Slashdot Mirror
How A Professional Poker Player Conned a Casino Out of $9.6 Million (washingtonpost.com)
Phil Ivey is a professional poker player who's won ten World Series of Poker bracelets -- but he's also got a new game. An anonymous reader write:
In 2012, Ivey requested that the Borgata casino let him play baccarat with an assistant named Cheng Yin Sun while using a specific brand of playing cards -- purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards -- and an automatic shuffler. He then proceeded to win $9.6 million over four visits. The pair would rotate certain cards 180 degrees, which allowed them to recognize those cards the next time they passed through the deck. (They were exploiting a minute lack of a symmetry in the pattern on the backs of the cards...)
But last month a U.S. district judge ruled that Ivey and his partner had a "mutual obligation" to the casino, in which their "primary obligation" was to not use cards whose values would be known to them -- and ordered them to return the $9.6 million [PDF]. "What this ruling says is a player is prohibited from combining his skill and intellect and visual acuity to beat the casino at its own game," Ivey's attorney told the AP, adding that the judge's ruling will be appealed.
The judge also ruled Ivey had to return the money he later won playing craps with his winnings from the baccarat game -- though the judge denied the casino's request for restitution over the additional $250,000 worth of goods and services they'd "comped" Ivey during his stay.
But last month a U.S. district judge ruled that Ivey and his partner had a "mutual obligation" to the casino, in which their "primary obligation" was to not use cards whose values would be known to them -- and ordered them to return the $9.6 million [PDF]. "What this ruling says is a player is prohibited from combining his skill and intellect and visual acuity to beat the casino at its own game," Ivey's attorney told the AP, adding that the judge's ruling will be appealed.
The judge also ruled Ivey had to return the money he later won playing craps with his winnings from the baccarat game -- though the judge denied the casino's request for restitution over the additional $250,000 worth of goods and services they'd "comped" Ivey during his stay.
They are not rigged. It's a tax on those with poor reasoning skills. Twenty some odd years ago I worked as a dealer in a casino. One night this really drunk guy swore the big six wheel was being stopped by the carpeted box under the table. Security handed him the box and kicked him out the front door.
It's been 5-6 years, since I am currently in Europe, but last time it was $90/night to get a pyramid suite with jacuzzi at the Luxor. Turn off the lights, and relax in your jacuzzi under the starry sky - since, you know, you're in a huge glass pyramid (the largest one intended for the living) and so the glass "wall" in your jacuzzi room is also the ceiling... A year later I paid 500 euro/night in Rome for a seemingly well-rated hotel with jacuzzi suites (yes, I like my jacuzzis), and it was mediocre compared to the Luxor room. ;) In general, casinos make a most of their money from gamblers, so the rest of the folks can find some great deals.
For the buffets you have to find the good ones
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Essentially they were playing with marked cards, because Sun had memorized subtle flaws on the back of the cards. That's generally regarded as cheating in any card game.
The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.
That's funny... that's exactly what they do.
I saw a segment on some TV show a few years ago that featured a guy who collects the abundant leftover buffet food from Las Vegas hotels, mixes it all together, and then delivers it to hog farms. The animals did seem to be enjoying it quite a bit.
When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.
Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?
Or did they simply keep the ill-gotten gains?
Also, he deserved to keep the money he won in other games. That was bull. Money is fungible, he made those bets and won.
incorrect, there are multiple variants of Baccarat including ones where you are playing against the house
"They don't have to cheat to make lots of money"
But they go to great lengths to prevent card counters from playing or where they're prevented by law from banning them, they harass or physically threaten them
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The house doesn't cheat. It plays by a set of rules that mathematically work out in its favor. It tells you this up front. The closest thing the house does to cheating is having a house limit.
The slots are rigged. They appear "random". They are not. They are programmed to show a near-jackpot for every loss. This tricks the human brain into thinking they are doing better than they are. If they literally displayed a random result, they'd be legit. But the outcome is statistically determined, and the losses are deliberately rigged to show a near-jackpot to trick people into playing more.
If casinos weren't cheating, they'd actually display random results for every win and loss. They don't. They are cheating, and they know it. They cheat as much as allowed by law. That it's legal cheating doesn't make it non-cheating.
Learn to love Alaska
The slots are rigged. They appear "random". They are not. They are programmed to show a near-jackpot for every loss.
They are at least quasi-random, they are not programmed to give specified outcomes (you can look up how they work).
It is the game design (i.e. the inherent probabilities) which make it appear as if there are near-jackpots so often. The situation is comparable to the error people make when they think that 5 heads in a row is less likely than H-H-T-H-T. That is it is humans ascribing meaning to equally probable random outcomes (from the PoV of probability, HHHHH is no more significant than HHTHT). The idea of a "near-jackpot" is a matter interpretation, what players are witnessing as a "near" is a kind of probabilistic pareidolia.
That is not to say the machines are not carefully designed to hook people and compromise their rational free will, they clearly are! The lights, colors the general fit are arranged to induce a trance-like state. BUT the probability of hitting some "near win" combination is already so very high it's simply not necessary to program in certain combinations. (The same applies to bad beats in Poker btw). Showing the random outcomes tricks people with great efficacy. Ditto for payout ratios, which is why the idea of the well-played machine, "I've been playing this one so long it has to pay out eventually" is just another form of gambler's fallacy.
It's rigged with maths as effectively as if it were rigged to show certain combinations at certain times. Yet the marketing seems to suggest that gamblers have a real chance of striking it rich: Never have I seen marketing highlighting the fact that "each coin you put in the machine cements your losses" or "the longer you play the greater the certainty of your losing" That's not that too distant from fraud.
Only losers quit ... but, of course, "gamble responsibly!"
Using marked cards is cheating, but it's also against the law. Any contract you may sign is void when the deal is illegal under current law. If the casino wasn't told upfront the cards were marked, it would also void the contract even if the law didn't make it illegal to use marked cards in the first place, because the casino would never have gone through with it if they had known upfront.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Marked cards are cards that allow you to distinguish different cards (or here: different card orientations) without seeing their front side. It is of no importance if these marks where printed in the factory or added manually to an originally unmarked set.
You can buy marked cards in any magicians store that are specifically designed to be marked and are in no way tampered with.
bickerdyke