Didn't know Slots can be Hacked
Syndicate members would form into teams consisting of Master (team leader) and Players.
After using the devices to record the play patterns of the slot machines, the Master will upload the information to an unknown server for analysis and decoding.
The decoded data is then sent back to the Master, who will in turn distribute it to the Players.
Armed with the decoded data, the Players will return to the same slot machines with the devices. The devices will alert the Player the next mass pay-out, thus granting the Player an advantage in the game.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/czech-national-jailed-22-months-for-cheating-casinos-while-playing-slot
The legal definition of "cheating" in Nevada is to "alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit."
A very broad definition that seemingly would cover an electronic device that alters the elements of chance.
I was hoping some computer savvy guy or maths expert here would have knowledge on how the RNG can be track and beaten.
With so many experts here someone must know how this is done.
Nevada has some of the strictest gaming laws and jail time is a certainty.
Quote: MrVAt first glance I wondered how this was "cheating," but then looked up the Nevada law on the subject:
The legal definition of "cheating" in Nevada is to "alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit."
A very broad definition that seemingly would cover an electronic device that alters the elements of chance.
But the key word here is ALTER.
if you just record the result, then predict what is up next, then it is kinda of hard to say you have ALTERED the result.
Quote: Deck007AP's would not touch it as it is illegal even if they know how.
Nevada has some of the strictest gaming laws and jail time is a certainty.
Perhaps the conduct is not illegal in all countries?
It seems to be akin to using a roulette computer, which I have read are not illegal everywhere.
But yeah, no question in my mind that Nevada would frown on it.
for some reason, maybe due to the fact that the reporter is not familiar with the casino industry, they often misrepresent the facts when it comes to someone scamming the casino.
With so many experts here someone must know how this is done. Just don't think nobody knows.
Quote: Deck007I am still waiting for some computer savvy guy or maths expert here that have knowledge on how the RNG can be track and beaten.
With so many experts here someone must know how this is done. Just don't think nobody knows.
First we have to assume the article is correct in its reporting.
Then, they said only certain machines from certain manufacturers were able to be targeted so would need to know what those were.
Also, this scam took place in a foreign country so who knows what regulations or manufacturing issues, vetting process they may have.
Finally, the article says the perpetrators would be able to make bets when a large win was imminent based on gaming activity that was similar to previous occurrences. That sounds to me like some flaw in a progressive jackpot or must win by scenario but again, everyone on here would need more info to do any type of determination or hypothesis as to how the RNG could be beaten.
Quote: Deck007Reporting is a non issue. It just says what happened. Gaming Commission here in Singapore has the same standard as in the US. All Slots are vetted by the Commission before allowed to be used in the casinos. The key to me is " certain machines from certain manufactures." Need some expert in Slots here to let me know what flaws could be exploited in these machines. Regarding the RNG you are asking the same question as me.
Reporting is an issue if its not accurate which we don't really know.
As an example, there was recently a casino scam in France where it was reported players were purchasing counterfeit chips for pennies on the dollar and exchanging them for full value at the casino. It turned out the reporter didn't understand gaming. What actually occurred was players brought in at the roulette table for non-denominational "color" chips at the roulette tables and after ratholing a bunch would hand off the chips to another player who brought in for a higher value with the same color, sneaking back in the ratholed chips.
Quite a difference in story there. We don't know if the reporter in the article is accurate is all we are saying.
Casino lost $120K and the guys are spending the next 22 months in Jail.
I was hoping some expert math's guy can figure out how with the sampling of a series of spin on the slots and using this input into some computer program you can tell when the big payout would happen on that slot.
Yes impossible knowing that the RNG generate about 6000 numbers per second.
Quote: MrVPerhaps the conduct is not illegal in all countries?
It seems to be akin to using a roulette computer, which I have read are not illegal everywhere.
But yeah, no question in my mind that Nevada would frown on it.
Just curious if you know a jurisdiction where things like roulette computers are not illegal? I haven't looked super hard for a rule in every state/country, but the ones I have looked for this rule, it's always been illegal.
