CCTV Hack Takes Casino For $33 Million

iComp writes "A sophisticated scheme to use a casino's own security systems against it has netted scammers $33 million in a high-stakes poker game after they were able to gain a crucial advantage by seeing the opposition's cards. The team used a high-rolling accomplice from overseas who was known to spend large amounts while gambling at Australia's biggest casino, the Crown in Melbourne, according to the Herald Sun. He and his family checked into the Crown and were accommodated in one of its $30,000-a-night villas. The player then joined a private high-stakes poker game in a private suite. At the same time, an unnamed person got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link. Over the course of eight hands the team fleeced the opposition to the tune of $33 million."

Comments

Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't really see a problem here. Casinos expolits players every hour every day of the week.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[yincrash]

the casino only loses it's reputation in this situation. the monetary losers are the ones sitting across from him on the poker table.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[History's Coming To]

Casinos operate within things called laws. Yes, they have a mathematical edge in the long run, but this is a known factor (and in the UK at least, the long term odds have to be published). What these people did is illegal, meaning it breaks those laws (specifically, the ones about using a "device" to assist you - eg you can count cards if you want, that's perfectly OK, but you can't use a smartphone app to do it). Nobody is forced to go to casinos, and if anybody is seriously surprised that the odds favour the house then they probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a table on the grounds that they don't have sufficient mental faculties to understand what they're doing.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[nedlohs]

How is players exploiting other players turnabout of casinos exploiting players? I'm pretty sure the players at the receiving end in both cases don't see it as fair play.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[hedwards]

It's typically legal to count cards, however the house isn't legally required to let you do so. And that's even if you aren't using mechanical assistance. Typically if they catch you doing it, the pit boss will come over and switch things up, and if that doesn't work they'll eject you from the casino or ask that you not play any more blackjack.

Which is understandable, blackjack only gives the house about a .5% edge over the player with normal play, and counting cards can easily change the house into operating at a loss.

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is known how laws protect the consumer.
The legal take of a slot machine is much higher now than it use to be that is the law of greed.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never understand that. How are you supposed to play, if not by counting cards on your mind to decide what's your best bet? Just speak nonsense at random times just to see if you win? And how can they know you're counting cards? It's insane.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, how cool would it be to link this to Google Glass?

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except that this right here is "the american dream" lol. You got owned so bad you may as well resign yourselves to a life of dialup in a HD world.

capcha(yeah no shit lol): overseas.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[hedwards]

The difference is that if you're counting cards, you're varying your bets so that you're betting more when you're more likely to get a good hand and less when you're less likely to.

And yeah, they've got a pretty good idea as to who is and isn't counting cards. The industry puts a ton of money into figuring that out as they can easily lose tons of money to card counters if they don't. Usually, they're looking at things like bet history, rate at which the player is playing and such, often times the pit boss will go over and chat you up if they think you're card counting, to try and distract you a bit.

The only part of the casino where they ever permit people to be profitable without being lucky, is the slots. The slots will have the pay schedule on the front of the machine, and sometimes you find some machines where they're set to pay out more than they take in. They'll usually be up front near the door to try and entice suckers to come and gamble. And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[terjeber]

Yes, they have a mathematical edge in the long run

No in poker. The casino doesn't participate.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Rob the Bold]

Can you loose that autism?

"Loose" it on whom? And how?

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[History's Coming To]

How can they tell? Because you're winning - and also because of your betting patterns. The original MIT Bringing Down The House guys got rumbled fairly quickly because of their betting patterns, so they switched to using a low-stakes gambler to do the counting who would continue to lose when the odds were in his/her favour, and they would discretely signal an accomplice to come in and bet big when this happened.

These days casinos combat it by using multiple decks of cards in a shoe which are changed before they've run through enough of them to give a good statistical idea of the remaining contents.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[TheRealMindChild]

Counting cards is useless when they shuffle every half deck in a set of 12 decks

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[hedwards]

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can't count to 624?

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[__aaltlg1547]

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

That's ridiculous. The reason they use multi-deck shoes is to increase the difficulty of counting cards. If they were only dealing with 52, it would be relatively easy for a normal person to count cards according to a simple system and watch as the odds turned for or against them and increase or reduce their bets or change the level at which they stay. Also, if they use 12-deck shoes, it's impossible for a player to determine when the casino isn't playing with full decks.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Single deck blackjack is the easiest to do card counting with.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[femtobyte]

So, who lost more? The suckers around the table lost $33M. The casino lost the reputation that convinces people to drop $33M on their poker tables *every single day*. In the long run, I bet this is far more than a $33M loss for the casino: they've just lost their fishing seat next to a billion-dollar-a-year cash river from high rollers.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this thing called civil court...

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[circletimessquare]

i think it is safe to say that Google Glass won't be allowed in any casino past the front doors

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[war4peace]

You better sit tight, or it's a loose-loose situation, friend :)

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[miroku000]

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

That's ridiculous. The reason they use multi-deck shoes is to increase the difficulty of counting cards. If they were only dealing with 52, it would be relatively easy for a normal person to count cards according to a simple system and watch as the odds turned for or against them and increase or reduce their bets or change the level at which they stay. Also, if they use 12-deck shoes, it's impossible for a player to determine when the casino isn't playing with full decks.

It doesn't increase the difficulty of counting cards at all. But, it does decrease the variance. Card counting involves placing higher bets when there are a significantly higher than average number of 10's, face cards and aces in the deck than 2-6's. With a small number of decks, this situation occurs much more frequently than with a larger number of decks. Player's can't easily determine whether or not they are playing with a full deck even when there is only one deck because they do not deal all the way down to the last card, and they also burn a card at the beginning. A typical card counting scheme involves each card having a value of either -1, 0 or +1. For example, card 2-6 might be +1, and 10's, face cards and Aces would be -1. You just keep track of a running total of the count. But usually, that number is pretty close to zero because the cards tend to cancel each other out. I think the highest count I ever saw was like +15. You can teach yourself to count cards pretty easily. If you are good at it, with say a $15 hand minimum bet you can have a positive expected value. The problem is it will usually be something like $250 plus or minus $2000 or something. So, in the end, you need to have a lot of capital in order to have a hope of beating the variance. Meanwhile, you are likely to be detected and banned.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[tuxgeek]

The reality here is that $33M to these types isn't but a good time out with the guys, plenty of booze and high dollar call girls. I seriously doubt anyone there will complain.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

loser's

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[mikael]

There used to be guide books on how to win at the video games as well as the slot machines (by now, software controlled ones and not purely mechanical ones). By state law the slot machines are required to return a fixed percentage of the money put in by players. The systems actually maintain logs to prove that this is happening. So the strategy was to always "lose" at the low payouts in the beginning, which would push up the ratio of earnings to payouts. This would force the software to make a high payout in order to rebalance things out.

In the early days, there was one dispute that occurred when the random-number-generator chip of one machine failed. So it ended up dealing the cards out the same way every time it was switched off and on again.

Then there are those disputes over networked gambling machines where a punter will have been told that he has won the grand-jackpot, but the casino will dispute this claiming that the machine was faulty or the network wasn't connected.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[mikael]

You don't even need Google Glass:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049052/Gang-cheats-casino-55k-using-contact-lenses-invisible-ink-marked-cards.html

http://www.poker.org/news/italian-conmen-arrested-for-casino-fraud-in-cannes-13927/

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that if you're counting cards, you're varying your bets so that you're betting more when you're more likely to get a good hand and less when you're less likely to.

You're only varying your bet every hand if you are not very bright or just learned how to count cards. Those that have experience are much subtler and much more difficult to catch, but can still work out an advantage over the house. And that is even without the bigger schemes that use more than one person.

And in reference to another post in the same thread:

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly.

No,the smaller the deck the better. The proportion of the cards used matters, but even if they shuffle with one deck after every game, that works out much better than if they went 75% through some massive number of cards (which places using large decks won't). At the simplest level, you are trying to track the odds of high value cards coming up. For example, if 3 face cards came up out of eight cards you've seen, in a single deck you would know there is a 15% relative change in the chance of a face card coming up again, but if you had say 4 decks in play, there would only be a 2.5% change in the chance of face cards coming up.

Generally the cheaper and crappier places will use more and more decks of cards and more shuffles, because they want it to just be a fancy form of slot machines that have a set odds regardless of player skill. Nicer places will specifically advertise how few decks and shuffles they use, and at high stakes tables you can still get single deck games easy enough. They are trying to get money from people who think they know how to count cards, but can also afford then to watch closer for the people who actually are able to do so.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[luckymutt]

Also, many tables use a continuous shuffle shoe. At the end of each hand the cards are placed back in the shoe which is continuously shuffling. Making the that table completely useless to a counter.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree."

I suppose one can think of it as "unethical" on the house's part, but, honestly, I more often think of the classic line "There's a sucker born every minute", or "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the [insert country here] public."

"Most players" must be awfully stupid to not understand that. How else do the Casinos make money? Do all those buildings, equipment, and personnel get set up for charity? Is there anybody who actually thinks the odds aren't stacked against them by design? Are people really that dumb?

The first thing I'd think if I walked into a Casino and saw all that would be "Wow, they must be fleecing an awful lot of people to finance all this and still make a profit."

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[demonlapin]

It generally takes a cut of every pot (though apparently in serious high-dollar stuff they just rent the table and dealer's services out on an hourly basis). It's entirely possible for everyone at the table to lose money.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[luckymutt]

The only part of the casino where they ever permit people to be profitable without being lucky, is the slots. The slots will have the pay schedule on the front of the machine, and sometimes you find some machines where they're set to pay out more than they take in. They'll usually be up front near the door to try and entice suckers to come and gamble. And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

(disclaimer: I work in the gaming industry)
That might be true in unregulated or poorly regulated gaming markets. Some Indian gaming casinos have no state oversight.
However, in the larger markets, such as here in Las Vegas it is completely a myth that casinos will put the "looser" machines near the door, end of the aisles, etc.
They are disallowed from changing the odds of it "hitting" and they will NEVER allow a machine on the floor that pays out more than it takes in. And they don't need to...people come in play them regardless if someone near the door hits.
Also, slots are about the worst in terms of probability.

And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

Um...no. But the Casino can expect to make a large profit over time.
There isn't really anything like "play perfectly" but you might "get lucky" once in a while and enjoy some small, near term profit. Over the long term, you'll still lose overall.
If it didn't work that way, casinos wouldn't operate them.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why all the high-limit tables are single deck.

The gambling industry secretly loves the media hype about card counting. They know 99.5% of people can't do it properly, and they can detect those who can. (And, at best, it only creates a minuscule advantage for the counter. The famous MIT group ultimately gave up because profits were so low.)

Last time I was in Nevada, the dealer was even joking about counting face cards and aces. It's just a way make the game more fun and get you hooked, they know they'll still make their money.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[MrPsio]

This is plain wrong. On standard video slot machines every single game has a random result, there is no 'memory' of past games in order to reach a certain payout percentage. There are jurisdictions and game types who do/did this (eg UK AWP, Germany street market) but in typical (Las Vegas style) casinos the hold is defind by the math of the game and is only true for large numbers of games played. A casino game can be way over or under the theoretical payout percentage even after many games played, because it is - (pseudo) random. This is tested and certified by global gaming labs like GLI and others.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Stone Rhino]

video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

Perfect strategy in video poker is actually counter to how most people would play - it often means throwing away a winning, but low paying hand for a chance at a higher payout.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[VAElynx]

Uh, nope.
Counting cards can be easily dealt with if you have a mixing machine that returns spent cards and mixes the deck, which there are.
The whole thing is based on you counting cards that got played, and as such ,estimating what's left in the deck and playing accordingly.
If the deck contains almost everything all the time, this strategy dies.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[swamp_ig]

Perfect strategy in video poker is not to play.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the human race's common--but not absolute lest you get pedantic--inability to grasp risk (where probabilities apply to every day situations) gambling should be strictly illegal since most human beings don't have sufficient mental faculties to understand what they're doing.

