aqualung question, since I had no pre-arranged agreement (like a gambling proposition) with the chap, I would return the money of my own volition and, if I didn't, yes, I think that would be unethical at best and theft at worst.
I dont' see a connection between these two scenarios.
Wait for it...
Scenario 2:
You're walking down the street. In front of you is a man wearing a backpack. His backpack is closed, yet owing to a manufacturing defect inherent in that line of backpacks, every few seconds, a $100 bill flutters out of it and falls to the ground before you. You follow him for two blocks, picking up several thousand dollars. He then turns around and notices you with the money, takes off his backpack and realizes what has been happening. If you fail to return it, is that theft?
Quote: MathExtremistWait for it...
Scenario 2:
You're walking down the street. In front of you is a man wearing a backpack. His backpack is closed, yet owing to a manufacturing defect inherent in that line of backpacks, every few seconds, a $100 bill flutters out of it and falls to the ground before you. You follow him for two blocks, picking up several thousand dollars. He then turns around and notices you with the money, takes off his backpack and realizes what has been happening. If you fail to return it, is that theft?
Again, having no relationship with the gent, I, personally, would inform him of his predicament. I cannot correlate this with putting money into a gambling machine and playing the game as presented.
Without the Aqualung strawman, what responsibility do I as a player have to the game implementer or the game purveyor? Even if it was a purveyor problem, I wouldn't say "The theo is set incorrectly on this machine, please change it".
I don't think implementers can say "we made a mistake and you go to jail". And that's why I'm interested in this story - was it collusion or serendipity?
Quote: allenwalkerAgain, having no relationship with the gent, I, personally, would inform him of his predicament. I cannot correlate this with putting money into a gambling machine and playing the game as presented.
Without the Aqualung strawman, what responsibility do I as a player have to the game implementer or the game purveyor? Even if it was a purveyor problem, I wouldn't say "The theo is set incorrectly on this machine, please change it".
I don't think implementers can say "we made a mistake and you go to jail". And that's why I'm interested in this story - was it collusion or serendipity?
I'm interested in this story too, because I can't really picture what happened inside the machines exactly, but bear with me.
Scenario 3:
You're at the bank ATM and you withdraw $100 using your card. The ATM gives you an extra $5, but your account is not debited that extra amount. If you fail to return it, is that theft? Would it be theft if you knew beforehand that the ATM was going to give you $105 for your $100 debit?
Scenario 4:
You are aware of a software glitch in all ATMs in your city. You ask the bank manager to enable the headphone/TTY output functionality, and afterwards you withdraw $100 using your card. The ATM gives you an extra $5, but your account is not debited that extra amount. You knew beforehand that the series of steps you took would lead to a greater gain than would be expected by simply withdrawing $100. If you keep the extra $5, is that theft? If you go around town withdrawing $100 and receiving $105, using the same technique involving the bank manager, is that theft?
Do you see an analogy between Scenario 4 and what actually happened?
Edit: what does SCUBA equipment have to do with anything?
Quote: allenwalkerI'm not advocating that this was a legal or a serendipitous exploit, but, I wonder, if this flaw existed on multiple machines how could it be called a malfunction? If the flaw was present on multiple machines it was the programmed behavior of those machines. What happened to "we set the game, you come and get the game"?
The Double Up option was widely available until sometime "recently" (coincident with the discovery of this flaw?) so I think it's conceivable that trial and error or pattern matching could have lead to the discovery of the flaw.
I totally agree. It is not my resposibility to make sure that the machines are in the houses favor when I push any available button on the machine. If you extrapolate this, then you should report any machine that has a paytable that allows you to play at over 100% EV. It is absolutely the casino's responsibility to be responsible for their machines and how they are paying out. It is not mine to point out their programming errors. And, no laughing allowed, if I found out that say, there were certain 'special plays' that allowed me to win 85% of the time........
I agree with your assumptions but...Quote: renoMy naive assumption was that the software writers, manufacturers, and state regulators test these machines THOROUGHLY, and that quality control is very tight.
Man builds machine. Man writes software.
Man is not perfect.
Machines and software may not be perfect.
I trust VP and slot machines to be "perfect" only as far as I can throw one.
Quote: SOOPOOI totally agree. It is not my resposibility to make sure that the machines are in the houses favor when I push any available button on the machine. If you extrapolate this, then you should report any machine that has a paytable that allows you to play at over 100% EV. It is absolutely the casino's responsibility to be responsible for their machines and how they are paying out. It is not mine to point out their programming errors. And, no laughing allowed, if I found out that say, there were certain 'special plays' that allowed me to win 85% of the time........
