Didn't know Slots can be Hacked
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.
I saw this at the Baccarat machines at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas on New Year's Eve this year. The machines were still fully functional and accepting bets up to $3,000 per hand. I sat down and played the $5 minimum for about 100 hands just to see if there was some immediately discernible pattern, but there wasn't. If there was a problem it didn't seem exploitable, at least not without significant analysis.
Quote: MathExtremistI'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.
(Okay, who actually said it...)
Well, lets not forget that this occurred in a foreign country. Any analysis of the law you are giving (I assume you are in the US) is irrelevant in Singapore.
Furthermore, there are countless people who have been convicted of crimes which everyone later shook their heads upon as nonsensical. They usually rate a docudrama or show on Court TV.
Finally, if we determine this caper is most likely impossible, the best thing is to take Sherlock Holmes advice, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
If its impossible to create this device that predicts wins, then they were convicted for doing something that was impossible based on their attempts alone (however improbable that may be). Also, since their device failed the second day out, I once again point to that as making it very likely they had no edge whatsoever.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, CLEARLY you didn't read the article which you're purportedly arguing against.
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.
Yes Ken did close down the Forum and pull out all his online gambling sites. He said he would leave the other parts open.
In the last couple of years there has been some update in this Law. It is now legal for New Jersey domicile to gamble in state online sites. And Ken has since posted some of these sites with a note at the bottom to reassure these gamblers. But this is a tiny market. It would be an understatement to say your site covers much more than that.
As mentioned by MathExtremist “In 2011 the DoJ clarified that the Wire Act only prohibits sports wagering over the Internet, not other forms of gambling.”
But here is the twist “The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[36] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[37] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance." But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling.[38]
Here is another angle on aiding and abetting
” Given how broadly the Justice Department seems to be interpreting "aiding and abetting," it could bring charges against not just ad carriers but marketing consultants, etc….” You have been warned.
As usual, you're 100% wrong about this, and again, as usual, you HAD YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE ARTICLE I REFERRED YOU TO, you would have seen your various misconceptions explained away nicely. You're effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."Quote: Deck007"But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling.[38]"
If you'd bothered to read the article, you would have read this part: "In Dec. 2011 the DoJ finally agreed that the Wire Act doesn't prohibit sites from taking casino/poker bets." [source cited in original]
Yeah, I've been warned by someone who can't read his way out of a wet paper bag and who routinely ignores all the facts. To my knowledge, in the ten years that UIGEA has been in effect, no small publisher has EVER faced fed action for publishing online gambling ads...AS IT SAYS IN THE ARTICLE.Quote: Deck007Given how broadly the Justice Department seems to be interpreting "aiding and abetting," it could bring charges against not just ad carriers but marketing consultants, etc….” You have been warned.
You want to convince me? Cite one small publisher who's ever faced federal action for publishing online gambling ads. If you can't, then either admit you were wrong or at least stop making up complete B.S.
Quote: MichaelBluejayAs usual, you're 100% wrong about this, and again, as usual, you HAD YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE ARTICLE I REFERRED YOU TO, you would have seen your various misconceptions explained away nicely. You're effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."Quote: Deck007"But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling.[38]"
If you'd bothered to read the article, you would have read this part: "In Dec. 2011 the DoJ finally agreed that the Wire Act doesn't prohibit sites from taking casino/poker bets." [source cited in original]
Yeah, I've been warned by someone who can't read his way out of a wet paper bag and who routinely ignores all the facts. To my knowledge, in the ten years that UIGEA has been in effect, no small publisher has EVER faced fed action for publishing online gambling ads...AS IT SAYS IN THE ARTICLE.
You want to convince me? Cite one small publisher who's ever faced federal action for publishing online gambling ads. If you can't, then either admit you were wrong or at least stop making up complete B.S.
Can we have a grown up discussion here without you huffing and puffing and name calling. I assume you are right about "In Dec. 2011 the DoJ finally agreed that the Wire Act doesn't prohibit sites from taking casino/poker bets." But Ken Smith still only advertises New Jersey online casinos. https://www.new-jersey-online-casinos.com/
Maybe you are smarter than him. Possible. And everybody else?