Back when we listened to the minority of humans who possessed sufficient mental faculties, gambling was illegal.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[jader3rd]

How are you supposed to play, if not by counting cards on your mind to decide what's your best bet?

You're supposed to be losing money to the house.

Re: Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the infamous loser's apostrophe...

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Stone Rhino]

Not quite, you can get payout of 100.7% if you pick the right machine and strategy. Add on comps and free drinks, and you can end up well ahead. Not my idea of a good time, but some people love that.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Video poker is a little different than just regular slots. That is where playing perfectly can affect your odds, and there are machines that favor the player slightly if they play well, versus favoring the house if they do not. The edge is much, much, worse than counting well in blackjack. Wikipedia has an example payout schedule that gives a payout of 100.2% for perfect play. A sister-in-law of mine used to do this when she was unemployed, and while it made her money, it was far worse than any other day job she's had before and didn't pay well. The casinos don't seem to mind, as I guess it makes machines look busy and pays worse than minimum wage. There are many machines with other payout schedules though, but that has more to do with trying to take in more from the average person than fix the slight advantage used by only desperate people. And there is a mix of payout schedules within the same casino for video poker, quite a lot in my experience.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[war4peace]

Joke: noun. Defined as "something some people simply don't get".

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

How are willing players being exploited?

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[anagama]

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking.

I disagree with this. The casino has to pay for space, pay for equipment, pay for materials, pay for utilities (lighting/heating/cooling/water/sewer/garbage), pay for staff, provide profit to investors, etc. If the games were perfectly 50/50, it is an absolute certainty that the house would lose money. In that situation, it would be the players taking advantage of the house.

Secondly, name a business that isn't some kind of investor scam, where investors are absolutely certain to lose money (and yes, there are stupid ideas that get funded, but that's different from a scam because still, people (unwisely) expect that a profit can be made). A casino that is absolutely guaranteed to lose money, obviously would give a lousy return on investment, and would never be built because there would be no investors.

[re house edge:] Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

I disagree with this too. The fact that the house has an edge is so widely understood, it has made it into colloquial phrases such as "you can't beat the house" or "the house always wins."

Of course, there are other ways to run a casino and I could imagine one with 50/50 games, but you're parking spot would probably cost $100/hr, a coke would cost $10, etc. etc. And who knows, people might flock to that. But having a house edge on games is really similar to a restaurant charging $1.50 for a cup of coffee that costs $0.10 in materials (coffee grounds) to make -- because you aren't just paying for the coffee in a restaurant: you're paying for a place to drink it in, someone to make it, someone to serve it, someone to wash the cup, someone to wipe down the table, the table, the cup, the dishwasher, etc. etc..

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[FooRat]

Don't really see a problem here. Casinos expolits players

"Exploit" is one of those fuzzy words you use when you don't really have a word for any real wrong-doing to put in its place. Try replace the word with something more concrete, like "steal from", and the argument falls flat.

It's a stretch to equate what casinos do, with blatant stealing.

Also, since you are literally trying to justifying stealing, then on the face of it, it seems to be your morals that are in doubt here. You are a person who admits he "doesn't see a problem with stealing", but you go around attempting to morally criticize others who are not stealing, but providing an entertainment service that is entered into on a mutually voluntary basis.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

> They are disallowed from changing the odds of it "hitting"

Untrue.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/feb/17/dont-worry-your-slot-bets-are-still-safe/

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[TapeCutter]

The key word in your post is "standard". Agree the sequence is not stored in memory, however all psuedo-random generators will repeat the same sequence if given the same seed, I believe ( but cannot prove ) that this was a problem here in Oz about 20yrs ago with one particular type of machine (ie: it was a software bug). Yes, the generator will create random numbers but the utility of them lies in the fact that you can program the statistical distribution of those numbers to be whatever you want it to be. This makes it possible for the law to force Crown to take no more that 15% from the punters via poker machines. The equation you select for the generator can also cause problems, if not done carefully the generator can end up with a very short cycle length that a human can work out by observation.

A casino game can be way over or under the theoretical payout percentage

Yes, with one machine the payout can vary wildly from day to day but with a large casino such as crown (2500 machines, 24hrs a day) the daily variance from 15% will be pretty close to zero.

Re: Turnabout is fair play.

[v1]

looks like another grammar nazi got lose

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[TheLink]

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

Why is it dubious ethically? I think most gamblers know that. The stupid ones just think those odds somehow aren't going to apply to them.

Most arcade centers and amusement parks have even worse payout ratios ;). If you're losing money in a casino and not having lots of fun doing so you should be doing something else that you find fun.

If you're there to make money and aren't making money, you're crap and should find a better job. Or practice with fake money till you're good enough.

If you're there to launder money then you're a small timer. The big timers use big banks ;).

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

> They are disallowed from changing the odds of it "hitting"

Untrue. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/feb/17/dont-worry-your-slot-bets-are-still-safe/

No, true.
The linked article is about a system to allow the casinos to change the game being played, denominations and payouts. Not changing the odds of a game.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Penguinisto]

Never underestimate the ego... perhaps it isn't the money, but the sting of being fleeced will certainly get them angry.

Nobody likes being treated like a sucker.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[joocemann]

On the contrary, at least they know they lost to cheats, not skills.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

(And, at best, it only creates a minuscule advantage for the counter. The famous MIT group ultimately gave up because profits were so low.)

Nonsense. The MIT group gave up because they were banned from virtually every casino Nevada. The Connecticut casinos implemented rules changes which negate the value of counting at the expense of slowing the game down - namely shuffling early.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Molochi]

You're abolutely right. But they also have the right to refuse service. It's their house.

My dad quit blackjack in Vegas in the 90's over odds changes. I kinda did the same when they increased the shoe. The difference was expectation, I just wanted free drinks while I did the CES thing. Though we'll still play occasionanally at the Peppermill in Reno to see who loses first.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[1u3hr]

Don't really see a problem here. Casinos expolits players every hour every day of the week.

Idiot. It's poker. The losers were the other players. The casino gets its cut regardless.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Molochi]

Whatabout Google Glass Contacts?

I'm kidding, they already track that.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Molochi]

This.

That ,01% that can do that math in their heads gets larger in real numbers every year. The oddsmakers don't want to do business with you. But they'll gladly use you as an example to punish those that can't. Move on, learn to golf.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[terjeber]

It generally takes a cut of every pot

It either takes a cut out of every pot or it takes a one-time fee (for tournaments). It doesn't however participate in the game. Also, no, it isn't really possible for everyone at the table to lose money, since the casino cut is quite small, much smaller than the skill variation among players. Even if, theoretically, every player was equally skilled and none were making a mistake, the statistical variation in the time-span that is a game would ensure a winner easily.

This is why casinos (used to) dislike poker, and poker players are not comped anywhere near what blackjack or other players are. In fact, until the TV phenomenon of poker tournaments, most poker players were typically not comped at all. In typical Vegas poker games, the rake can be $10-$15 per player per hour. Considering a skilled dealer is required and quite a bit of floor space, that is not a huge winning proposition for the casino.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[egcagrac0]

Look up "blackjack basic strategy".

"The count" doesn't significantly change how you('re supposed) to play, it changes how you('re supposed to) bet.

Every table assumes you're counting cards. They know when you're "counting cards" (or using some other means of skilled play) successfully when you're making high-risk plays at a higher wager than your typical play with a higher-than-probability-expected rate of success. You're certainly allowed to make stupid plays, but they tend to scrutinize your play if your stupid plays work out in your favor more often than not.

"High risk plays" here means doubling on greater than 12, splitting tens or fives, hitting against a "break card", standing on less than 12, etc.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[egcagrac0]

the rake can be $10-$15 per player per hour. Considering a skilled dealer is required and quite a bit of floor space, that is not a huge winning proposition for the casino.

Let me get this right - they're making money, while risking none of their own, and their dealers and cocktail servers are making tips?

A house edge on a game where the house can't possibly lose? I think it's time for me to open a poker room.

Floor space isn't expensive (relatively) - the poker room can be in a secluded area, rather than the high-traffic, high-visibility main floor - and that's probably how the poker players want it, too.

Looks to me like about $100/table/hour profit on a relatively minor initial investment.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Ginger Unicorn]

I don't understand why they don't just shuffle the deck after each hand.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[__aaltlg1547]

That would also make it harder for the players to detect when the house has removed some cards from the deck.

Re: Turnabout is fair play.

[Gription]

I say we just stand back and let them battle it out to the death.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[tehcyder]

the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking

It is precisely as dubious ethically speaking as a car manufacturer selling cars at a profit instead of at cost. It's called capitalism.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[tehcyder]

I'll never understand that. How are you supposed to play, if not by counting cards on your mind to decide what's your best bet? Just speak nonsense at random times just to see if you win? And how can they know you're counting cards? It's insane.

You need to look up what "counting cards" means on Google.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[tehcyder]

Gambling is not a rational activity. But then again, nor is drinking, taking drugs or having sex with attractive strangers. It's called having fun.

There will always be people who get into trouble with gambling, same as with drinking, drugs or sex. They should be given help, not used as an excuse to stop everyone else enjoying themselves.

Re: Turnabout is fair play.

[mk1004]

Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[DavidTC]

And the nice thing about it is you don't have to gamble, and yet can get all the amenities anyway. I often tell people that Vegas is a great vacation spot if you don't gamble...lots of shows, and even a lot of interesting places that are completely free.

Almost everything in Vegas is...well. not a 'loss leader', but not quite making as much money as it could be, because it's all designed as a big neon sign to suck people into a casino and hopefully gamble there. If half the people who go to see Blue Man Group stop in the casino on the way out and spend $50, they can reduce the ticket prices by $25. (And actually do reduce them by $15.) That's the reason that so many conventions are held there...they are charging less for convention centers and rooms than other equivalent places, on the correct assumption that the gamblers will make up the profits. And a lot of stuff actually is free.

The shops are expensive, but that's what you'd expect in a tourist town. Basically, the rule is that anything that might get people from the outside of the casino to the inside is cheaper, and other stuff, like restaurants, is just the normal level of tourist expensive, and then there's a 'super' layer of idiotically expensive stuff aimed at 'whales' who come in with a few million to blow.

So if you _don't_ gamble, Vegas rocks. I have never been to a casino outside of Vegas, though, so I don't know if other casinos are doing the same thing to pull people in. I think a lot of that is due to competition with other casinos.

Something I find a lot more ethically dubious than casinos are state-run lotteries. A casino, everyone seems to know they're going to be ripped off if they gamble. The lottery? Not so much. I think part of that is how how lotteries 'roll over' if no one wins, which is stupid logic, but there you go. But possibly it's just because where I live you have to drive two hours to get to a casino, but the lottery is everywhere.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Endo13]

I disagree with this too. The fact that the house has an edge is so widely understood, it has made it into colloquial phrases such as "you can't beat the house" or "the house always wins."

Agreed. I'm pretty sure most people don't expect to turn a profit on anything but poker at a casino. People go to have fun, and they know it's going to cost them. It's accepted. But at the same time, people also like to know that even though they're likely to lose all their money, there's always that small chance that they end up being the one-in-a-million who's going to turn a hundred bucks into a million in a lucky streak. That's what keeps it fun.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Floor space isn't expensive

While it may not cost much to build there is the opportunity cost associated with putting something in that space. $100/table/hour may seem good but what what is the floor space taken up by that. My guess is probably 30-40 square feet, Now how many slot machines could be placed in that same area all of which would have a similar take for the house but you can pack in 14 or 15. Same thing with other traditional table games. If table games provided as much revenue per square foot of casino as slots did there would be more floor space designated for them. As of now they are basically a convenience for those they can't sucker into playing the slots.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

They use the Greco Player Tracker system, of course. Fortunately, you can reset the system using a magnetron.

You do know what a magnetron is, don't you?

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[DavidTC]

Well, let's do some basic math. First of all, the dealer himself need paying, so that's $10 a hour, minimum.