You're at the supermarket. The clerk is scanning your items and you've run up $102.49 in groceries. You are prompted to swipe your market loyalty card or enter your phone number. You know that if you enter your own phone number, you will save $9.15 due to store rebates. However, you are aware that the loyalty system used by that store inadvertently went live with some debugging code, and that if you enter in the phone number (999) 000-1212 the system will rebate your entire purchase.
Faced with the $102.49 charge, whose phone number do you enter with the keypad?
More generally, do you keep quiet about your knowledge of the software bug and continue to get free groceries at that store? If you did, would you consider that ethical?
However, do I condone what they did? No. This just does not seem sporting. I have no problem with card counting, hole carding, or exploiting a biased roulette wheel. These angles take advantage of natural weaknesses in games and require skill to exploit.
What I might compare this to is the story of the ATM machine where the bank put in the twenties and fives backwards. So if you asked for $15, you'd get $60. It just isn't right to take the money, but I doubt it breaks the law, since it was the bank's fault.
I remember once in high school I was going to buy a soda at the vending machine in the gym. For the sake of the story, let's say they cost 25¢ at the time. Another student by the machine said, don't put in a quarter, if you just put in a dime and hit the button you'll get a drink. Against my better judgment, I did. I probably didn't want to look like a dork. I've felt guilty about for 27 years now. I'd mail somebody a check to clear my conscience, but don't know who to write it to.
Quote: MathExtremistYou're at the supermarket. The clerk is scanning your items and you've run up $102.49 in groceries. You are prompted to swipe your market loyalty card or enter your phone number. You know that if you enter your own phone number, you will save $9.15 due to store rebates. However, you are aware that the loyalty system used by that store inadvertently went live with some debugging code, and that if you enter in the phone number (999) 000-1212 the system will rebate your entire purchase.
Faced with the $102.49 charge, whose phone number do you enter with the keypad?
More generally, do you keep quiet about your knowledge of the software bug and continue to get free groceries at that store? If you did, would you consider that ethical?
I do not consider the 2 to be equivalent. I consider the 'deal' I have made with the casino this- I put a coin in the machine- I am allowed to push various buttons on the machine- the machine will either pay me or not depending on the results derived from my button pushing. I consider my play at a casino a competition with the casino, and they establish the rules, not me. If there is ever a disclaimer on the machine which says- if you push the buttons so that you knowingly have an advantage then you are breaking the rules, then I would agree with you. The supermarket example I would consider unethical. The 'deal' I have made with the supermarket is to pay them the money owed them on the register, minus the agreed upon rebate of $9.15.
The specific example, not exactly equivalent, was when the casino did not honor the $5000 chip because they did not see the player playing to earn it. Although totally unethical in my mind, the casino set the rules (or casino commission), and they stood by it. Exactly what rule did the player break who was taking "Advantage" of the VP machine?
Quote: Wizard
What I might compare this to is the story of the ATM machine where the bank put in the twenties and fives backwards. So if you asked for $15, you'd get $60. It just isn't right to take the money, but I doubt it breaks the law, since it was the bank's fault.
.
I think the analogy here though is if you got $60 the first time and then went back multiple times knowing you would be overpaid. My guess is that is criminal.
Mark
Quote: SOOPOOI do not consider the 2 to be equivalent. I consider the 'deal' I have made with the casino this- I put a coin in the machine- I am allowed to push various buttons on the machine- the machine will either pay me or not depending on the results derived from my button pushing. I consider my play at a casino a competition with the casino, and they establish the rules, not me. If there is ever a disclaimer on the machine which says- if you push the buttons so that you knowingly have an advantage then you are breaking the rules, then I would agree with you. The supermarket example I would consider unethical. The 'deal' I have made with the supermarket is to pay them the money owed them on the register, minus the agreed upon rebate of $9.15.
The specific example, not exactly equivalent, was when the casino did not honor the $5000 chip because they did not see the player playing to earn it. Although totally unethical in my mind, the casino set the rules (or casino commission), and they stood by it. Exactly what rule did the player break who was taking "Advantage" of the VP machine?
The "deal" that you have with the casino is that you will make a wager based on the paytable and game rules that are described. If those rules give you the advantage, that's the casino's fault. You can legitimately gain an advantage in several games, including FPDW, blackjack, etc.
However, you do *not* have a deal with the casino that allows you to use knowledge of a gaming machine software bug to obtain a significantly higher paytable than the casino is advertising, just like you don't have a deal with a bank that allows you to use knowledge of an ATM software bug to obtain more money than you asked for. A simple and elegant test for whether what you're doing is inappropriate is this: if you brought it to the attention of management, and they said "sure, that's the way it's supposed to work", then you're fine. But if they'd say instead "uh-oh, something's broken", then what gives you the moral grounds to exploit such an error -- in a casino, a bank, a grocery store, or anywhere else? Why is a casino different than any other retail establishment in that regard?
