6 ms·

They aren't charging the defendants with a 'moral' crime. I'm not sure what their exact charges are, and they depend on minutae like the article said: "crossing

They aren't charging the defendants with a 'moral' crime. I'm not sure what their exact charges are, and they depend on minutae like the article said: "crossing state lines makes it a felony conspiracy to commit fraud". Gaming regulations are written to favor the house. You're correct that we wouldn't expect them to be charged with "tampering with a gaming device" because they never touched it, and they got comparatively light sentences (2 years) compared to Nevada where you can easily get 5-10. Some states may have a new law like "using a computer to manipulate a gaming device" or similar. I think they put that one on the books so that you can't cheat roulette by calculating the trajectory of the ball, or identify unique variances in cards. Regardless, you can expect the laws everywhere to catch up after this incident. I disagree that the "system is designed to beat you" or that the casino "cheats". The casino is there for entertainment. If you don't use it in moderation it can ruin your life just like any other vice: alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. If you have $1000-$5000 (or more), you can fly out to Vegas for the weekend, have a really good time (gaming is only part of that), fly home, and you've got a significant chance that you'll either win or break even. You might also lose, and that's the excitement cycle that is gambling. But even if you lose you can also have a good time at a show/nightclub/concert, every kind of themed bar, meet women, etc, so if you discard "winning money" as the primary objective, gambling isn't designed to beat you. If you go to the casino every day after work, don't be surprised that you will not win anything, or that it might escalate just like any other drug (spending more, not happy when you win, etc). What shocks me is that these guys have the technical prowess to reverse engineer the game/PRNG, but they didn't have the sense to slow down their pace, or reverse engineer the casino management system to avoid detection (or they didn't think to hide their iphone from the start, they said the first guy was holding it right up to the screen, when $100 spent on a clothing alteration would have allowed him to hide it). If you're going to fly internationally to commit a crime, you should know who you're up against and use adequate countermeasures.

phkahler 10y ago
>> "crossing state lines makes it a felony conspiracy to commit fraud". I don't see any fraud though. Sure, they found a system to beat the slot machines, but I'm not sure how that's fraud. What if some guys think they're really good at playing poker and they take a trip to a casino to play? At what point does playing smart become fraud? or cheating? When does counting cards in blackjack become cheating? When you get too good at it? This whole area seems rather strange.
- digler999 10y ago
  > At what point does playing smart become fraud? when you use an active device that essentially guarantees you will win. Elsewhere in the thread someone quoted the Nevada regulations that explicitly state this. I'm sure each state has them now. Had they arrested these guys and didn't find an iPhone with custom software, or a confession that they were remitting their winnings back to Russia, they probably wouldn't be able to charge them with anything (but they could still kick them out of all casinos).
  - clubm8 10y ago
    I wonder if they would have been convicted if they'd enabled encryption + a long password on their phone?
    - digler999 10y ago
      better would have been a dead-mans switch: if they let go of the iPhone for more than 6 seconds the program wipes all traces of itself off.
- centizen 10y ago
  The big factor here is that casino's specifically forbid the use of devices intended to affect the outcome of the game. You go to a casino, you have to play by their rules. If not, they can argue you are attempting to defraud them. Counting cards is a much better example of "playing smart", and it is not actually illegal - although casinos will ban any player they suspect to be counting they will likely not be charged with a crime. But once you bring a personal implement in to the situation, it very much becomes a prosecutable crime.
  - crusso 10y ago
    Casinos can forbid all they want, but the teeth in the deal is that lawmakers back up the Casinos' rights to set the rules and force you to play by them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bluejekyll 10y ago
> these guys have the technical prowess to reverse engineer the game/PRNG, but they didn't have the sense to slow down their pace, Based on the article, it sounds like these guys were more like mules, than they were the masterminds. 90% of the money was sent back... And they rely on this remote system to figure out the next state. This software possibly could be run directly on the phone, but instead they want to keep a tether on the mules.
criley2 10y ago
"If you have $1000-$5000 (or more), you can fly out to Vegas for the weekend, have a really good time (gaming is only part of that), fly home, and you've got a significant chance that you'll either win or break even" FYI Vegas is built on rubes like you. There is a larger chance you will lose money than break even or win money. If there was not, Vegas would not exist and its business model would have failed a long time ago. Their business model works because the House wins. For the House to win and be profitable, the average person has to lose on average. If you're going to have fun, that's a great experience, but if you think there's a "significant chance" you're going to not lose, you're exactly why Vegas does as well as it does.
- lftl 10y ago
  I think the digler999 simply means significant differently than you do. A 40% chance, for example, could still be interpreted as significant. Numerous casino games when played optimally give you a better chance than that of winning or breaking even.
  - digler999 10y ago
    exactly. and vegas in particular has the best odds in the nation. It's more typical of indian/riverboat casinos to ratchet up their house edge. vegas you're more likely to see 99% payback machines (of course it varies). They'll do other things to make up for it though, like having fewer $5 blackjack tables and more $25 minimum tables. vegas can afford to turn their hold percentage much lower because millions of people go there every year and there's competition. Versus a lone indian casino in california's central valley.
  - theobon 10y ago
    I think that the odds of walking out of a casino with equal to or more than you walked into it is less than 40%. My stats knowledge is failing me right now but if you start with $100 and feed slots at $12/m after an hour the average person should have less than $50 remaining based on the house cut in the article (7.129%). It would be interesting to see what the likelihood of being up after an hour of regular play is by different common games.
epx 10y ago
As the guy in "Casino" movie said, they're all greedy.