And let's assume a poker area of, let's say, four tables. And _you_ want it in some secluded places, which essentially means dedicated wait staff. So another $10 an hour, and is another area to monitor from security, so let's call that $15 an hour, $10 for a real security guy, and $5 worth of monitoring. And another let's say half a person for cleaning, so another $5 an hour.

Let's say that, for example, it has two tables playing, one with six people and one with three.

So that's between $90 and $120 dollars an hour. And we have the $20 of dealers, and the $10 waiter, and $15 security, and $5 cleaning, so that's $50 an hour that area is costing.

But wait. That's at good times. What happens when there are only four people there? Hey, look, money is possibly lost. Still need everything (Yes, they even need two dealers. Employees don't magically disappear off payroll during the day when work is slack.)

And note I'm _just_ talking payroll.

The problem with your thinking is that you think the casino operates on a slim margin, that it operates on the 'house advantage'. It does _not_. If a casino was full of people who came in and played perfect blackjack (Even without counting) and perfect craps, and even perfect roulette, they would, indeed, 'make money'...and _immediately_ go out of business, because you can't operate a fucking business exchanging paying staff to stand there and exchange $1.00 for $1.05 every five minutes and actually have _a payroll_ and _a building_.

Operating poker is asking them to do that.

In actuality, casinos operate because _everyone is horrifically bad at math_. Casinos con't care about people who pull out $100 and walk away with $90 left. Those people _cost_ them money, because they actually used more than $10 in casino resources! They're only nice to those people because everyone _thinks_ they're those people. They actually care about the vast majority of people who walk in with $100 and essentially hand it all immediately to the casino.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[demonlapin]

Fair point. I didn't realize the rake was that small (can't stand gambling myself).

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[egcagrac0]

I've been to several casinos.

You said:

In typical Vegas poker games

... those aren't in privately hired rooms. Those are in a common poker area. Every poker room I've seen is not on the main floor - it is a separate area, off to the side.

The casinos make want people to play slots or roulette; those are the main areas.

$100 isn't a lot of cash, but that's profit - after keeping the lights on, buying a new deck of cards, paying the dealer, and getting the table re-felted every few months.

I stand by my statement that the general poker rooms are not in the prime areas - they're usually in the back, or off to the side. They're just not in the prime locations like roulette, keno, blackjack, or slots, because they don't pull in the same kind of money.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[s1d3track3D]

I don't think they lost much. They caught those involved (before the high roller even left the building) and are "in a good position to recover a significant portion of the amount involved in the scam."
Last year they reported profits of $181m, so I don't think they are making $33m from anyone 'every single day'.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[egcagrac0]

Let's say that, for example, it has two tables playing, one with six people and one with three.

... but that doesn't matter. The house takes a rake out of every pot. 20-30 pots an hour is $80-$200 per table per hour. (This depends on the rake.)

The most common complaints I hear from poker players are that the waitresses hardly ever come around - this leads me to believe that they don't have dedicated waitstaff. They're shared with everywhere else.

If there aren't enough players to warrant a game, they close that table and send the dealer off to deal blackjack.

As for $10/hour to pay the dealer, that depends on the house, of course - but most of the job postings for dealers I've seen are in the $5-$10 range, and they're considered tipped employees. The dealers make most of their money from tips, which usually come from the winner of each pot.

Poker rooms can (and do) make money for the house, since they take what would otherwise be an inconvenient storage room, pretty up the carpet and lights a little, and turn it from a "making no money" space into a "making a little money" space - plus the fact that many poker players will go and spend time playing blackjack until their seat is ready at a poker table.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[cthulhu11]

On behalf of my son: fuck you.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

The other post correctly points out that multiple decks don't make it any harder, but they are a bit more profitable since there's fewer times when the count is very favorable.

But the real reason multi-deck shoes, and now continually-shuffling machines, are used is because less time shuffeling equals more time playing. Since a vast, vast majority of players don't successfully count cards, the casino makes money by just letting people play more hands per hour.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[femtobyte]

I never said that they make $33M from these people every day --- rather, that they have $33M of these people's money flowing across their poker tables on a regular basis. Of course the casino doesn't take the whole $33M at once. But by skimming a percent here and a percent there, mostly indirectly by schmoozing the big fish to toss a few "tiny" $100k chips on the roulette wheel over a free glass of 40-year-old Scotch, they can rake in a lot of money for themselves (some nice chunk of $181M/year). If the people with tens of millions of dollars to move (and possibly lose) on any given weekend take their cash elsewhere, the casino is left taking a couple percent cut of $0, which is considerably less than a couple percent of $1e9.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[aurizon]

The Casino does lose, they will have to make good to the losers

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[terjeber]

can't stand gambling myself

Poker isn't gambling :-)

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[RockDoctor]

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking.

How is it dubious ethically speaking? The rules are designed to give the house an edge ; no house would allow play under rules that did not guarantee them an edge ("edge" can simply be room, croupier and food fees).

Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

That is their problem, not a question of ethics. The rules are posted ; if you're stupid enough to think that you can win, you're welcome to lose your shirt.

I used to frequent a casino in my home town. One night I was having a fag outside with the manager, who asked me why he never saw me on the tables. "I did some statistics at university," I replied. "From what I can see, you run fair tables, so there's no way that I can cheat you out of your money. So I enjoy a late beer, chat up your bar maids, and occasionally have a game of Go with one or other of the Chinese customers."

He had no problem with that ; the beers were relatively expensive, and I didn't take up too much of his barmaids' time, so he was still making profit.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[demonlapin]

Of course it's gambling; it's just not a game of chance. (When you're as bad a liar as I am, it's worse!) If you haven't already, you really ought to check out the third segment of this episode of This American Life. Great story.

Re:Turnabout is fair play.

[DavidTC]

If there aren't enough players to warrant a game, they close that table and send the dealer off to deal blackjack.

Except businesses don't work that way. Either that blackjack table should have _already_ been open, and hence having that dealer run poker instead is costing the casino money, or that blackjack table doesn't need to be open, and hence paying a dealer for _it_ is costing money.

There's no business that has magical total-staff demands where if the staff is needed in one place, they aren't needed in some other place. And if there's demand in both places, blackjack makes a _lot_ more than poker, because blackjack has morons who come in and blow $200 in five minutes. It makes _no_ sense to operate poker tables if there's a single person who wishes to play blackjack, or craps, or any of the dozen other games that the house can actually make real money off of stupid people.

Now, this system could make sense in reverse...if the blackjack tables or whatever are dead, and people want to play poker...sure, send one of the dealers over to do poker. The problem is, of course, that poker doesn't really operate unscheduled like the other games.

Poker rooms can (and do) make money for the house, since they take what would otherwise be an inconvenient storage room, pretty up the carpet and lights a little, and turn it from a "making no money" space into a "making a little money" space - plus the fact that many poker players will go and spend time playing blackjack until their seat is ready at a poker table.

Of course, actually _setting up the space_ costs money, as does using the space, as does the logistics of scheduling the room. A corporation that makes a half a million dollars a day would actually find it kinda stupid to spend time and effort setting up a room to add another $600 a day. It's sorta like asking why your lawyer doesn't have his assistant sell pencils off his desk. I mean, he's got plenty of space, _and_ he has pencils.

Casinos that do poker tables usually have entirely different motives than 'making money off poker'. They're in it to attract tourny players (And tournaments do make money), or because they have whales that come in and want to play poker in addition to dropping 40 thousand at blackjack, or they just rent the tables and dealer for an assload of money to private parties, or any combination of those things. They're not thinking 'Oh, wow, a tiny trickle of money! Let's get in on that!'

Trolls trolling trolls...

[Anonymous Coward]

All that matters is who has the ear of government.

I've always thought that those who don't work for the good of humankind should have the protection and wealth of society denied to them, whether ruthless businessman or idle gambler.

Re:Trolls trolling trolls...

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds awful. Just because you don't like someone's legal (I.e, tolerated by the government) activities doesn't mean that they should lose all protection from the government.

Re:Trolls trolling trolls...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a circular argument. It won't be legal if it's outlawed.

What sounds just awful is a society where anything is tolerated as long as someone's managed to convince someone else that it falls in the realm of the legal fiction that is property law. Private property is a clever compromise and convenience for the efficient management of modern society - but that is all it is. Where it does not benefit society - and we have to remember that all property exists only because at some point the government assigned and regulated ownership - we do not need to acknowledge it.

(This is essentially what already happens in all modern societies. It's just that in some societies the balance of power on who gets property protection is more heavily weighted in favour of or against minority special interests.)

Re:Trolls trolling trolls...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I guess you're uniquely qualified to decide what's good for humankind, right? Not an impossible task by any means because you're just that smart.

Hmmm

[Durandal1979]

Maybe it turns out as Oceans Eleven movie production....

Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame it wasn't against the house.

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the choice between risking jail time, and risking time at the bottom of the nearest river, I can see why these people chose regular chumps as their victims.

Re:Nice.

[MichaelSmith]

risking time at the bottom of the nearest river

That explains all those tourists drowning in the yarra.

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidentally, this Casino runs along the Yarra River.

Frist post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes you wonder what they were thinking when he past 10 million.

Headline is wrong.

[larry bagina]

It was a private poker game in a private suite. The casino didn't lose $33 million, the other players lost $33 million. The casino made money (they take a cut from every game).

Re:Headline is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Unless the casino was playing shills.

Re:Headline is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

> It was a private poker game in a private suite. The casino didn't lose $33 million, the other players lost $33 million. The casino made money (they take a cut from
> every game).

This is so true. I would also add that the Casino might lose $33 million in lawsuits.

Re:Headline is wrong.

[nedlohs]

I seriously doubt they guarantee anything.

Re:Headline is wrong.

[TFAFalcon]

They probably don't guarantee anything, but in this case their equipment was used to spy on people, causing millions in damage. So I guess the victims could sue them for at least part of their losses.

Re:Headline is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

So who gets whacked? And by whom?

Re:Headline is wrong.

[chrismcb]

The casino made money (they take a cut from every game).

No. The casino made money from renting the suit, and also made money for renting out the use of the dealer. They did not take a cut from every game

Re:Headline is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for telling us what is said in the summary.

Re:Headline is wrong.

[Badge 17]

Actually, it could be correct, but there isn't enough information to tell. The Register article claims that the game was poker, but that isn't supported by the original Herald Sun article, which just says "hands of cards." Note how completely devoid of details the Herald Sun article is - they won't say much about the details, the technique, or even what game was being played. This might be because it would identify the players involved.

Re:Headline is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Register article claims that the game was poker, but that isn't supported by the original Herald Sun article, which just says "hands of cards."

The Register has a way of playing fast and loose with the facts. I wish Slashdot would quit linking that worthless tabloid.

Re:Headline is wrong.

[Rich0]

Yeah, I think this is a pretty simple case of liability. Plus, the casino is probably going to want to publicize that they made good on the money up-front anyway. $33M is nothing to these huge operations, and they'll lose far more than that if all the high rollers go someplace else next time.

Being a casino is about as close to being a private mint as you can get. These companies will do anything to maintain the status quo.

Julia Roberts

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Julia Roberts make a sudden, unexpected appearance at the casino?

The house can't lose at poker.

[Anonymous Coward]

The house just provides a table to play at and charges based on the bets placed. So the only people fleeced here were the other players.

Re:The house can't lose at poker.

[AuMatar]

For big dollar games like this they don't rake based on bets placed, they charge for time- basically they rent you a dealer and the table. Same end result though.

Re:The house can't lose at poker.

[bragr]

Well arguably the game could be shorter/have few hands if one of the players wielded a significant advantages, thus causing the casino to "lose" money. On the other hand, missing out on possible income isn't exactly stealing.

Re:The house can't lose at poker.

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA and MPAA called. They want you to know you're wrong.

Er, what?