1. Dealer missets hand in pai gow to my advantage- I do not alert dealer
2. Dealer pays losing hand- I do not alert dealer
3. Dealer treats losing hand as push- I do not alert dealer
4. Dealer overpays- I do not alert dealer
5. Dealer deals cards in a way that I can see an undercard which I should theoretically not see- I do not alert dealer
6. Cashier inadvertently gives me extra money in change- money immediately returned
In your real gaming life, do you do the opposite of me on 1 through 5?
>Dealer pays losing hand- I do not alert dealer
>Dealer treats losing hand as push- I do not alert dealer
Heck, sometimes the Floor will be standing right there and still won't be alert enough to notice anything!
>Dealer deals cards in a way that I can see an undercard which I should theoretically not see- I do not alert dealer
You do not have to. Casino has to train their own dealers. Players don't have to point out deficiencies like that and are legally entitled to make any use of the information that they want to.
Once a game (or bank machine, or automatic shuffler, or computer program) makes it into production and it is certified for use, then the game is available to players to be exploited. If a player discovers a bug that gives him an advantage, I don't have a problem with the player taking advantage of the bug. It's up to IGT to discover and fix the bug.
It kind of reminds me of Ron Harris who found a flaw in the pseudo random number generator for Keno in Atlantic City. The problem with him is that he had worked for gaming. When his accomplice went to cash in a jackpot, they were hauled away. Now, if Harris had discovered the bug himself, would he have gone to jail?
As for my own behaviour, it would be very tempting to take advantage of the bug. If I was simply using the double up to up my max bet from 1 to 5 after I had won, this is a flaw. If I am hitting a bunch of keys on the player's card panel to activate a feature or a cheat code, then I'm cheating and would expect to be busted.
In the case of SOOPOO's 1 - 5, I do not say anything unless it's my own hand and there's no one else at the table.
Quote: SOOPOOME- we can go back and forth on this- I can sense we will never agree- the difference to me essentially is that I enter a casino to compete with the casino- and any error the casino makes I feel I can use to my advantage- just for specific examples-
1. Dealer missets hand in pai gow to my advantage- I do not alert dealer
2. Dealer pays losing hand- I do not alert dealer
3. Dealer treats losing hand as push- I do not alert dealer
4. Dealer overpays- I do not alert dealer
5. Dealer deals cards in a way that I can see an undercard which I should theoretically not see- I do not alert dealer
6. Cashier inadvertently gives me extra money in change- money immediately returned
In your real gaming life, do you do the opposite of me on 1 through 5?
I think you're trying to justify acting dishonestly, and I'm really curious why. You would *never* do those things in a supermarket if the cashier rang up your groceries improperly - if they undercharged you, gave you an unintended discount, or a pack of gum accidentally fell into your bag. When you're in a casino, you're playing against the casino, not the dealer. The dealer is just there to enable the process, but he/she is just an employee of the gaming establishment. The dealer is also a person, and people make mistakes. How can you justify profiting from the mistakes made by a gaming employee when you wouldn't dream of profiting from mistakes made by market employee?
And don't you see an enormous ethical difference between beating the game as it was intended to be dealt (e.g. counting in blackjack, or playing +EV VP games) vs. "beating" the game by taking advantage of human errors which *aren't* an intended part of the game?
What is it about going into a casino that makes otherwise presumably honest people act as if it's okay to take advantage of others?
Quote: MathExtremistWhat is it about going into a casino that makes otherwise presumably honest people act as if it's okay to take advantage of others?
I'll answer this last question, while generally agreeing with you that it's at the very least, on the outer boundaries of ethics to take advantage of a situation such as the one being discussed.
The "others" in your question is inaccurate. The question should be stated: "What is it about going into a casino that makes otherwise presumably honest people act as if it's okay to take advantage of that casino?" The answers to that question are:
1. The casino is a deliberately constructed environment where the rules of outside society are not supposed to apply.
2. Casinos are (usually) run by giant corporations. And corporations make spudzillions of dollars. And they're evil (ask any liberal).
3. Casinos, to their short-term advantage but ultimate detriment, resort to a myriad of deceptive, misleading, obscuring, and often downright false practices to get the player to gamble as much and as long as possible. They also are masters of applied psychology, and though the average player may not realize HOW it's being done to him, he will still have the sneaking suspicion that he's being manipulated.
