3 ms·
Right, but it's not dependent on intent. The other casino didn't intend to leave the deck unshuffled, this casino didn't intend to buy marked cards. But, they
by EdHominem 10y ago
Right, but it's not dependent on intent. The other casino didn't intend to leave the deck unshuffled, this casino didn't intend to buy marked cards.
But, they did. So the games played with those cards(/unshuffled decks) shouldn't count.
If the law doesn't function in both directions it isn't law, it's codified graft.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago> Right, but it's not dependent on intent. But it does appear to be dependent on knowledge, as per the law quoted in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13227445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13227445 Ivey and Sun knew how to read the marked cards.
- EdHominem 10y agoIf I was caught carrying marked cards nobody would believe I didn't know. The casino has an entire anti-fraud department which exists to catch this sort of thing and we're supposed to believe they didn't notice this for years... But that's only half the post you linked to... Importantly, the precedent involving the unshuffled deck didn't involve knowledge. Despite everyone's intentions the game was not setup correctly so it didn't count. If so, then these games (all games with these decks) were also not setup correctly. Either all games with these cards are improper or none are. And importantly, nothing other than penalizing the casino will change anything. This ruling incentivizes them to leave marks in their cards, dice, etc, and call them out in the future to invalidate any unpleasant results.
- jdmichal 10y agoConsidering that the imperfections were on the order of 1/32 of an inch, or 0.8 millimeters... Yes, I can absolutely believe that they were missed on visual inspection.