[frootcakeuk]

" got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link" Who's to say the casinos don't do this themselves on a daily basis? The fact that this was possible at all makes me question the frequency of such an 'exploit', and not only that, the fact that the opposing players cards were 'readable by security camera' is something that should worry pretty much everyone

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) They don't need to, since they get a cut anyway
2) They really, really, don't want to get accused of that, as they'll lose business
3) They are routinely audited and will get caught if their take is too high.
4) They really don't need to, since the money is in getting the license and players.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> " got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link" Who's to say the casinos
> don't do this themselves on a daily basis? The fact that this was possible at all makes me question the frequency of such an 'exploit', and not only that, the fact
> that the opposing players cards were 'readable by security camera' is something that should worry pretty much everyone

Interesting point but not realistic.

1) They would need a ton on manpower/computing power to watch the cards and signal.
2) Why would casinos need to do this? The casinos already have a edge and all they need is for you to keep playing. In the long run they win.
3) There is no shortage of cameras in a casino, so I am not surprised that they can read your cards, I would be more surprised if they could not read your cards

Re:Er, what?

[nedlohs]

Please name a casino game played against the house in which seeing the players cards can change anything for the house.

I'm pretty sure there isn't one, because having such a thing would only serve as a way for the casino to lose huge amounts of money.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://dictionary.pokerzone.com/House+Player

Re:Er, what?

[blackraven14250]

Blackjack.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blackjack.

Ask me how I know you've never stepped foot in a casino in real life.

Re:Er, what?

[citizenr]

Exactly. Story about CCTV is bullshit, they would need HD cameras pointed a players back at specific angle to even make the cards out.
This leads me to believe Casino security got compromised to the point of someone planting cameras in the room beforehand, maybe even Casino employees being on the scam.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that part is PURE speculation by the press, the summary is rubbish.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How? The dealer is forced to stay on 17 and hit on 16 and below. Knowing the player's cards makes no difference.

Re:Er, what?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

In blackjack the rules for how the casino plays is pre-determined. So even if the casino know the players cards it wont affect what happens in a hand. The casino has to act the same way anyhow.

Re:Er, what?

[fph il quozientatore]

2) Why would casinos need to do this? The casinos already have a edge and all they need is for you to keep playing. In the long run they win.

A casino staff is essentially composed of several humans, each of them with a variable amount of greed and honesty. The house might not benefit from the scam, but all it takes is one employee.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cameras are everywhere already, with plenty of resolution and optical zoom capabilities. They're there to detect and deter cheating. It'd be a shock if they COULDN'T read cards.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Story about CCTV is bullshit, they would need HD cameras pointed a players back at specific angle to even make the cards out.
This leads me to believe Casino security got compromised to the point of someone planting cameras in the room beforehand, maybe even Casino employees being on the scam.

they have cameras on the edges of the table on each players seaT.. so when the cards get dealt the player will lift the corner of the cardz to see his hand.. the cameras are aiming straight foward toward thedealer right in the line where u see the cards lifted showing what he has.. u c itallthetimeon tv

Re:Er, what?

[Paradise Pete]

With experienced players playing for big money, the only camera that could see their cards would have to be embedded in the table top. Expect when on television, players completely cup their hands over their cards when looking.

Re:Er, what?

[girlintraining]

In blackjack the rules for how the casino plays is pre-determined. So even if the casino know the players cards it wont affect what happens in a hand. The casino has to act the same way anyhow.

Not entirely true. The dealer isn't a robot, but a human. While they're supposed to operate within certain rules, they don't have to. So it is possible that if the casino suspects someone of, say, card counting, they could instruct the dealer to change their behavior to limit the losses until it could be proven or at least be reasonably certain. Remember -- all they can usually do is throw you out and ban you. They can't seize anything on your person, like say, a fuck ton of ill-gotten money. While many casinos now use RFID-enabled chips that can be de-activated (thus those big pile of chips you haven't yet cashed are worthless), if a friend goes to the window and exchanges them, that money is lost.

Re:Er, what?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

No need for HD cameras. It's all about optics. A PTZ (Pan-Tilt-Zoom) with 32x optical zoom can easily read a card at a distance of 50m.

Re:Er, what?

[citizenr]

Good point, I totally forgot casinos use CCTV to look for cheats, not for post facto crime documentation.

Re:Er, what?

[Charliemopps]

Any game where one of the players brothers works for casino security?

Re:Er, what?

[nedlohs]

Since the player cards are dealt face up so the dealer can see them, how exactly do you think being able to see them with a camera will change anything?

Re:Er, what?

[nedlohs]

No they can not, the dealer play is fixed.

I guess they could reset the table and change the rules they are playing under (updating all the rules descriptions and informing the players) but that's no different than them announcing that the table will now be playing Pai Gow.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use 22x PTZ cameras at my job for a medium sized department store. I can read text messages on phones from 20 feet away. The cameras I use are five years old, I can't imagine what a high dollar casino operation has the budget for.

Re:Er, what?

[interkin3tic]

I dunno, I could never win any money at cards in any casino in GTA San Andreas. Pretty sure the PS2 was cheating and looking at my cards. Jokes on it though: I was using cheat codes to get $25,000 dollars any time I wanted. I was like Neo in the Matrix, except instead of kung fu it was bullets and instead of a global AI computer it was a Sony.

Re:Er, what?

[cusco]

I take it you've never used an actual professional-grade PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) security camera. There are plenty of models that would allow you to read the turned-up corner on a card from 50+ meters away, and really expensive ones that could double that.

Re:Er, what?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

In a good setup, you do both. Best setup is cheap cameras everywhere, as many as you can get, to cover every spot imaginable (just regular analog cameras with 1/4'' CCD or even CMOS recording at 320x240). Then some better cameras for more important spots (1/3'' CCD recording at 720x576), and finally some good IP Cameras recording at least at 720p in a few important spots, mostly for face recog. With this, you've got everything covered. You then use PTZ domes as backup and for real-time surveillance. When the domes aren't in use, they do a set of predefined movements.

But don't think every casino has this kind of setup.

A couple of years back we where asked for a quote by a huge casino network. I won't name them, but they own a big one in Vegas, a few more in other places in the states, and 5 big-ass casinos in Mexico. What they had: Cheap CMOS cameras recording a 320x240, on extremely cheap DVRs. How cheap? They where using pinhole cameras. They retail for ~$35 each. Half the DVRs had refurbished 160GB disks full of bad sectors. Some didn't even have HDs. In most, the cameras where set to record on motion detection (A big no-no for a place like a casino) and they hadn't even configured the sensibility, so they recorded sporadically. They had a quarter of the minimum amount of cameras required to have at least very basic coverage. We presented two quotes: An ideal setup, and a barebones, entry-level setup that at least would give them some actual coverage.

They rejected both quotes, last I heard, they are still operating with that original setup.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow transmitted?
Don't they have frequency counters and IR receivers?
Even a VLF mechanical tap tap via morse code thingy would be caught by electromechanical (magnetic pulses).
methinks this is a 3rd world casino who knew the losses were abnormal. This has happened before on baccarat, they knew, but never figured out how - and they did look at each patron for signals, nose scratch, bum itch etc. outsmarted again.

Re:Er, what?

[jittles]

Actually, if you've ever watched a game of Texas Hold'em on TV, they already have cameras pointing where the cards are supposed to be placed. And they probably have security cameras watching the pocket cards so that it's easy to tell when someone is cheating. I would be 100% surprised if the cameras did not allow the players cards to be seen. It makes no difference to the casino what is in the players hand. I've spent more than my fair share of time inside the security rooms of casinos and the card games have TONS of cameras pointed at them. Even the poker games, where the house has no stake in the outcome.

Re:Er, what?

[Bigby]

They only way they can limit their losses is to ask the dealer to slow the game down. The dealer can't think outside of that.

Re:Er, what?

[tehcyder]

the fact that the opposing players cards were 'readable by security camera' is something that should worry pretty much everyone

Yes, because in a public casino you should expect total privacy. Even if you're cheating.

Re:Er, what?

[tehcyder]

So, ironically, you made them an offer they could refuse?

Re:Er, what?

[schlachter]

WTF? The Casino has no interest in who wins in poker. The Casino takes a cut of the bet regardless. The Casino is only interested in maintaining a fair/safe playing environment to attract players.

Outside of the world of poker, games like blackjack, craps, etc. have strict rules about how the Casino must play their hand/dice. Knowing the players cards/bets can't change their behavior.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldnt worry anyone anymore than any other security exploit any any other computer network. Its one security flaw thats unavoidable in any security system. The tools ment to stop hackers (and in this case cheaters too), can be used by hackers and card cheaters against them. Tools that are used for good can always be used for evil. Security can be describe as a constant struggle to avoide falling on your own sword.

Re:Er, what?

[tragedy]

"They" are an entity, composed of many individuals, many of whom may not care about any of that since they're on a salary or hourly wage while millions of dollars flow by, just out of reach. It's seems pretty obvious in this article that there was a casino insider providing access to the CCTV feed. The question is one of how common this is.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure where you've been playing, but I'm certain you lost all your money you were willing to gamble there.

They played Poker. The whole POINT is to get a better hand than the others. If everyone already knows everyone's hands at the start, the people with crap are obviously going to fold immediately, since bluffing would not exist. It would be almost like roulette, where they deal the cards, you cross your fingers, and then immediately award the winner their chips, without the players having to even physically touch the cards.

No, the whole kinda POINT is to not let the other players see your cards. That's kinda how its played.

Re:Er, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nnno, I think your idea is a thousand times more unlikely. Have you ever known anyone who's worked at a casino? Have you ever had the dealer call into the CCTV room to verify what/where something was a moment ago, or to check that something sneaky didn't happen? Have you ever watched one of those reality-type TV shows where theyr'e trying to catch crooks cheating a casino? Because if youv'e done ANY of those, you'd know that you're full of crap.

Those cameras are high enough quality that they could see if you made a slight, minor indentation on the corner of the card with your fingernail, never mind the suit/number of the card itself.

Re:Er, what?

[cez]

If the dealer does something outside of his "robotic rules", then you call the Pit Boss over, explain what happened and they review the hand via the eye in the sky. There is absolutely no chance the dealer can "be human", if he is by accident, everyone wins.

8 Hands?

[dsavage]

Really... 33 million in 8 hands. Obviously the marks at the table had the cash to lose if they so desired. If I were them, I would be mad at the casino that their security was so weak, but if I'm betting and losing 33mil in eight hands, I'm really going to be more mad at myself. (Let's be realistic though, if I lost $33 in 8 hands I would probably walk away from the table. :-)

Re:8 Hands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really... 33 million in 8 hands. Obviously the marks at the table had the cash to lose if they so desired. If I were them, I would be mad at the casino that their security was so weak, but if I'm betting and losing 33mil in eight hands, I'm really going to be more mad at myself.

(Let's be realistic though, if I lost $33 in 8 hands I would probably walk away from the table. :-)

Depends. Some rich arab asshole probably had half a billion dollars as change money. What's 30 million dollars to lose ? Nothing.

Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hide.

[Bearhouse]

33 mil in eight hands? Wow...more than 4 mil per hand?

I must assume that at least some of the people around the table will have faster and more extreme ways to recover their cash and/or pride than regular law enforcement. Plus the dude was dumb enough to check in with his family?

Hope they live long enough to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Mind you, one could argue that taking 33 mil from people who are clearly prepared to gamble it away is less immoral than mugging a tramp...

Do they have proof?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Do they have proof or are they just bitter they lost so much money and need an excuse to ruin a really good gambler?

Welcome....

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot....Welcoming you the the world of last weeks news

Re:Welcome....

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot editors save some stories that were submitted during the week specifically for 'Slow News' Sundays.

Re:Welcome....

[Anonymous Coward]

Though they usually don't get around to posting those until Tuesday.

Everything that's old is new again ha ha...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn criminals copying Mission Impossible.

oceans 14

[Joe_Dragon]

sounds like a movie plot.

Back in the old west doing some thing like this got you shot.

Re:oceans 14

[Anonymous Coward]

They had CCTV in the old west??

"Next, on The Varmint Channel: your poker hand."

Re:oceans 14

[Anonymous Coward]

They had CCTV in the old west??