So there is often a suspension of generally accepted moral principles. Also, the player may feel that "they're going to get all the money anyway", so sticking it to them, even briefly, could be seen as justified. I don't agree with this type of thinking, but I can see how it comes about, and the casinos IMHO have no one to blame but themselves for the culture/mindset that produces it.
Quote: mkl654321So there is often a suspension of generally accepted moral principles. Also, the player may feel that "they're going to get all the money anyway", so sticking it to them, even briefly, could be seen as justified. I don't agree with this type of thinking, but I can see how it comes about, and the casinos IMHO have no one to blame but themselves for the culture/mindset that produces it.
See, there I totally disagree. I think the prevailing Puritan morality makes a false distinction between casino gambling entertainment and basically all other forms of entertainment. You go to an NFL football game with a friend, you're out $200 and sometimes your team loses. You go to a 3D movie with a friend and you're out close to $50 with popcorn and drinks: I saw Tron in 3D, and I was very angry about how awful it was. But go to a casino with a friend and have an EV of -$50 and spend hours getting free drinks and shooting dice. Sure, the variance is higher -- it has to be, or you'd never win -- but it's still just another way to pass the time. Only, our society says "movies and football are good, shooting dice is bad". That's crap, pun intended. I don't know how to fix it or I would. The incessant religious anti-gambling lobby doesn't help, which is terribly hypocritical considering the pervasiveness of gambling in the various testaments.
Why do you think the casinos are to blame for this, and if you do, how should they change the culture/mindset?
Quote: MathExtremistWhy do you think the casinos are to blame for this, and if you do, how should they change the culture/mindset?
Because they have not dealt scrupulously honestly with the public in an environment where such honesty is critical. I don't refer to outright cheating--several posters in another thread have vehemently assured me that it never never never never never happens--but rather, an atmosphere of deception and lack of forthrightness. It's true that Vegas is the most honest gambling environment in the history of the world. However, it has a long way to go before it is the same full-disclosure environment that consumers find in most other businesses.
How should they change that? I don't think the casinos themselves CAN, not any longer. I would, however, have liked to see the Venetian lose its casino license for rigging a drawing so that a high-roller would win it, as an example. A truly independent regulatory agency that levied heavier punishments than a fine of one microsecond's worth of casino earnings would certainly help.
Quote: SOOPOOBy the way, you did not answer my questions.... I know what you theoretically think, but what do you actually do?
I think that it's mildly insulting to ME to ask the question at all; implying that what a person says/thinks is right and what he actually does are two different things is saying that that person is a hypocrite.
Quote: MathExtremistI think if you knowingly exploit a machine malfunction and fraudulently obtain money thereby, that's not advantage play, it's theft. I don't see any legal difference between whether the malfunction is on a slot machine or an ATM, and exploiting an ATM machine in a similar way would clearly be against the law.
I remember reading about a case about a year ago when someone discovered extra ~$100,000-ish sum in his bank account, and promptly withdrew it. Later, when it turned out to be a bank error, he got in trouble with the law. Though it probably got resolved peacefully in the end, I wasn't following up.
Quote: P90I remember reading about a case about a year ago when someone discovered extra ~$100,000-ish sum in his bank account, and promptly withdrew it. Later, when it turned out to be a bank error, he got in trouble with the law. Though it probably got resolved peacefully in the end, I wasn't following up.
He didn't have the money when they caught up with him, but luckily for him, the Cowboys covered. The bank took a 50% vig.
Quote: MathExtremistI think you're trying to justify acting dishonestly, and I'm really curious why. You would *never* do those things in a supermarket if the cashier rang up your groceries improperly - if they undercharged you, gave you an unintended discount, or a pack of gum accidentally fell into your bag. When you're in a casino, you're playing against the casino, not the dealer. The dealer is just there to enable the process, but he/she is just an employee of the gaming establishment. The dealer is also a person, and people make mistakes. How can you justify profiting from the mistakes made by a gaming employee when you wouldn't dream of profiting from mistakes made by market employee?
And don't you see an enormous ethical difference between beating the game as it was intended to be dealt (e.g. counting in blackjack, or playing +EV VP games) vs. "beating" the game by taking advantage of human errors which *aren't* an intended part of the game?
What is it about going into a casino that makes otherwise presumably honest people act as if it's okay to take advantage of others?
In this forum on April 8, 2010, the Wizard calculated that "the 2009 profit from blackjack errors in Nevada could be roughly estimated as 1,008,525,000 * 0.5155 = $519 million." (The Wizard acknowledged that this was a crude calculation, so maybe the real figure is off by a few million dollars.) But the point is that Nevada casinos earn hundreds of millions of dollars from player error.
I am not suggesting that casinos are inherently evil because they profit from player error. But I'm wondering why it is immoral or unethical for players to benefit from casino error.
