4 ms·

Here is a section of the Nevada gambling fraud law that hits close to a method that involves button timing: >7. To manipulate, with the intent to cheat, any co

Here is a section of the Nevada gambling fraud law that hits close to a method that involves button timing: >7. To manipulate, with the intent to cheat, any component of a gaming device in a manner contrary to the designed and normal operational purpose for the component, including, but not limited to, varying the pull of the handle of a slot machine, with knowledge that the manipulation affects the outcome of the game or with knowledge of any event that affects the outcome of the game. In general you are not allowed to do anything clever in a casino. It isn't stated as such, but the actual crime is winning consistently. If you walk into a casino certain that you will not be providing the house with their cut then you will almost for sure run up against some law. Extra laws will be generated as required by the governments involved.

usrusr 10y ago
Key word being "knowledge". Seems like you are free to believe in any fantasy about you having an edge over the house, except when that belief happens to be true. The mere thought of having a streak of luck would make winning illegal. If thoughtcrimes were animals, this would be a cute little kitty.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  > Seems like you are free to believe in any fantasy about you having an edge over the house, except when that belief happens to be true. This is a pretty common pattern in "intent" crimes. As a simple example: attempted murder requires a potentially-effective plan. Shooting at someone and missing is attempted murder, burning a voodoo doll of them is not - no matter how sincerely you expect it to work. It does produce an odd situation where stupidity becomes a legal defense, but the basis for it is pretty understandable. It's not criminalizing being right, it's decriminalizing being wrong, presumably because it's too hard to define the boundaries of whether something useless was done with real intent.
  - Sunset 10y ago
    I would argue that burning a voodoo doll should at least count for intent to harm. Lets say I am completely mistaken about how chemistry works and I think that adding salt to wine will somehow make it a deadly cocktail. With intent to kill you I make such a concoction and serve it to you. In that case I should still be able to be punished under the law.
    - schoen 10y ago
      1991 article by David D. Friedman about this topic: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=facpubs http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
      - Zak 10y ago
        The article assumes rational behavior with regard to everything except which methods of committing crimes are possible and concludes that punishing impossible attempts creates a rational disincentive to all attempts. It's right in a game-theory sense, but not a practical one. Proving intent to a jury is based on circumstantial evidence. Shooting a gun at someone is strong evidence of intent to murder because it is widely known that guns are lethal. Countering the weight of that evidence would require very convincing evidence that the shooter did not believe his actions would be lethal. Proving that someone believed burning a voodoo doll would be lethal would be very difficult since it is widely known that burning voodoo dolls is not lethal. Even apparent evidence that the voodoo practitioner had a genuine belief is easily played off as an act, and in criminal law, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. There's also the matter of people having mistaken beliefs about the probability of punishment.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      So legally, I know the "salt in wine" example doesn't count as attempted murder, at least in states that require action towards the murder. Some states have much lower bars where you don't have to try a murder and could merely buy supplies and write out a plan, but even then I don't think guaranteed-to-fail plans count. It does seem like the sort of thing that ought to be illegal somehow, but I'd need an actual expert's input on what charges they would seek for that.
- LordKano 10y ago
  The mere thought of having a streak of luck would make winning illegal. Where I live, many bars have 8 line slot machines that are ostensibly "For Amusement Only" but they pay out when people win (and if they know you). If you win too much, you'll be banned from playing.
  - Zak 10y ago
    Cutting off people who win too much seems fair; charging them with a crime does not. Correctly estimating when the odds are more favorable doesn't seem like cheating to me.
    - LordKano 10y ago
      I have been banned from playing at a few establishments. Just knowing when to raise your bet does a lot to tip the odds in your favor.
      - Zak 10y ago
        And that seems fair, in the same way that it's fair for a store to apply undisclosed quantity limits to a customer who figures out how to combine freely-available coupons to make all their merchandise free. I actually did something like that once. A store I visited put a link to a survey on its receipt with an offer of $10 off any one item on completion. I completed the survey on my phone, which displayed a barcode they could scan and selected a sub-$10 item. The receipt for my free item had a link to a survey.... I limited myself to a few items I actually had a use for. They would have been well within their rights to cut me off after a while, but certainly not to have me charged with a crime.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
loeg 10y ago
> It isn't stated as such, but the actual crime is winning consistently. Bingo. :-)
alkonaut 10y ago
It's still a big difference between being banned and ending up in jail. Presumably e.g card counting isn't illegal but simply frowned upon. So you get banned. But at what point does it become a crime? The fact that it's even unclear is a bit scary (but probably intentional)
scottlocklin 10y ago
It's easier for them to use this one: " NRS 465.075 Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that: 1. Projects the outcome of the game; 2. Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game; 3. Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or 4. Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game, Ê except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission. (Added to NRS by 1985, 970; A 2011, 216; 2013, 1317)" I know about this, as I had a computer aided scheme to beat roulette (I've written about the historical ways of doing this, the first one was developed by Shannon and Thorp). I think the law was passed to prevent use of blackjack computers which were being sold around that time. Best bet would have been the European countries, who largely don't have such laws. I'm assuming the Russians didn't find as many of the vulnerable slot machines there. Funny the article gave independent confirmation of about how much you could take out of a casino without them noticing; an important number if you ever develop a scheme.

usrusr 10y ago

Key word being "knowledge". Seems like you are free to believe in any fantasy about you having an edge over the house, except when that belief happens to be true. The mere thought of having a streak of luck would make winning illegal. If thoughtcrimes were animals, this would be a cute little kitty.