"Next, on The Varmint Channel: your poker hand."

Nope, they had wits and six shooters.

Re:oceans 14

[Anonymous Coward]

Kaleidoscope (1966)

Income desparity much?

[anarchy_man3]

I think the real story here is that a handful of people had $33 Million to blow on a card game while others are dying on the street, and there wasn't a pitch fork and torch wielding rebellion.

Re:Income desparity much?

[RightwingNutjob]

Because those 33m were stolen from the people on the street. Childish tribal mentality: I have something and you don't, therefore I owe you a cut, just because.

Re:Income desparity much?

[JaredOfEuropa]

This may come as a surprise, but plenty of people (even those in lower income brackets) prefer to not have the government set wages and redistribute income to a great extent... even if it means that some other fellow might be making way more than themselves.

Re: Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you have to much money.

Re:Income desparity much?

[nedlohs]

That's hardly news.

Re: Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but at least I don't have too much money.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

if it was gained honestly? I wouldn't have a problem.

tax evasion is illegal
tax avoidance is MORALLY wrong.

Any money gained in a morally wrong way - is morally right for me to want taken away:)

Look at
Vodafone
HSBC
Google
Facebook

I'd love to know where some of his millions came from. Of course there is a reason why they say there is no such thing as an honest businessman.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

More childish tribal mentality: I have something and you don't. I won't share at all, not even a little and I'll crow about not sharing it because I'm mean.

Re: Income desparity much?

[Zontar The Mindless]

I think that "much" is not a verb.

Re:Income desparity much?

[whoever57]

This may come as a surprise, but plenty of people (even those in lower income brackets) prefer to not have the government set wages and redistribute income to a great extent... even if it means that some other fellow might be making way more than themselves.

I am sure that you are right, but I suspect that the same people who would not support redistribution only do so because they don't understand how large numbers of wealthy benefit from the way thet they and other wealthy people have stacked the decks in their favor.

The bank bailout, for example, effected a massive redistribution of wealth towards wealthy bankers. It's ongoing, with large banks benefitting from very low cost loans from the Fed, which they use to buy government bonds, which return a higher interest rate.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

This may come as a surprise, but plenty of people (even those in upper income brackets) prefer not to have the rich write laws and exploit the public to a great extent... even if it means that they have to pay a little more in taxes themselves.

Re:Income desparity much?

[RightwingNutjob]

I take pride in being mean to freeloaders.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Rockoon]

I am sure that you are right, but I suspect that the same people who would not support redistribution only do so because they don't understand how large numbers of wealthy benefit from the way thet they and other wealthy people have stacked the decks in their favor.

..and they did that through the government.

So your solution is for even more government involvement? Yeah... you are the real problem.

Re:Income desparity much?

[StormyWeather]

I am in the class you speak of and I firmly believe in non redistribution. That includes up and it also includes down. as long as those in power have the power to distribute downwards they will also be able to bend those exact same rules to distribute upwards at a faster pace. Taxing the rich actually always end up texting the middle class instead of the rich. The rich just find ways of hiding their income in non taxable returns wow the middle class gets stung by the taxes as inflation changes the true earnings. the main difference between conservatism and liberalism is that liberals believe that the government can be a series force for good if only they can control it properly well conservatives believe the government is going to be a negative force because nobody can control it properly. there are of course varying shades of gray in all the leaves what is the general principle on conservatism and liberalism.

please forgive any bad grammar or spelling I had to dictate this posting

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

you dictated this and you are in what class ?

Re:Income desparity much?

[whoever57]

And your solution is what? Less government. Yeah, that's working well in Somalia and other failed states.

Actually, it's crazy that we are even talking about redistribution. We should be talking about leveling the playing field -- taking away the redistribution that is already going on -- and benefitting the already wealthy.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who has difficulty operating a keyboard due to disability of the hands, maybe? Could be using computer dictation software. Dictating to a real person means the real person can use their own knowledge of spelling and grammar as they write, computers still have trouble with that.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. I'm sick of these assholes blaming the 99% for being "envious" freeloaders, wanting something for nothing.

Most people want to work and be productive. We want to be paid a fair cut of our productivity. We're tired of subsisting on the bread crumbs industry throws us because the rich + powerful are in a position to tell their workers "take it or leave it."

Re:Income desparity much?

[Rockoon]

And your solution is what? Less government. Yeah, that's working well in Somalia and other failed states.

It worked well here.

The whole Somalia canard is getting old and just shows how weak your thinking is. In a free society there is still government, just enough to preserve everyones liberty. We once mostly had that. We are now as far from it as Somalia is.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your solution is what, more government? Works well, in China, but also in old democracy like Germany around 1939,
and new democracies like bestest on earth USA (NDAA, jail+free rape for weed), EU banning sell of lightbulbs, and ACTA-SOPA-CIPA + DMCA.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your solution is what? Less government. Yeah, that's working well in Somalia and other failed states.

Oh, I forgot that Somalia was a fucking TECHNOLOGICAL PARADISE when it did have a government. Clearly, government worked so well for it. Derp.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Less government. Yeah, that's working well in Somalia and other failed states. "

I just love how *intelligent* you nerds are. According to Slashdot Nerds socialism is cool and conservatism is evil. Anything the Democrats do is correct and need not be explained, justified nor even questioned. Anything the Republicans do is similarly wrong and no argument is even necessary.

Yea, calling for limited government, reduced taxation and regulation is something we all know will instantly lead to conditions exactly like Somalia.

Never mind that the most socialist of our cities, Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles etc. are crime infested, bankrupt failures (Detroit even looks a lot like Somalia in many places if you have ever cared to actually take a look). Never mind that the Constitution sets very clear limits on the powers of the federal government that are routinely ignored by the socialist whenever possible. Never mind the fact that the term LIMITED government is not the same thing as NO GOVERNMENT.

In the minds of the idiot Shashdot socialist it's very simple, vote for Obama and bigger government, logic and reasoning NOT NECESSARY.

You fucking idiots.

Oh gee, let's not bother to learn *any* fucking history, that would make it too difficult to justify stealing the other guys shit, which in the end is all you stupid socialists want to do. Socialists are nothing more than common low life thieves.

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Federalist 51, Madison

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct SW and I would again point you to

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Federalist 51, Madison

Thank you for using your brain, very few around here do.

Re:Income desparity much?

[gsslay]

Fact is people have no idea just how incredibly inequitable the distribution is. They think they do, but it's way worse than even that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

"Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is."

Re:Income desparity much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of people also believe in angels and watch reality TV.
It's not hard to convince people to act against their own interests, particularly badly educated ones.

The dangers of massive income inequality are well known. There is nothing that will kill this country faster, save nuclear war.

Re:Income desparity much?

[j-beda]

Fact is people have no idea just how incredibly inequitable the distribution is. They think they do, but it's way worse than even that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

"Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is."

Scary.

How do I get that one guy's job on edge of the graph?

Re:Income desparity much?

[tehcyder]

Because those 33m were stolen from the people on the street. Childish tribal mentality: I have something and you don't, therefore I owe you a cut, just because.

You only got your something because you live in a society that let you get and keep it. If we reverted to pre-civilisation, who would be on top, the single lion or the huge pack of intelligent hyenas?

Re:Income desparity much?

[tehcyder]

This may come as a surprise, but plenty of people (even those in lower income brackets) prefer to not have the government set wages and redistribute income to a great extent... even if it means that some other fellow might be making way more than themselves.

Yeah, it's known as "turkeys voting for Christmas". Especially in the US, people buy into the lie that anyone can become a billionaire, and that therefore any interference with pure laissez faire capitalism is somehow depriving them of that opportunity.

Re:Income desparity much?

[tehcyder]

"The government" is just another name for "the democratic will of the people" whatever libertarians may like to believe. Without government, the wealthy would be in total command of society.

It's deluded people like you who are the problem. The government/law that stops me and my friends from stealing your car, house and so on is the same one that prevents you from murdering slaves in factories because society has agreed how we would like things to be organised.

Re:Income desparity much?

[tehcyder]

And your solution is what, more government? Works well, in China, but also in old democracy like Germany around 1939, and new democracies like bestest on earth USA (NDAA, jail+free rape for weed), EU banning sell of lightbulbs, and ACTA-SOPA-CIPA + DMCA.

Is the lightbulb thing really that much of an issue in the scheme of things?

Re:Income desparity much?

[tehcyder]

And your solution is what? Less government. Yeah, that's working well in Somalia and other failed states.

Oh, I forgot that Somalia was a fucking TECHNOLOGICAL PARADISE when it did have a government. Clearly, government worked so well for it. Derp.

Somalia might not have been perfect when it had a functioning government, but it was a fuck of a lot better than it is now.

The way to counter the "libertarians should just move to Somalia" argument is not really to say "well, it could be worse there, at least they don't have a government".

Re:Income desparity much?

[tehcyder]

I would say there are relatively few socialists (or communists or anarchists other than "anarcho-capitalists") posting on slashdot.

Voting Democrat in the US does NOT make you a socialist, nor even left wing by world standards.

Re:Income desparity much?

[tehcyder]

Someone who has difficulty operating a keyboard due to disability of the hands, maybe? Could be using computer dictation software. Dictating to a real person means the real person can use their own knowledge of spelling and grammar as they write, computers still have trouble with that.

Unless you have to type/speak live, using dictation software is no excuse for not checking what you have produced.

Re:Income desparity much?

[Magius_AR]

The bank bailout, for example, effected a massive redistribution of wealth towards wealthy bankers. It's ongoing, with large banks benefitting from very low cost loans from the Fed, which they use to buy government bonds, which return a higher interest rate.

You do realize that bank bailout was majority-backed by Democrats and majority-opposed by Republicans, right? Perhaps governing should be less about rewarding failure (which would have the side effect of being less about redistributing to the unworthy, rich and poor alike). Instead, intelligent honest hard-working Americans who did not engage in a house-flipping bubble are now paying off the toxic debt of the assholes that did. I'm not interested in that kind of redistribution anymore than I'm interested in rewarding failing banks for incompetence.

Re:Income desparity much?

[whoever57]

You do realize that bank bailout was majority-backed by Democrats and majority-opposed by Republicans, right?

Please show where I mentioned either political party above as the cause of or saviour from income redistribution. That's right, you can't. Dipshit.

As for bailing out the banks, we would all be in a much worse postion had the banks not been bailed out. The issue is the generous terms on which they were bailed out and the facts that almost no one has been prosecuted, the big banks have been allowed to get bigger and no meaningful regulation to prevent a re-occurance has been put in place. And yes, all of this happened under the Obama administration. Do you really think it would have been better under a Republican administration?

Re:Income desparity much?

[Magius_AR]

Please show where I mentioned either political party above as the cause of or saviour from income redistribution. That's right, you can't.

It certainly seemed implied. Otherwise it seems rather dumb that you're advocating redistribution and bashing it at the exact same time (whereas advocating Democrats redistributing to the poor to offset Republicans redistributing to the rich is actually a valid argument). So I ask you -- if this isn't a political party issue, and you clearly stand against the income redistribution that took place in the bank bailouts, why is it that you support redistribution?

As for bailing out the banks, we would all be in a much worse postion had the banks not been bailed out. T

We'll never know. We let the banks go under during the Savings & Loan crisis and the resulting aftermath was far less painful than what we've had to deal with during this one. And there were other ways to deal with the problem that didn't result in a gigantic handout to millionaires (rather than just "do nothing" or "bailout"). For example, the "too big to fail" banks could have been nationalized, the Iceland way, and then liquidated and cast off after the crisis was over.

the issue is the generous terms on which they were bailed out

The issue is that they were allowed to continue existing in the first place. Those banks should have ceased to exist as private entities the day they should have gone bankrupt. They should have been at best shell puppets of the government, with some exit plan for the government down the road post-crisis.

Do you really think it would have been better under a Republican administration?