1. Program the game with an intentional error.
2. Pray it gets past the regulatory agency.
3. Take advantage of game in the field.
4. Tell someone about it or get greedy.
5. The casino notices or your friend spreads the secret.
6. Get arrested and go to jail.
"Between May 6 and 7, he similarly used the devices while playing on two of the compromised machines and won $13,352.
On May 7, he lost $783 while playing on six compromised machines at MBS casino as the devices were unable to accurately predict the pay-outs, the court heard."
So, if it didn't work (apparently the very next day from the dates) is it possible they just got lucky betting high denom games and eventually would have given it all back?
It would be hilarious if people without proper knowledge convicted some patrons who were attempting to commit something impossible.
EDIT: I have had days where I've won a grand on a penny slot at max bet so 13k at a higher denom isn't that shocking.
The court must be sure of that before sending the guy to 22 months jail.
The casino would have all the evidence that this really took place. The guy probably confess after integration by the police and may have pleaded guilty.
Quote: Deck007No it is not being lucky.
The court must be sure of that before sending the guy to 22 months jail.
The casino would have all the evidence that this really took place. The guy probably confess after integration by the police and may have pleaded guilty.
And yet the court noted the device didn't work one out of two days it was used. Hmmm.
If you build a bomb, take it to a place to detonate and it doesn't work, you aren't in the clear from criminal charges.
Likewise, if you build a device that cheats at slots, take it to the casino and it doesn't work, you likewise would not be clear of criminal charges imo.
Let me add another of your analogy.
If you hold up a bank but did not manage to get any money you are still guilty of bank robbery.
Quote: Deck007So what are you trying to say.
Let me add another of your analogy.
If you hold up a bank but did not manage to get any money you are still guilty of bank robbery.
That is absolutely true.
In fact, even if you don't rob a bank but have definitive plans to do so you are guilty of conspiracy to rob a bank or some other such lesser charge that shows plans were underway. If you are caught prior to entering the bank there is the charge of attempted bank robbery.
An attempt to commit a crime is a criminal offence regardless of whether you successfully carried it out.
But if you build a device that doesn't actually cheat at slots, and you take it into a casino and win by simply getting lucky, what are you guilty of? It's not like prosecutors are rounding up the slot winners who were observed rubbing lucky rabbit feet...Quote: darkozAnd yet the court noted the device didn't work one out of two days it was used. Hmmm.
If you build a bomb, take it to a place to detonate and it doesn't work, you aren't in the clear from criminal charges.
Likewise, if you build a device that cheats at slots, take it to the casino and it doesn't work, you likewise would not be clear of criminal charges imo.
For what it's worth, I dealt with a faulty/predictable RNG once. It didn't use enough entropy to seed the initial state and was regularly reset, so a few players eventually caught on to the pattern and beat the game senseless until we fixed it. So it's possible. RNGs are written by human programmers, after all.
https://consumerist.com/2007/10/09/customer-asks-grocery-store-clerk-for-change-on-a-1-million-dollar-bill-then-freaks-out/
https://consumerist.com/2007/11/28/return-of-the-fake-million-dollar-bill/
Quote: MathExtremistBut if you build a device that doesn't actually cheat at slots, and you take it into a casino and win by simply getting lucky, what are you guilty of? It's not like prosecutors are rounding up the slot winners who were observed rubbing lucky rabbit feet...
For what it's worth, I dealt with a faulty/predictable RNG once. It didn't use enough entropy to seed the initial state and was regularly reset, so a few players eventually caught on to the pattern and beat the game senseless until we fixed it. So it's possible. RNGs are written by human programmers, after all.
Most criminal statutes will have language that reads something like: "any device that cheats or attempts to cheat..."
It is in the wording of "attempts to cheat that you get trumped up on even if your device didn't work."
Your defense however cannot be "well, there is nothing illegal about selling baking soda."
Quote: darkozThat is absolutely true.