Yes,” no small publisher has EVER faced fed action for publishing online gambling ads” Most of them have folded. Rather be safe than sorry. You can drive 100 mph in an 80 mph zone for months and nothing will happen to you. But if they come after you here, you are looking at jail time.
100 hands and you came to a conclusion ehh? Face-F*ckig-palm x 100.Quote: cwazyI sat down and played the $5 minimum for about 100 hands just to see if there was some immediately discernible pattern, but there wasn't. ]
Not when you continually spout bullshit, such as this:Quote: Deck007Can we have a grown up discussion here without you huffing and puffing and name calling.
Quote: Deck007Yes,” no small publisher has EVER faced fed action for publishing online gambling ads” Most of them have folded.
Quote: MichaelBluejayNot when you continually spout bullshit, such as this:
You get all worked up because I said this
Yes,” no small publisher has EVER faced fed action for publishing online gambling ads” Most of them have folded.
Lets keep it civil. Have your arguments, make our points, but lets be fair and hear each other out civilly :).
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.
Nevada law also says, "It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that:
1. Projects the outcome of the game;
2. Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game;
3. Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game"
This is what is usually quoted when referring to a ban on using VP apps when actually playing.
I remember talking with someone in washington state who had a show online.Quote: MichaelBluejayNot when you continually spout bullshit, such as this:
And don't quote me on this, but I thought he said he had some trouble in Washington state for advertising online gambling on his internet show.
You know what, since I can't remember any of the details I think will just ask him again. That's the the internet can be used for, I guess it's not just for porn after all☺
Quote: rsactuaryisn't the owner the "licensed gaming establishment" and therefore non-human?
If Steve Wynn, Sheldon Adelson, etc., were robots, I'd agree. Again, I'm just saying it should be re worded.
Yes, I remember that, too. And my article (which no one seems to want to bother to read), explicitly points out that any problem someone is likely to face is with the states, not the feds. Deck007 is "warning" site operators that someday the feds are going to start cracking down on us. Twenty years of their never once doing so (plus the absence of any law making what we're doing illegal in the first place) suggests otherwise.Quote: AxelWolfI thought he said he had some trouble in Washington state for advertising online gambling on his internet show.
I have read that more than once. We had this same discussion before. I did think some things were open to interpretation at one time.Quote: MichaelBluejayYes, I remember that, too. And my article (which no one seems to want to bother to read), explicitly points out that any problem someone is likely to face is with the states, not the feds. Deck007 is "warning" site operators that someday the feds are going to start cracking down on us. Twenty years of their never once doing so (plus the absence of any law making what we're doing illegal in the first place) suggests otherwise.
I get the feeling people like to bring it up just to ruffle some feathers(not Deck007) and as a morally superior play. IE "hey MichaelBluejay and CO your shi*t stinks worst than mine, because you are breaking the law"
I dont think online gambling regulation and full legalization is in the best interest for people who run affiliate sites. If that happens I think most affiliate sites will be a thing of the past.
If they did regulate online gambling across the board, I think they would go after people advertising unregulated casinos at some point.
I know very little about NJ online gambling. Do they allow most anyone to advertise for them, add banners to websites and get commissions/CPA's and stuff?
They could, and they could also mine coal or make wicker baskets. Every company has its own focus. Coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser aren't publishers.Quote: AxelWolfPS If its totally legal to advertise unregulated online casino why dont big companies get in on the action? Why isn't Coke, Pepsi, Budweiser adding banners and stuff?
You know what im saying. I was just using them companies as an example.Quote: MichaelBluejayThey could, and they could also mine coal or make wicker baskets. Every company has its own focus. Coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser aren't publishers.
There are other businesses like the NFL or whatever that it would fit better with their product/business. for example BJ's Restaurant & Brewery, Dave & Busters, gamblers book store, I cant see any reason they and other places like that wouldn't add a banner to their site. It takes very little effort to be an affiliate and add some banners.
Sorry I dont believe they could with out legal problems or someone would have been doing it by now.
The wording of the statute indicates a difference between playing a game and offering one. The operator's machines are not, by themselves, illegal devices under this section and an interpretation that suggests otherwise is clearly not consistent with the intent of the law.Quote: IbeatyouracesThe above tells me that every slot machine (including video poker/keno) in a casino is illegal. "Any person" can also include the owners and slots are programmed to give them an advantage. This part of the law should be re worded.