Depends on what you mean by "better". If there's anything Republicans are gungho about (to a fault), it's personal responsibility. Those banks wouldn't be the entities they are now if Republicans were at the wheel. They'd either be bankrupt, or auctioned off piecewise to other private entities, or they'd still be repaying massive loans to the government. The country as a whole may or may not be better now -- that's a different question, and a harder one to answer. But I guarantee those fatcats at the banks would be suffering far more under a Republican administration.

Wait, what?

[k.a.f.]

Security cameras in casinos are able to resolve the cards that poker players hold in their hands? That sounds like an incredibly obvious attack vector - I'm surprised this hasn't happened previously. (Of course, casino management isn't exactly known for transparency, so probably it has.)

Re:Wait, what?

[PPH]

Are we certain that the casino doesn't fix some games? And what they are pissed about is that someone figured out their system and used it for their own gain.

Re:Wait, what?

[whois]

I haven't read the article so I'm not sure of the details, but you generally don't need to be able to read all the cards. Lots of cards are distinguishable from each other. An 8 for instance looks nothing like an Ace. A face card can easily be distinguished from a regular card. You could tell if the card was black or red even if you couldn't see the suite.

With Texas holdem and other community card games, it's easier to see the important details. Does he have a pair? Does he have a flush? A straight? An Ace or a face card? You could at least have some confidence of what they don't have.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No evidence of this, the reporters are just making it up. As you indicate the casino isn't transparent, so they aren't saying anything.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Casino's have a license to print money. Cheating is -ev for them.

Re:Wait, what?

[PuZZleDucK]

Are we certain that the casino doesn't fix some games?

Yes.

Well, not more than normal... all games in a casino favour the house. Why cheat when your winning. Also crown is only legally able to take a certain percentage (this is why they are often "giving away" cars to slot players near the end of the financial year... balancing the excess wins) so taking more than normal would leave them with (more) accounting issues (than they already have).

Gambling:

[Black Parrot]

Sometimes you're gambling on whether the game is rigged.

But they probably got enough free callgirl visits to ease the pain a bit.

Re:Gambling:

[fermion]

In gambling the game is always rigged. The house is always going to win. In poker what you are gambling is your strategies and skill are better than the opponents.

Strategy, though is frowned upon in most cases. This, however, goes a bit beyond typical strategy. It does, to me, justify the assertion that poker is not gambling. I think it is crap, but if you can rig the game so you win, by whatever means, then it no longer gambling.

Re:Gambling:

[terjeber]

The house is always going to win. In poker what you are gambling is your strategies and skill are better than the opponents. Strategy [nytimes.com], though is frowned upon in most cases

What is frowned upon? That your strategy is better than the opponents? Not so, it is the only way there is poker. You can't, without cheating, get an edge on your opponent in poker in any other way than skill. Poker isn't, and never was, gambling. It is purely a game of skill.

Re:Gambling:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a game of skill like Chess or Go.

Where the best player will always win (Over a set of say 20 games likely have the best player drawing all his games with black and winning a few with white).

The element of chance means even the best poker player is likely to lose some games.

Re:Gambling:

[Jedi Alec]

Sorry, but you clearly don't have a clue. Games such as blackjack (which is what your link is about) are played against the house, and the only difference between playing a dealer or a machine is that the former has a bit more style. The rules on how the casino has to play are available up front, and the dealer has to follow these instructions to the letter.

Poker is played against opponents who are not associated with the casino, and the casino that serves as the host takes a flat cut of the winnings. Therefore the casino has a vested interest in keeping the game fair because in the long run a good reputation beats a quick scam.

back in the old west cheating at poker got you sho

[Joe_Dragon]

back in the old west cheating at poker got you shot well they did not cheat like this but they did in other ways.

33 Million!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is anyone even allowed to HAVE 33 Million when there are people in this world who don't even have anything to eat?

We have a serious problem with our own race when humans allow other humans to accumulate excessive and unnecessary wealth and resources while allowing other humans to starve to death.

I'm starting to think Karl Marx had it absolutely right. Personally I am fine with allowing certain important people to accumulate more wealth than they need once there is no one left who doesn't have food or shelter or other basic life needs.

But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, _needs_ 33 million dollars... for ANYTHING. It's just outrageous that we even allow it when 90% of the world's population lives in poverty.

Re:33 Million!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine you are just trolling, but just so you know - the pure communism that Marx has espoused has been shown to be impossible to achieve (as the proles all starve to death). From each... to each... only works when there is an incentive to work hard - and the communism philosophy takes incentive and throws it out the window. More limited "socialist" states like much of the EU can work for longer, but eventually they have the problems that are plaguing Greece, Italy, and now Spain, and eventually France.

Re:33 Million!?

[Anonymous Coward]

But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, _needs_ 33 million dollars... for ANYTHING. It's just outrageous that we even allow it when 90% of the world's population lives in poverty.

Dude, do you have any idea what a Gulfstream jet costs?

Or a nice house in New York, one in London, one in Nevis...

Re:33 Million!?

[crdotson]

Ok, but you had better not have any possessions or anything other than bare subsistence yourself. If I find out you have incredible luxuries like cars or computers when people are starving, I shall judge you to be immoral.

Re:33 Million!?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you probably dont _need_ a television, nor do you _need_ discressionary income.
there is no real difference between your extra $100 or their $33mil, its all excess, and you shouldnt be allowed to have it, right?

give'm up

Re:33 Million!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, but you had better not have any possessions or anything other than bare subsistence yourself. If I find out you have incredible luxuries like cars or computers when people are starving, I shall judge you to be immoral.

Why would YOU judge him to be immoral based on HIS standards, unless your standards are the same as his. In which case you are probably hypocritical since you seem to have access to the internet.

Re:33 Million!?

[khallow]

Why would YOU judge him to be immoral based on HIS standards, unless your standards are the same as his.

Because it would be a fallacy of equivocation otherwise. The second poster would be introducing a new set of standards and claiming that it is at least as important to the first poster as the first set of standards. And it wouldn't be, unless the first poster happened to agree.

Re:33 Million!?

[tehcyder]

I imagine you are just trolling, but just so you know - the pure communism that Marx has espoused has been shown to be impossible to achieve (as the proles all starve to death). From each... to each... only works when there is an incentive to work hard - and the communism philosophy takes incentive and throws it out the window. More limited "socialist" states like much of the EU can work for longer, but eventually they have the problems that are plaguing Greece, Italy, and now Spain, and eventually France.

Yet another slashdotter who thinks that everything has to be black or white. You don't need to be a pure communist state to achieve a more reasonable distribution of wealth and resources.

In fact, it is the compromises that capitalism has made with socialism that make the mixed economic system in West at least broadly tolerable for most people.

Re:33 Million!?

[tehcyder]

Ok, but you had better not have any possessions or anything other than bare subsistence yourself. If I find out you have incredible luxuries like cars or computers when people are starving, I shall judge you to be immoral.

I bet you're one of the smartest kids in your high school debating team, right?

Re:33 Million!?

[tehcyder]

and you probably dont _need_ a television, nor do you _need_ discressionary income. there is no real difference between your extra $100 or their $33mil, its all excess, and you shouldnt be allowed to have it, right? give'm up

Similarly, the crime of dropping a piece of litter is exactly the same as that of mass murder, because they're both wrong. Right?

Fucktard.

Re:33 Million!?

[crdotson]

Good point! However, I'm not judging him to be immoral based on his standards, but on mine. I find hypocrisy immoral. :) In fact, I was pointing out that since he had access to the internet, he was subject to the same criticism (although much less in absolute terms) as the person who has $33M.

I should caveat that I was not trying to make an airtight logical argument. I deliberately exaggerated his argument to, "nobody should really have any luxuries -- subsistence only -- while others in the world are starving." I know that's not what he really said, but I then poked fun of the fact that he (or she, I can't tell as it's an AC) clearly has internet access and probably a lot of other luxuries above and beyond subsistence. I suspect AC's unstated philosophy is actually, "luxuries like the kind *I* have are OK, but the people that have more than I do don't really deserve it."

First rule of poker

[trout007]

Protect your cards.

Re:First rule of poker

[alphabet26]

Protect your cards.

I thought about this too, but maybe it was at a "feature" table made for TV with camera's built into the table...

Re:First rule of poker

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that is the third rule... the first two rules are "You do not talk about poker."

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[93 Escort Wagon]

You'd have to mug a LOT of tramps to net $33 million.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[Rob the Bold]

Mind you, one could argue that taking 33 mil from people who are clearly prepared to gamble it away is less immoral than mugging a tramp...

And clearly more profitable.

They did it wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

Consistently winning is a sure sign of cheating. They could have pulled the same thing and gotten away with it if they had strategically lost some hands, but kept winning enough to stay in the game and eventually win. Also, if you pull something like this off, you don't stick around... even the MIT students who were cheating were stupid enough to keep going back...

Communism failed?

[Immerman]

Pure communism has been shown impossible? I agree there are some considerable theoretical pitfalls, but that's an extremely bold claim considering that it's never even been *attempted* on a scale beyond monasteries and private households, where it is actually very common and works pretty well. Sure some nations have claimed to be communistic, but if you actually look at the details that was mainly a PR snow job to facilitate a state of "We own everything, and will give you what you need. Trust us."

Re:Communism failed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure communism has been shown impossible? I agree there are some considerable theoretical pitfalls, but that's an extremely bold claim considering that it's never even been *attempted* on a scale beyond monasteries and private households, where it is actually very common and works pretty well. Sure some nations have claimed to be communistic, but if you actually look at the details that was mainly a PR snow job to facilitate a state of "We own everything, and will give you what you need. Trust us."

That's what we here on Earth call a "clue".

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

Ah yes. And clearly in the 1800s the fact that no-one except the occasional "mad scientist" type had ever attempted to fly was a strong clue that flight was impossible. And spaceflight in the 1900s was also clearly impossible. Likewise computers, democracy, and every other technology ever developed by humanity - clearly impossible, Right up until it wasn't.

Never attempted is a clue about nothing except a lack of motivation and/or imagination. The case for communism is actually considerably better considering that in pretty much every case it's been honestly attempted it's actually worked pretty well, even if there are some pretty large apparent problems with scaling it up beyond close-knit groups. Of course there's likely also some need for prerequisite technologies as well - for example either a method of effectively managing communally-owned property, or of keeping a central managing authority (aka the government) answerable to the people. To date I can't think of any particularly successful long-term examples of either.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

'Never attempted' is more a case of 'no true scotsman'.

It's been 'honestly attempted' many times. When the participants are not volunteers, these honest attempts have all ended in totalitarianism, collapse or both.

That can ether be a coincidence, or a basic defect in all command economies. That defect being: an unhealthy concentration of power.

But what can you really expect. Marx and Engels _did not understand capitalism_. It's completely predictable that any conclusion drawn from such flawed premises will be pure navel gazing bullshit. Marx and Engels would have been well served to have studied the works of Adam Smith. Perhaps they could have contributed something good to history.

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

Oh, can you name even one example? I can't think of any offhand. Command economies have been attempted many times, but that's a concept orthogonal to communism. My quick "sniff test" for an honest attempt at communism? Look in on the people who pushed to establish the "communist" policies a few years later and see how their economic position compares to the masses. Are they considerably better off than most? Then they weren't pushing for communism, they were pushing for control of the economy for their own benefit.

Re:Communism failed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Marx and Engels _did not understand capitalism_. " that's not quite right. Marx (much more than Engels) did understand capitalism to a degree that still holds up today (which is why it is sometimes claimed that smart Well Street types still draw on marxist analyses of the market). Where Marx is less on target was his thinking about how to break out of the more unfair and disruptive aspects of a capitalist market system (i.e. a communist system). The fact that we have no good examples of communism working is an entirely seperate isue to whether or not the marxist analysis of the market is useful/accurate.

If you actually read Marx you'd discover he was very familiar with the works of Adam Smith - he just didn't buy what Smith was saying.