In fact, even if you don't rob a bank but have definitive plans to do so you are guilty of conspiracy to rob a bank or some other such lesser charge that shows plans were underway. If you are caught prior to entering the bank there is the charge of attempted bank robbery.
An attempt to commit a crime is a criminal offence regardless of whether you successfully carried it out.
I hate to mention this but I don't how else to say this.
The guy in the get-away car did not take part in the bank robbery but is as guilty as the robbers. He is deem to be an accessory and aiding and abetting the robbery.
Did not actually raise the issue on this site with ZUGA who partake with the proceeds of the Online Gaming websites.
This is pretty much the life cycle.Quote: CrystalMathHere's how it's been done in the past:
1. Program the game with an intentional error.
2. Pray it gets past the regulatory agency.
3. Take advantage of game in the field.
4. Tell someone about it or get greedy.
5. The casino notices or your friend spreads the secret.
6. Get arrested and go to jail.
If a machine is programmed with a proper RNG, each and every spin is an independent trial with the possibility of being a jackpot or a bust. The make out of the reels and the pay table are what determines the odds. The RNG is just that, a random number generator.
The ONLY way anyone could "track" an "RNG" is if it wasn't an RNG and it was a static algorithm that followed similar procedures in selecting a number. Even then they'd have to have access to the code itself to figure it out and make a best guess. Any kind of real RNG this is impossible.
Quote: Deck007I hate to mention this but I don't how else to say this.
The guy in the get-away car did not take part in the bank robbery but is as guilty as the robbers. He is deem to be an accessory and aiding and abetting the robbery.
Did not actually raise the issue on this site with ZUGA who partake with the proceeds of the Online Gaming websites.
Okay, now you lost me.
What does Zuga, bank robbing, online gaming and these guys who got caught in Singapore using a cheat device all have to do with each other?
I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the attempt has to be credible. If the device never could have worked, even if you thought otherwise, how is that even an attempt?Quote: darkozMost criminal statutes will have language that reads something like: "any device that cheats or attempts to cheat..."
It is in the wording of "attempts to cheat that you get trumped up on even if your device didn't work."
There are lots of people who believe in the power of prayer to bring about physical changes, especially when done in large groups. If someone who holds such beliefs prays really, really hard for President Obama to die and go to hell, and convinces several hundred others to do the same, they are still not guilty of attempted assassination of a president. Or are they?
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/christian-pastor-prays-presidents-death
Quote: RomesThis is pretty much the life cycle.
If a machine is programmed with a proper RNG, each and every spin is an independent trial with the possibility of being a jackpot or a bust. The make out of the reels and the pay table are what determines the odds. The RNG is just that, a random number generator.
The ONLY way anyone could "track" an "RNG" is if it wasn't an RNG and it was a static algorithm that followed similar procedures in selecting a number. Even then they'd have to have access to the code itself to figure it out and make a best guess. Any kind of real RNG this is impossible.
This maybe the best answer so far.
Quote: darkozOkay, now you lost me.
What does Zuga, bank robbing, online gaming and these guys who got caught in Singapore using a cheat device all have to do with each other?
Well actually nothing. What I am saying is bank robbery and Online Gaming are both illegal. But the problem with this site and the owner ZUGA makes him liable for this illegal activity.
Quote: tringlomaneJust curious if you know a jurisdiction where things like roulette computers are not illegal? I haven't looked super hard for a rule in every state/country, but the ones I have looked for this rule, it's always been illegal.
Not specifically, but see: http://www.roulette-computers.com/#are-they-legal
Seems to raise more questions then are answered: "half?" Where?
You're quite wrong about that: In general, online gambling is NOT illegal.Quote: Deck007Well actually nothing. What I am saying is bank robbery and Online Gaming are both illegal. But the problem with this site and the owner ZUGA makes him liable for this illegal activity.
Quote: MichaelBluejayYou're quite wrong about that: In general, online gambling is NOT illegal.
