4 ms·

The tone of most of the comments is very surprising to me. Many seem to argue that the ruling is wrong or too harsh, which I don't really see the basis of. I pe

by ht85 10y ago

The tone of most of the comments is very surprising to me. Many seem to argue that the ruling is wrong or too harsh, which I don't really see the basis of. I personally think that unskilled gambling should not be a thing, but in the current state of things I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud. A lot of people seem angry that the odds are always in favor of the casino, and comment in a way that implies that if you gamble with odds against you, you are definitely going to lose money. This is not the case at all, and typical casino odds mean that in a single event, your chance of a net win is close to your chance of a loss. I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how else would that work for the gambling industry? As for their card trick, they both knew very well what they were doing, that is was at best immoral if not illegal. What if it had been a scheme to defraud a tech company? Using a weakness in the system to extract millions? Would we read "too bad, they should eat that loss and take it as an opportunity to improve their process"?

nikcub 10y ago
> so how else would that work for the gambling industry? It would work by denying Ivey his requests and policing your games properly, as many casinos did do. Ivey isn't exactly an unknown in gambling circles - the Bogota went in eyes open, accepted the conditions and lost.
chmod775 10y ago
> I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how else would that work for the gambling industry? > As for their card trick, they both knew very well what they were doing, that is was at best immoral if not illegal. There is no shame in doing anything within your abilities and the law to take money away from a business either. As for their card trick, the casino agreed to all their demands and took the risk that something was going on they did not understand, with the expectation to take money from individuals in a way (gambling) that is at best immoral. You may see what I did there. For me it works both ways. Neither side can claim the moral high ground in this game they both agreed to enter - the only thing that stands out to me is that the side that isn't used to losing, lost.
Ajedi32 10y ago
> What if it had been a scheme to defraud a tech company? Using a weakness in the system to extract millions? Would we read "too bad, they should eat that loss and take it as an opportunity to improve their process"? Remember when the Ethereum DAO got hacked? I seem to recall a lot of people making that exact argument.
sleepychu 10y ago
The difference between their trick and the superstition seems to be only in success rate, to me. If the casino allows the players to perform arbitrary actions within the limits of the rules in order to try and improve their luck I fail to see how Ivey and Sun can be considered to have defrauded the casino by performing their selected and previously agreed actions.
sleepychu 10y ago
The difference between their trick and the superstition seems to be only in success rate, to me. If the casino allows the players to perform arbitrary actions within the limits of the rules in order to try and improve their luck I fail to see how Ivey and Sun can be considered to have defrauded the casino by performing their selected and previously agreed actions.
Dylan16807 10y ago
>I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud. So that means you disagree with the judge? >I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how else would that work for the gambling industry? If we ignore addiction, there's no shame in running a casino. But if you play with fire and 100% agree to something with full competency, don't complain when you get burned. >What if it had been a scheme to defraud a tech company? Then that would be fraud. This isn't. >Using a weakness in the system to extract millions? When the weakness is condoned by someone that should know better, and they agree to it over and over again, and the terms of the agreement are honestly being followed, then yes they should suck it up and fix their process for the future.

by ht85 10y ago

nikcub 10y ago

> so how else would that work for the gambling industry? It would work by denying Ivey his requests and policing your games properly, as many casinos did do. Ivey isn't exactly an unknown in gambling circles - the Bogota went in eyes open, accepted the conditions and lost.

chmod775 10y ago

> I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how else would that work for the gambling industry? > As for their card trick, they both knew very well what they were doing, that is was at best immoral if not illegal. There is no shame in doing anything within your abilities and the law to take money away from a business either. As for their card trick, the casino agreed to all their demands and took the risk that something was going on they did not understand, with the expectation to take money from individuals in a way (gambling) that is at best immoral. You may see what I did there. For me it works both ways. Neither side can claim the moral high ground in this game they both agreed to enter - the only thing that stands out to me is that the side that isn't used to losing, lost.

Ajedi32 10y ago

> What if it had been a scheme to defraud a tech company? Using a weakness in the system to extract millions? Would we read "too bad, they should eat that loss and take it as an opportunity to improve their process"? Remember when the Ethereum DAO got hacked? I seem to recall a lot of people making that exact argument.

sleepychu 10y ago

The difference between their trick and the superstition seems to be only in success rate, to me. If the casino allows the players to perform arbitrary actions within the limits of the rules in order to try and improve their luck I fail to see how Ivey and Sun can be considered to have defrauded the casino by performing their selected and previously agreed actions.

sleepychu 10y ago

Dylan16807 10y ago

>I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing a blatant fraud. So that means you disagree with the judge? >I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how else would that work for the gambling industry? If we ignore addiction, there's no shame in running a casino. But if you play with fire and 100% agree to something with full competency, don't complain when you get burned. >What if it had been a scheme to defraud a tech company? Then that would be fraud. This isn't. >Using a weakness in the system to extract millions? When the weakness is condoned by someone that should know better, and they agree to it over and over again, and the terms of the agreement are honestly being followed, then yes they should suck it up and fix their process for the future.