It's worth reflecting on the fact that nowdays we all completely accept without giving it a moments thought that "it's the economy stupid" that underpins everything - such thinking is pure marxism - in a very real sense we're all marxists now whether we care to recognise it or not.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

Mao, Lenin, Kim el Sung, Castro, Chavez, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Obama. (one of those is a joke you twits)

All these honest attempts at communism that were fucked by defects in the philosophy. Absolute power corrupts. You can't have _socialism_ without central power.

The outcomes of all the attempts at communism are the results of the philosophy of communism. The power corrupts them all.

But of course none of them are true Scotsmen. Carry on then.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

'It's the economy stupid' is pure marxism? WTF are you smoking?

Managing the economy is part of the governments job. Smart people understand that the government manages best by managing the minimum amount necessary. That is antithetical to Marxism, not Marxism.

There are however some fools who, when they say 'It's the economy stupid' think the government should intervene. Those people are generally Marxists.

Re:Communism failed?

[dryeo]

Many a hunter gather society has been pretty communistic, right down to not even having a government. Where they fail is when a more organized group comes along and and takes their stuff.

Re:Communism failed?

[dryeo]

Lots of tribal groups have been quite socialist without a central power or any form of government beyond having some people who were well respected and listened to. Other examples are groups like the kibbutz.

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

Hmm, and yet all those people moved directly into the big house at the top of the hill when they gained power. Methinks their claims of a communist revolution had more to do with gathering popular support than actually wanting to spread the wealth.

And yes, certainly power corrupts. If you want to attack communism rather than just command economies then give me an example where things weren't controlled by a centralized authority (probably far less efficient, but not everything is about efficiency), or where there were robust checks placed on that authority. Marx may have been right about communism being the natural economic endpoint, but he was certainly grossly optimistic to think it could be achieved in his lifetime. Before you can have any hope of a centrally controlled communism you must figure out how to prevent the corruption of those in power, and that is something we're only very gradually beginning to tackle. Give us 500-1000 years to figure out how to keep our leaders in check, then maybe we can make an honest attempt at centrally controlled communism. But it should be obvious to anyone that until (and unless) we can figure out how to keep them from abusing political power, handing them unrestrained economic power as well isn't going to result in anything resembling communism.

Re:Communism failed?

[cusco]

Chavez? Seriously? Either you have absolutely no clue about what is happening in Latin America beyond the blathering of Fox "News", or you have no idea what communism is. Well, I suppose it could be both.

Re:Communism failed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is TRANSPERANCY.

See, there you go, I provided the the answer to corruption. But the powers that be love to give reasons why you need to be protected from the truth cause you're dumb, so there ya go. Cctv everywhere, no privacy, no corruption, the best ideas are used, everyone benefits by giving up a little. That is off course extreme, but cctv exists so your artificial barrier has been overcome.

If we had a freaken media, we would be better off than we are. But since all life is subjugated by those better than, we should just accept our place until all become completely self dependent, which is the more likely result of evolution than any byllshit system you can come up with.

Re:Communism failed?

[Anonymous Coward]

'It's the economy stupid' is pure marxism? WTF are you smoking?

Managing the economy is part of the governments job. Smart people understand that the government manages best by managing the minimum amount necessary. That is antithetical to Marxism, not Marxism.

There are however some fools who, when they say 'It's the economy stupid' think the government should intervene. Those people are generally Marxists.

Well - the point I was perhaps clumsily trying to make was that untill Marx, the idea that 'the economy' was the driver of the social world was an under-developed and second order notion. Sure, using extant economic structures to accumulate wealth was a 'very' well established orientation but the idea that the (capitalist) economy operated in terms of its own very specific internal dynamics/laws and the way these laws played out in the social world was more important than god or simplistic understandings of human nature was explicated by Marx in a way that arguably has never been bettered. The issue isn't about embracing or rejecting a command economy it's about acknowledging that untill Marx we never thought about the economy in these terms at all.

For all his faults - Marx was an extraordinarily insightful thinker and dismissing him on the basis of base charactures of his ideas is sadly all too common these days - a shame.

Re:Communism failed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Managing the economy is part of the governments job. "

Citation of Law please.

Nothing in the Constitution says that it is the government's job to "regulate the economy." In fact, the Federal government is specifically prohibited from any attempt at managing the economy except that which flows across State lines.

And, before you go there, coining money is not "managing the economy."

Re:Communism failed?

[moeinvt]

"Pure communism has been shown impossible? "

Not impossible, just a dismal failure. A bunch of people left over from the hippie movement attempted to form communes. Where are they now? They collapsed for the same reason communism always collapses. There is no incentive to do work, and people get bitter at having to carry their lazy comrades.
The former commune dwellers then became "progressives" because they know that communism WILL work as long as EVERYONE is forced to participate.

If communism worked, all of the progressives/communists would be living together in peace and happiness in communist communities all over the nation. It doesn't.

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

No, though transparency is probably part of the answer it's not enough on it's own. We also need accountability, which is largely missing from the current contrived dog-and-pony show of US politics even when we know perfectly well who's screwing us over. And probably some way to reign in politicians between election cycles as well - perhaps something like the Swiss direct democracy to give honest politicians a way to end-run around any shenanigans being pulled by their peers. Maybe even throw in treason charges for political corruption, since I'm sure powerful interests will still find a way to buy influence - after all when there's a will, and a billion dollar slush fund, there's a way. Lets make sure anyone willing to sell has to risk their life , not just the next election. If nothing else it should raise their prices.

Though yeah, I am a fan of requiring politicians to submit to 24/7 public surveillance, and none of that cctv stuff, it should be streamed live on the internet so anyone can look in on them at any time. You want privacy? Fine, no problem, stay away from power.

A media would be important as well, but I'm not sure quite how to maintain that one. How much of the horrible degradation of the US media has been due to corruption by the powerful, and how much due to corruption by advertising dollars and ignorant audiences who prefer sensationalist pablum that reinforces their pre-existing biases rather than actual news? It's a sad day when Stewart and Colbert are among the most reliable "news sources" out there, but maybe that's a model that needs to be embraced. Real investigative reporting after all must be paid for, which means either advertising dollars, government funding, or private donations. All of them have their pitfalls.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

You do understand. Communism doesn't work (except among volunteers) without strong central power. With strong central power communism descends into totalitarianism. Therefor Communism doesn't work.

There is no fixing it. Transparency is a stupid thought. Why would someone so powerful allow continued transparency? The power is the problem.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

Good luck with that. Communism is now such a discredited philosophy that it can only sell in the most backward places.

Venezuela is just a standard early communist totalitarian state. Sham elections, cronyism, expropriations, collapsing economy etc. They are still burning through the capital they stole. Give it 5 more years.

Re:Communism failed?

[cusco]

Sham elections? Chavez won the last election with over 70 percent of the vote in polling that was judged by multiple international observers as "Free and Fair" (a certification which incidentally our own voting system can't qualify for). Not sure what you mean by "collapsing economy", since it's not, in most respects it's doing better than the governments that follow the IMF/World Bank prescriptions. There are electrical and water shortages in the capital caused by a severe drought, I suppose that's probably what you're referring to.

standard early communist totalitarian state

Really? Where are the violent revolution and government overthrow that has proceeded every other communist government?

Venezuela's government is socialist, not communist. There is a difference.

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

Hmm, and I'm sure that disillusionment with the free-love and drug cultures that permeated the hippie movement had nothing to do with that... Oh wait, those are the complaints cited by every ex-commune resident I've ever spoken with. And in point in fact there are numerous thriving communes throughout the country, mostly artist communities. You just don't hear about them because (1) communes are no longer crazy new newsworthy invasions by the evil communists, (2) they are mostly not trying to make any sort of sociopolitical statement, which ties into the fact that (3) they just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit, so mostly keep a low profile.

In fact, if you want to get technical I bet you, personally, grew up in a commune! Or did your momma make you work for every suck at the teat?

Re:Communism failed?

[tehcyder]

Marx and Engels would have been well served to have studied the works of Adam Smith

Whatever theoretical philosophical criticisms you may level against Marxism at least it doesn't have a central idea as totally fucking stupid as £the invisible hand of the market."

In his defence, he was writing before capitalism had really got going. Marx and Engels saw the actual results of pure capitalism in action, and whatever the views of rightwingers nowadays, they weren't pretty.

Re:Communism failed?

[tehcyder]

Castro and Chavez (not to mention Mao and Lenin) were a fuck sight better than their predecessors, and their problems were in both cases exacerbated by the hostility of the US to anything other than a US-friendly consumer-capitalist playground.

Re:Communism failed?

[tehcyder]

There are few more tedious arguments than legalistic back-to-the -Constitution ones. Most of the world is not the US, and so your Constitution doesn't have the same aura of Divine Writ for the rest of us.

The point about Marxist analysis is that it looks at the economic forces operating regardless of the particular legal/social system they're working in.

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

As many have pointed out in many other unrelated discussions transparency is only part of the solution to keeping power in check. Without accountability all it provides is a clear view of just how badly you're being abused, so really it's only a minor inconvenience to those in power. I'll freely admit that I know of no nation on Earth, modern or historical, that has managed accountability. But we are moving towards transparency on a global scale, and that's probably a good first step - you can't keep power accountable unless you can see when it's being abused. Once we manage a transparent, accountable, democratic government that withstands the test of time (lets have it stand untainted for a century or two at least) *then*, and only then, would I support a move towards centrally controlled communism. I'm not hopeful such a government will rise any time in the next several centuries, but I am hopeful that we're moving in the right direction. And frankly if we can actually manage such a government communism might not bring much more to the table - capitalism does have it's uses, and a strong, incorruptible government could potentially keep it's numerous failings in check.

> Communism doesn't work (except among volunteers) without strong central power
Can you cite any proof of this statement? Certainly I can't think of any alternatives off hand, but new technologies are rarely obvious before they're developed, social or otherwise. Historically "it can't be done" is far more likely to indicate a failure of imagination or prerequisite technologies than an inherent impossibility.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

When everything is owned by the state, the state has all the power.

Money == Power.

Transparency and accountability would rapidly be destroyed in communism. Too much power in too few hands. What would be required to make it not fall to totalitarianism is SF. Strong AI programmed not to abuse power. Good luck with that.

Even accepting a 'star trek replicator' and 'Holodeck', power would still be craved. They would just find another power surrogate besides money. It would come down to 'ownership' of the replicators.

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

And how exactly is that different from the present day when the government is largely in the pocket of those who control virtually all of the wealth?

Certainly - money is just money, power is POWER. One of the reasons "old money" tends to sneer at "new money", all your billions can exert only limited power without the support of the power network behind the scenes.

For something less SF how about mandatory explosive capsules inserted in the skull of every government official - your approval rating among your electorate falls below X and boom. And any attempt to change the requirement requires a supermajority of the popular vote. And frankly if we're talking about something unlikely to be viable for centuries, SF options are themselves potentially viable.

I don't pretend to know the solution, and I don't have to - I'm not for a second suggesting we move to communism unless and until we've found a way to keep power in check, and that's a goal worth chasing regardless of economic system. Communism doesn't fundamentally change the problem, it only exacerbates it.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

Except: In the present day western government is in the hands of those who give the most bread and circuses to the unwashed masses. Basic problem with democracy.

The 1% is a much larger group then the Chinese standing committee and control a much smaller part of the economy. When you control regulatory capture, large corporations get eaten alive by smaller more nimble corporations (often formed by the former employees of the large corporations).

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

Five more years. No matter how loud you yell 'nah, nah nah' and stick your fingers in your ears there will be no denying it.

Anybody who certified the Venezuelan elections just sold their credibility for next to nothing. Not that people like that are hard to find.

Chavez couldn't help himself. The last election was openly a sham. If you don't look at the evidence it's because you are willfully ignorant. Looking at some of your other points, that's just obvious.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

Coining money certainly is part of 'managing the economy'. Other parts would be establishing tariffs, taxes, maintaining a civil court system and, as you say, regulation of interstate commerce (ideally only keeping states from starting economic wars with each other).

Hands off management is still management.

Re:Communism failed?

[HornWumpus]

Marxist analysis is almost guaranteed to give you the wrong answer. There may be an edge case where it's correct, but it's not an edge that actually exists.