Just waiting for the feds to remove it as a schedule 1 substance.
It'll happen.
Same with online gambling: once the legality becomes clearer, the big boys will jump in.
Hope it's not in my neighborhood and in my lifetime. Here's a link to an ABC News report just yesterday of violence in Denver, with video. This is the second significant incident in the same area of town in the past week or so.Quote: MrVFWIW, some "majors" are poised, ready to enter and take over the recreational marijuana market.
Just waiting for the feds to remove it as a schedule 1 substance.
It'll happen.
In explaining the source of the problem, the police said:
Quote:(Police Major Michael) Hancock blamed the recent trouble on a flood of what he termed "urban travelers," transients drawn to Colorado for its legalized marijuana.
"These are travelers to our city," he said Thursday. "[They] come here primarily to engage in the hanging out on our mall and to do other things in the city. ... When we asked them why did you come, it was very clear. They were very candid with us. They came here for marijuana."
Just what we don't need more of -- a way to attract violent pot heads to your town or mine.
Quote: DocJust what we don't need more of -- a way to attract violent pot heads to your town or mine.
The term "viloent potheads" is an oxymoron, at least when compared to alcohol.
Dopers munch; alcoholics rage.
Unstable people.....
But I notice this has been said.
" Deck007 is "warning" site operators that someday the feds are going to start cracking down on us. Twenty years of their never once doing so (plus the absence of any law making what we're doing illegal in the first place) suggests otherwise."
Blackijackinfo stop running their forum and affiliated gaming websites on Dec 12, 2011. That makes it 4 years 7 months ago. Many others followed about the same time.
So 20 years? some here may not be born yet.
The Feds are going to need something else to do.....
+1, I was thinking the same thing. It would make sense if they are getting more people visiting that there would be more incidents.Quote: BTLWIThe 2 occurrences in 2 years? What an epidemic, better call in the national guard.
Unstable people.....
I'm not for or against the legalization of pot on a national level. I think it should be up to the people in that county or state.
I dont smoke it myself because the 1 or 2 times I tried it, one when i was 18, I didn't like it at all, so I dont know how bad it is for the average person. Perhaps one day ill try it again.
Getting jailed for smoking it or having it seems ridiculous.
Quote: BTLWIThe 2 occurrences in 2 years? What an epidemic, better call in the national guard.
Quote: AxelWolf+1, I was thinking the same thing. It would make sense if they are getting more people visiting that there would be more incidents.
No, not 2 occurrences in 2 years. Several violent incidents in the same area of town within a ten-day period, each perpetrated by the alleged group of "travelers" who came to the area because of the availability of pot. I think these made the news because of the geographic proximity and the brief time interval and because there is video available of the incidents.
This 6/21/16 report by a local station reports there were two incidents just four days apart. Then this 7/1/16 report by ABC news, which I linked to before, presents what may have been a third incident in the same area. I have only seen two of the videos, so perhaps there were only two events captured for the media.
No, not two in two years; we're talking about problems caught on video in the past two weeks. No telling how many other things have happened but haven't been covered by the news media because they don't have anything so graphic to show on the air.
You say that as though you've made some sort of point. Whatever the reason(s) that some site might have stopped running casino ads, THE FEDS KNOCKING ON THEIR DOOR WASN'T ONE OF THEM.Quote: Deck007" Deck007 is "warning" site operators that someday the feds are going to start cracking down on us. Twenty years of their never once doing so (plus the absence of any law making what we're doing illegal in the first place) suggests otherwise."
Blackijackinfo stop running their forum and affiliated gaming websites on Dec 12, 2011. That makes it 4 years 7 months ago. Many others followed about the same time.
Like I said, NO FED ACTION AGAINST SMALL PUBLISHERS, EVER. Period. Full stop. Your example couldn't be less relevant.
Everything is fine, until it isn't.Quote: MichaelBluejayYou say that as though you've made some sort of point. Whatever the reason(s) that some site might have stopped running casino ads, THE FEDS KNOCKING ON THEIR DOOR WASN'T ONE OF THEM.
Like I said, NO FED ACTION AGAINST SMALL PUBLISHERS, EVER. Period. Full stop. Your example couldn't be less relevant.
How can you know why any and all websites have shut down?
I even wonder if the possibility of legal problems made it that much easier to sell this site?