Bartweiss 10y ago
> Seems like you are free to believe in any fantasy about you having an edge over the house, except when that belief happens to be true. This is a pretty common pattern in "intent" crimes. As a simple example: attempted murder requires a potentially-effective plan. Shooting at someone and missing is attempted murder, burning a voodoo doll of them is not - no matter how sincerely you expect it to work. It does produce an odd situation where stupidity becomes a legal defense, but the basis for it is pretty understandable. It's not criminalizing being right, it's decriminalizing being wrong, presumably because it's too hard to define the boundaries of whether something useless was done with real intent.
- Sunset 10y ago
  I would argue that burning a voodoo doll should at least count for intent to harm. Lets say I am completely mistaken about how chemistry works and I think that adding salt to wine will somehow make it a deadly cocktail. With intent to kill you I make such a concoction and serve it to you. In that case I should still be able to be punished under the law.
  - schoen 10y ago
    1991 article by David D. Friedman about this topic: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=facpubs http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
    - Zak 10y ago
      The article assumes rational behavior with regard to everything except which methods of committing crimes are possible and concludes that punishing impossible attempts creates a rational disincentive to all attempts. It's right in a game-theory sense, but not a practical one. Proving intent to a jury is based on circumstantial evidence. Shooting a gun at someone is strong evidence of intent to murder because it is widely known that guns are lethal. Countering the weight of that evidence would require very convincing evidence that the shooter did not believe his actions would be lethal. Proving that someone believed burning a voodoo doll would be lethal would be very difficult since it is widely known that burning voodoo dolls is not lethal. Even apparent evidence that the voodoo practitioner had a genuine belief is easily played off as an act, and in criminal law, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. There's also the matter of people having mistaken beliefs about the probability of punishment.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    So legally, I know the "salt in wine" example doesn't count as attempted murder, at least in states that require action towards the murder. Some states have much lower bars where you don't have to try a murder and could merely buy supplies and write out a plan, but even then I don't think guaranteed-to-fail plans count. It does seem like the sort of thing that ought to be illegal somehow, but I'd need an actual expert's input on what charges they would seek for that.
LordKano 10y ago
The mere thought of having a streak of luck would make winning illegal. Where I live, many bars have 8 line slot machines that are ostensibly "For Amusement Only" but they pay out when people win (and if they know you). If you win too much, you'll be banned from playing.
- Zak 10y ago
  Cutting off people who win too much seems fair; charging them with a crime does not. Correctly estimating when the odds are more favorable doesn't seem like cheating to me.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    I have been banned from playing at a few establishments. Just knowing when to raise your bet does a lot to tip the odds in your favor.
    - Zak 10y ago
      And that seems fair, in the same way that it's fair for a store to apply undisclosed quantity limits to a customer who figures out how to combine freely-available coupons to make all their merchandise free. I actually did something like that once. A store I visited put a link to a survey on its receipt with an offer of $10 off any one item on completion. I completed the survey on my phone, which displayed a barcode they could scan and selected a sub-$10 item. The receipt for my free item had a link to a survey.... I limited myself to a few items I actually had a use for. They would have been well within their rights to cut me off after a while, but certainly not to have me charged with a crime.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

loeg 10y ago

> It isn't stated as such, but the actual crime is winning consistently. Bingo. :-)

alkonaut 10y ago

It's still a big difference between being banned and ending up in jail. Presumably e.g card counting isn't illegal but simply frowned upon. So you get banned. But at what point does it become a crime? The fact that it's even unclear is a bit scary (but probably intentional)

scottlocklin 10y ago

It's easier for them to use this one: " NRS 465.075 Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that: 1. Projects the outcome of the game; 2. Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game; 3. Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or 4. Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game, Ê except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission. (Added to NRS by 1985, 970; A 2011, 216; 2013, 1317)" I know about this, as I had a computer aided scheme to beat roulette (I've written about the historical ways of doing this, the first one was developed by Shannon and Thorp). I think the law was passed to prevent use of blackjack computers which were being sold around that time. Best bet would have been the European countries, who largely don't have such laws. I'm assuming the Russians didn't find as many of the vulnerable slot machines there. Funny the article gave independent confirmation of about how much you could take out of a casino without them noticing; an important number if you ever develop a scheme.