We are dealing with semantics here. The financial institutions dealing with Online Gaming are Illegal. Any parties assisting in this illegal activity is also guilty.
That is wrong in so many ways. First, it's absolutely not true that "the financial institutions dealing with Online Gaming [sic] are Illegal [sic]". Obviously the banks themselves are not illegal, what you presumably meant is that their actions are illegal. But that's also generally wrong, since, as the article said, the law makes moving the money illegal only when the gambling itself is already illegal, and in most cases, the gambling is *not* illegal. I cover that in the article, quoting the law in question, but I presume you didn't bother to read it.Quote: Deck007We are dealing with semantics here. The financial institutions dealing with Online Gaming are Illegal. Any parties assisting in this illegal activity is also guilty.
As for assisting parties like site owners being guilty, no, they're absolutely not. Not in a legal sense, which is the one that matters since you're using legal words. The only way that Zuga et al are guilty is if you redefine "guilty" to mean "not actually guilty". Maybe that's what you meant by "semantics". In any event, I specifically address the aiding and abetting idea in the article and show why it doesn't apply. Again, I presume you didn't bother to read it.
In 2011 the DoJ clarified that the Wire Act only prohibits sports wagering over the Internet, not other forms of gambling. As a result, the UIGEA provisions against handling unlawful online gaming transactions only applied to sports wagering because other transactions aren't "unlawful." That's why New Jersey and several other states have legal online (non-sports) gambling.Quote: Deck007Quote: MichaelBluejayYou're quite wrong about that: In general, online gambling is NOT illegal.
We are dealing with semantics here. The financial institutions dealing with Online Gaming are Illegal. Any parties assisting in this illegal activity is also guilty.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the attempt has to be credible. If the device never could have worked, even if you thought otherwise, how is that even an attempt?
There are lots of people who believe in the power of prayer to bring about physical changes, especially when done in large groups. If someone who holds such beliefs prays really, really hard for President Obama to die and go to hell, and convinces several hundred others to do the same, they are still not guilty of attempted assassination of a president. Or are they?
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/christian-pastor-prays-presidents-death
I partially agree. The problem is dealing with people who may see it as a credible attempt regardless of whether it is or not.
Look, in Bob Nersesian's book "the Law For Gamblers" which I reviewed recently, he relates how one DA tried to claim that card counting from third base was illegal because the player violated a Nevada statute that said no player can use information not available to other players. So first base didn't have the information of what cards had been dealt, therefore card counting was only illegal if you were doing it from third base.
Sounds like the most ridiculous argument, yet it was made by an overzealous DA. Nersesian was able to make mincemeat of that argument but who knows how that would have fared without him.
How many people on WOV would give me credence if I stated I had a winning system and so far, it worked on May 6th, but not the next day on May 7th.
To be thorough, you'd need many more facts. And a good prosecutor would know that and do the investigation. It's like saying "I have a flashlight, it worked one time but not another." What does "worked" mean? If you define "worked" as "illuminated what you were point the flashlight toward" then there are lots of reasons a flashlight might not work. Batteries dead and busted bulb are the two obvious ones, but that broad definition also opens up the possibility that the flashlight didn't "work" because it was noon on a sunny day.Quote: darkozTo put it another way, the article states the device worked on May 6 but not on May 7th.
How many people on WOV would give me credence if I stated I had a winning system and so far, it worked on May 6th, but not the next day on May 7th.
Suppose you have an app on a smartphone that looks fancy but doesn't do anything. It was sold for $89.99 on the app store as a way to beat slot machines, and you bought it with the express intention of beating the games. If you go to a casino, sit in front of a slot game, press the buttons on the app and win money, are you breaking the "no devices" law?
Note -- the NGCB position on smartphones/apps is clear when it comes to apps that actually do something. I think it was 2009 when the NGCB released the warning about using card-counting apps on smartphones.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat is wrong in so many ways. First, it's absolutely not true that "the financial institutions dealing with Online Gaming [sic] are Illegal [sic]". Obviously the banks themselves are not illegal, what you presumably meant is that their actions are illegal. But that's also generally wrong, since, as the article said, the law makes moving the money illegal only when the gambling itself is already illegal, and in most cases, the gambling is *not* illegal. I cover that in the article, quoting the law in question, but I presume you didn't bother to read it.