Re:Communism failed?

[cusco]

The last election was openly a sham.

[citation needed]

And if you're going to quote Univision you deserve to be laughed off the Internet.

Re:Communism failed?

[spitzak]

I think it has been "attempted". Even Marx said that you had to go through a government-controlled stage before the workers paradise would magically appear. We have several cases of the government-controlled stage and I think these all count as "attempts". The fact that they did not turn into worker's paradise means the attempt failed, not that it did not happen. This is like saying that perpetual motion was "never attempted" because every experiment stopped some point before perpetual motion happened.

PS: "Libertarian Paradise" has also never been "attempted" either. That is because it is just as much of a fantasy as pure communism.

Re:Communism failed?

[Immerman]

Has it though? Or was the specter of communism simply used to gain popular support for what was really just an economic power grab that never had any intention of attempting an equitable distribution of wealth? Honest question. Evey movement I've glanced at (this isn't exactly a driving interest of mine) seems to bear clear hallmarks of the latter, at least among the powerful backers of the movement, and usually for the figurehead as well.

The $10,000 question of course is why would any person powerful enough to directly shape the direction of their nation be interested in pursuing a workers paradise? They are after all the ones with the most to lose. Even in the case of a popular uprising those at the forefront will, after overthrowing the existing government, find themselves in a position of considerable power. Some of them may be principled idealists who can resist the temptation to leverage that power for phenomenal personal gain, but probably not most of them. In fact many of them may in fact be the same people who were in power before, popular uprisings tend to be much more successful with powerful backers, and those "turncoats" almost certainly supported the revolution with the specific intent of leveraging it to increase their own wealth and power.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. His mum is easy and rich.

The House Can Lose The Poker Losses

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the casino's security network was used to perpetrate the cheat, the casino has liability. Also, when cheated players howl, houses have to make up the cheat-losses to proof that they were not partners in the scam. This is one of the reasons casinos pay top-drawer card-sharpers to scan and play, especially where unnatural luck appears, especially against the house, but also for, for public relations.

High-stakes players are of high value to casinos, even in rent-a-table poker games, because the house's collects a percentage of the stakes, just as auctions do of the knock-down (sale) price.

Re:The House Can Lose The Poker Losses

[Anonymous Coward]

because the house's collects a percentage of the stakes, just as auctions do of the knock-down (sale) price.

No, they don't. They charge fixed rent. Rake only happens at the very lowest stake games. Usually 10-20 and below.
In many casinos no limit games as low as 2-5 are time charged not raked.
The house gets a fixed fee for providing the dealer, table, security, beverages, etc. No more or less, regardless of the stakes.

Can someone say FIREWALL?

[CPNABEND]

Assuming the casino had a basic firewall for outside of the hotel access, I am thinking the accomplice may have been in a room in the hotel. If that were the case... How could they not have a separate firewall to protect the CCTV feeds? It would seem to me the CCTV should have stand-alone servers and a stand-alone firewall. That being said, I would like to meet the intruder. I have a business proposition for him :-)

Re: Can someone say FIREWALL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Firewalls infallible?

Re:Can someone say FIREWALL?

[cusco]

Casino security systems, both access and video, do run on private networks. In most states in the US that's required by law, where it isn't it is pretty much required by their insurance company. Casino security systems are frequently run by poorly-paid contracted guard staff. Often so are their networks. All they need is one guard who will relay what he's seeing on the camera, or one admin willing to plug in an unauthorized network port.

Backdoors Will be Used

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I am surprised that no one has commented on the fact that this is another case of a backdoor that was intended for the use of whitehats being commandeered by blackhats. When you build backdoors into systems you weaken security.

Another, really amazing story along those lines is the cell-phone wire-tapping of greece during the months before the last olympics games in athens. The system was designed with a wire-tapping backdoor, greece didn't even purchase that feature when they bought the switches, but the blackhats were able to turn it on and listen in to the phone calls of the mayor of athens and the prime minister of greece.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[FooRat]

When you build backdoors into systems you weaken security.

Are you really honestly claiming that, based on this one rare and isolated incident, that casinos all do good to improve their overall security by getting rid of their cameras? I suggest you think about what you're saying again.

This is like those morons who think you shouldn't wear seatbelts because in 1 in 10,000 accidents they hurt you instead of help save you.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[PureFiction]

"Are you really honestly claiming that, based on this one rare and isolated incident, that casinos all do good to improve their overall security by getting rid of their cameras?"

No, but the "security tools" they apply should also be considered as sources of risk in the overall risk management equation. Too often security products get a pass because, well, they're security products.

The witty worm is another favorite example of this position of privilege turned against you.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[wvmarle]

Was it a backdoor hack? Or just some employee with regular access to the system abusing his privileges?

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[DerekLyons]

I am surprised that no one has commented on the fact that this is another case of a backdoor that was intended for the use of whitehats being commandeered by blackhats.

They're too busy dancing and singing over the fact that "some rich guys" (who deserved it anyhow) "got fleeced". Security implications be dammed.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Was it a backdoor hack? Or just some employee with regular access to the system abusing his privileges?

Is there a meaningful difference?

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[wvmarle]

I'd say so, yes. One is a technical issue, the other a social one.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[egcagrac0]

Replacing an employee that allows unintended access is less costly than replacing an electronic system that readily allows unintended access.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[DougOtto]

It was likely a combination of lazy operators and a lower level employee being bought. On a system that large, especially if it's on a private network, it's not unusual to use default passwords for cameras. It makes adding/replacing/moving cams in your VMS quick and painless. All it would take is learning that password and getting physical access to the network. Since most cameras unicast/multicast the operators would never know their video stream was being intercepted.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Replacing an employee that allows unintended access is less costly than replacing an electronic system that readily allows unintended access.

Parts swaps don't improve security when the risk is in the system design. How do you know that another employee ain't just as vulnerable?

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[egcagrac0]

While another employee may be similarly vulnerable, ideally they will do some validation testing, and possibly rearrange their system to require two people to concur that someone should be watching the eye in the sky.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So you are saying that the system needs to be revised - this ain't any different from upgrading software. Which was my original point, hacks are hacks - social engineering or software engineering, its basically the same thing.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[egcagrac0]

You're overgeneralizing considerably.

Re:Backdoors Will be Used

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You're overgeneralizing considerably.

It is a difference in degree, not kind.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to mug a LOT of tramps to net $33 million.

Sigh. This is what's wrong with kids these days: no work ethic.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[Icyfire0573]

I didn't read the article either but doesn't this kind of imply that there was more than one player because it was poker? So assuming 5 people, 4 getting fleeced and 8 hands. thats 4*8 so 32 million, or 1 mil per person per hand. Not 4 mil per hand? Not that 1 mil isn't a lot of fucking money to lose of course. Just checking the facts.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[Badge 17]

The Reg article and the summary are incorrect. There is no evidence that this was a poker game. In fact, since the Crown casino talks about hoping to recover the money, and not recover it for the players, it might not be. However, I'm not sure what game is played against the house where players' cards are concealed. Maybe they mean looking at the dealer's down card in blackjack? Is Pai Gow Poker dealt with other hands hidden?

Also note, the cheating did not occur solely over eight hands as the Reg claims. According to the Herald Sun article (the original), "cheating was exposed over eight hands of cards played in a short space of time." The cheater got too greedy, and played too obviously.

High stakes poker in a private suite

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised the guy who made out with the $33 million got out of there alive, literally.

Re:High stakes poker in a private suite

[tehcyder]

I'm surprised the guy who made out with the $33 million got out of there alive, literally.

It's of course possible that the victims didn't realise they'd been cheated until he had scarpered with the money. That's pretty much what always happens on Hustle, my main source of inside criminal information.

Total bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The MIT team was banned from their success. Smart card counters moved on to poker, where it's an expected basic skill.

NO. The dealers don't make any decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

Blackjack has fixed odds because statitics win. Dealers are only allowed draw or stand based on their own cards. They're basicly card waiters. A dealer that fails to understand this is fired because wannabe psychics don't beat Vegas odds

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

A dealer of blackjack is completely robotic except they are cheaper than the machine equivalent.

Wow... imagine that...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't seem to give one single fuck at all about this story...

People who can wager millions on a hand of poker... their problems are not my problems... and most likely never will be.

This story actually makes me laugh and the proper headline should be 'some rich people got robbed'.

And it's still funny. Hows that being robbed feel you fucks... been doin it to everyone around you forever... and it finally hit you hard enough for you to notice...

and i get to LAUGH. thats awesome.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind you, one could argue that taking 33 mil from people who are clearly prepared to gamble it away is less immoral than mugging a tramp...

To paraphrase Asimov:
To mug a tramp is immoral. To cheat in a high-stakes card game is immoral. But if you think the two are equally immoral, your view is wronger than the both of them combined.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[egcagrac0]

The Reg article and the summary are incorrect. There is no evidence that this was a poker game.

Good catch. That table in the picture in the Herald Sun article looks a like a baccarat, or possibly a blackjack table.

In fact, since the Crown casino talks about hoping to recover the money, and not recover it for the players, it might not be. However, I'm not sure what game is played against the house where players' cards are concealed. Maybe they mean looking at the dealer's down card in blackjack?

Some variants of blackjack are dealt face-down, with only the dealer's up card showing.

And the real scam is:

[Anonymous Coward]

The casino stated that it considered their chances good of recovering the money. Recovering? It was not their money to start with, so they are out to make a killing themselves from the scam.

Re:And the real scam is:

[khallow]

The casino stated that it considered their chances good of recovering the money. Recovering?

It's a black mark and some degree of liability on Crown Limited, the owner of the casino. Their security systems were used to cheat on a game. It doesn't matter that much if it was their game or not. They can lose a lot more than $33 million from the combination of the reputation damage and if they are deemed partly responsible in court.

Re:Wow... imagine that...

[eyenot]

You sound like you're giving too much of a fuck.

Try re-imagining the headline more properly as: "Filthy Rich People Robbing Some Other Filthy Rich People Using a Stupid Fucking Game of Chance and Lax Security" and you will finally feel just how stupid and irrelevant the story is.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[khallow]

That table in the picture in the Herald Sun article looks a like a baccarat, or possibly a blackjack table.

Don't trust the pictures. They'll grab whatever they have in stock. If the guy was taking money from other players, it was probably something competitive like poker, which is a pretty big fad right now.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if they are comping a $30k a night villa for him he's probably a pretty big player, would guess the ante would be at least 100k or 500k. Get 4 or 5 people playing and it's not hard to see where all the money comes from.

I knew I should've changed the default password

[DougOtto]

on those cameras. Sorry, my bad.

This would never happen in Las Vegas

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

This would never happen in Las Vegas. The casinos are too sophisticated here, and so many people have tried to cheat over the years, the casinos are hip to everything.

Also, gambling is Las Vegas' only major industry, if that goes, we are hosed, unlike most other cities, so it is in our best interest (our survival) to keep the games honest and perceived as honest.

And there is more than just criminal and civil courts to deal with cheaters you know... Getting sued and/or going to prison could very well be the LEAST of a cheaters problems. Kneecaps are fragile things.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi

[SleazyRidr]

The article isn't explicit, but it's not uncommon for people who like these high-stakes poker games to play heads-up. Most of the famous poker players will tell stories about how some super-rich dude wanted to play poker one-on-one with them and ended up losing some obscene amount of money.

I think this was a Mission Impossible episode,

[Anonymous Coward]

in fact it was...

When the catch the other person and they sell their story to Hollywood, the movie will probably net more than 33 million.

What about America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google.com steal all information from website. Even backup.
Google's Map scan everyone's door, even in Asia Taiwan.
Google say China is most dangerous country.
As a Taiwanese, I have no state to declare anything.
Don't you understand where Internet comes from?
Don't fool Chinese or Taiwanese.

And his name was Auric Goldfinger

[DutchUncle]

. . . . oh, wait, that was outdoors from a hotel balcony with a telescope. My mistake.