As for assisting parties like site owners being guilty, no, they're absolutely not. Not in a legal sense, which is the one that matters since you're using legal words. The only way that Zuga et al are guilty is if you redefine "guilty" to mean "not actually guilty". Maybe that's what you meant by "semantics". In any event, I specifically address the aiding and abetting idea in the article and show why it doesn't apply. Again, I presume you didn't bother to read it.
You seem to have elaborate arguments all set up. Maybe you are a lawyer. Many sites have shut down because of this law or don't carry online gaming sites. The risk if you are wrong is jail time. Even if you win in court the legal expanses can floor you. How the court interpret the law is another thing. Do you want to find out on these things. Like Ken Smith of Blackjackinfo said before closing his site, " I may be stupid but not stupid enough to go to jail".
Let us see if we can find common ground. The get-away driver for the bank robbers are just as guilty as the robbers.
Okay, CLEARLY you didn't read the article which you're purportedly arguing against.Quote: Deck007You seem to have elaborate arguments all set up. Maybe you are a lawyer. Many sites have shut down because of this law or don't carry online gaming sites. The risk if you are wrong is jail time.
I just tried BlackjackInfo.com by Ken Smith and it's completely live and operational, with Ken Smith's smiling face on the front. I've never heard that he *ever* "closed his site". And there are online casino ads on his site even now, too. It seems you have a real problem with accuracy.Quote: Deck007Like Ken Smith of Blackjackinfo said before closing his site, " I may be stupid but not stupid enough to go to jail".
Quote: MathExtremistTo be thorough, you'd need many more facts. And a good prosecutor would know that and do the investigation. It's like saying "I have a flashlight, it worked one time but not another." What does "worked" mean? If you define "worked" as "illuminated what you were point the flashlight toward" then there are lots of reasons a flashlight might not work. Batteries dead and busted bulb are the two obvious ones, but that broad definition also opens up the possibility that the flashlight didn't "work" because it was noon on a sunny day.
Suppose you have an app on a smartphone that looks fancy but doesn't do anything. It was sold for $89.99 on the app store as a way to beat slot machines, and you bought it with the express intention of beating the games. If you go to a casino, sit in front of a slot game, press the buttons on the app and win money, are you breaking the "no devices" law?
Note -- the NGCB position on smartphones/apps is clear when it comes to apps that actually do something. I think it was 2009 when the NGCB released the warning about using card-counting apps on smartphones.
define good prosecutor?
one who does the right thing? or one who gets a lot of prosecutions?
Don't assume prosecutors are interested in more than a high scorecard of prosecutions and wont try to twist the law to do so.
Computer algorithms are deterministic - meaning they will always produce the same output for a given input. This means that software cannot produce truly random numbers, they are psudo-random. The quality of the randomness depends on how random the input state of the algorithm is, also known as the seed. Modern algorithms use several variables to create seeds that while not truly random, are random enough. Meaning you would need to statistically analyze output for thousands or millions of years before there was any discernible pattern.
However if the seed is modifiable, predicable, or low entropy (whether by accident or on purpose), the "random" numbers could become predictable.
Quote: Romes
The ONLY way anyone could "track" an "RNG" is if it wasn't an RNG and it was a static algorithm that followed similar procedures in selecting a number. Even then they'd have to have access to the code itself to figure it out and make a best guess. Any kind of real RNG this is impossible.
This is only partially correct. The RNGs used in gambling devices actually are "static algorithms" and they will generate the same sequence of numbers each time they are run. If the device is properly designed and programmed, this will be avoided by "seeding" the RNG using actual randomness from the real word. Often additional entropy will be introduced as the RNG runs for additional security. However, there have been cases in the past where RNG-based games have been cracked by one of these methods:
- The programmer did not use a good source of randomness when initializing the RNG. Hackers are then able to narrow down the huge range of possible seed values to a much smaller set. By observing the generated values, it is possible to derive the seed and predict future values. I seem to recall an early online poker site which was susceptible to this attack. The cheater was able to tell what cards the other players held and the board cards to come.
- A weak RNG is used, allowing hackers to figure out it's internal state through observation of the sequence. Once known, future values can be predicted.
I am not sure if either of those methods were used in this case. This is basic stuff for most game designers and regulators, but there are idiots in every field.
I'm very familiar with opposing counsel trying to twist the law. I'm also pretty good at straightening it out. Legal shenanigans aside -- and your assumptions thereof notwithstanding -- I don't believe your position that "intent = attempt" is legally correct. Intent is one requirement of an attempt, but a significant step in furtherance of the crime must also occur. If I understand the law correctly (and I may not), the question of significant step is a factual analysis. If you were told that playing Angry Birds level 14 would cheat the RNG of any IGT slot machine, and you install Angry Birds, go to a casino, and play level 14 in front of an IGT slot machine, you are not attempting to cheat because playing Angry Birds is not a "significant step in furtherance of cheating" even if you think it is. You're not really attempting to cheat -- you're just wrong. Similarly, if you believe that uttering the words "gorum nucleum fractum idiot" will cause flying demon monkeys to swoop down and decapitate Donald Trump at his next political rally, and you actually utter those words, you're not really guilty of attempting to kill Donald Trump. You're just wrong.Quote: darkozdefine good prosecutor?
one who does the right thing? or one who gets a lot of prosecutions?
Don't assume prosecutors are interested in more than a high scorecard of prosecutions and wont try to twist the law to do so.
(Okay, who actually said it...)
There are indeed. Here's a good example of how not to use an RNG:Quote: jml24This is only partially correct. The RNGs used in gambling devices actually are "static algorithms" and they will generate the same sequence of numbers each time they are run. If the device is properly designed and programmed, this will be avoided by "seeding" the RNG using actual randomness from the real word. Often additional entropy will be introduced as the RNG runs for additional security. However, there have been cases in the past where RNG-based games have been cracked by one of these methods:
- The programmer did not use a good source of randomness when initializing the RNG. Hackers are then able to narrow down the huge range of possible seed values to a much smaller set. By observing the generated values, it is possible to derive the seed and predict future values. I seem to recall an early online poker site which was susceptible to this attack. The cheater was able to tell what cards the other players held and the board cards to come.
- A weak RNG is used, allowing hackers to figure out it's internal state through observation of the sequence. Once known, future values can be predicted.
I am not sure if either of those methods were used in this case. This is basic stuff for most game designers and regulators, but there are idiots in every field.
https://www.cigital.com/papers/download/developer_gambling.pdf
However, most slot games -- at least in the US -- not only use RNGs whose cycles are many orders of magnitude greater than the number of possible outcomes, they are constantly being sampled. GLI-11, the standard for slot games adhered to by basically every machine, contains the following:
The point is that unless a game's use of an RNG is exceptionally poor, it's basically impossible to exploit it via black-box analysis.Quote: GLI 11, 3.3.4 Background RNG Activity Requirement.The RNG shall be cycled continuously in the
background between games and during game play at a speed that cannot be timed by the player.
The test laboratory recognizes that some time during the game, the RNG may not be cycled
when interrupts may be suspended. The test laboratory recognizes this but shall find that this
exception shall be kept to a minimum.
Quote: Deck007I am still waiting for some computer savvy guy or maths expert here that have knowledge on how the RNG can be track and beaten.
With so many experts here someone must know how this is done. Just don't think nobody knows.
There is no legal way to do it on a standard industry machine. (barring a possible system error but thats grey area legality anyways). Sure you could take the time to figure something out but why ? Less effort and prison time to just straight up steal some money the old fashion ways.