phkahler 10y ago

>> "crossing state lines makes it a felony conspiracy to commit fraud". I don't see any fraud though. Sure, they found a system to beat the slot machines, but I'm not sure how that's fraud. What if some guys think they're really good at playing poker and they take a trip to a casino to play? At what point does playing smart become fraud? or cheating? When does counting cards in blackjack become cheating? When you get too good at it? This whole area seems rather strange.

digler999 10y ago
> At what point does playing smart become fraud? when you use an active device that essentially guarantees you will win. Elsewhere in the thread someone quoted the Nevada regulations that explicitly state this. I'm sure each state has them now. Had they arrested these guys and didn't find an iPhone with custom software, or a confession that they were remitting their winnings back to Russia, they probably wouldn't be able to charge them with anything (but they could still kick them out of all casinos).
- clubm8 10y ago
  I wonder if they would have been convicted if they'd enabled encryption + a long password on their phone?
  - digler999 10y ago
    better would have been a dead-mans switch: if they let go of the iPhone for more than 6 seconds the program wipes all traces of itself off.
centizen 10y ago
The big factor here is that casino's specifically forbid the use of devices intended to affect the outcome of the game. You go to a casino, you have to play by their rules. If not, they can argue you are attempting to defraud them. Counting cards is a much better example of "playing smart", and it is not actually illegal - although casinos will ban any player they suspect to be counting they will likely not be charged with a crime. But once you bring a personal implement in to the situation, it very much becomes a prosecutable crime.
- crusso 10y ago
  Casinos can forbid all they want, but the teeth in the deal is that lawmakers back up the Casinos' rights to set the rules and force you to play by them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bluejekyll 10y ago

> these guys have the technical prowess to reverse engineer the game/PRNG, but they didn't have the sense to slow down their pace, Based on the article, it sounds like these guys were more like mules, than they were the masterminds. 90% of the money was sent back... And they rely on this remote system to figure out the next state. This software possibly could be run directly on the phone, but instead they want to keep a tether on the mules.

criley2 10y ago

"If you have $1000-$5000 (or more), you can fly out to Vegas for the weekend, have a really good time (gaming is only part of that), fly home, and you've got a significant chance that you'll either win or break even" FYI Vegas is built on rubes like you. There is a larger chance you will lose money than break even or win money. If there was not, Vegas would not exist and its business model would have failed a long time ago. Their business model works because the House wins. For the House to win and be profitable, the average person has to lose on average. If you're going to have fun, that's a great experience, but if you think there's a "significant chance" you're going to not lose, you're exactly why Vegas does as well as it does.

lftl 10y ago
I think the digler999 simply means significant differently than you do. A 40% chance, for example, could still be interpreted as significant. Numerous casino games when played optimally give you a better chance than that of winning or breaking even.
- digler999 10y ago
  exactly. and vegas in particular has the best odds in the nation. It's more typical of indian/riverboat casinos to ratchet up their house edge. vegas you're more likely to see 99% payback machines (of course it varies). They'll do other things to make up for it though, like having fewer $5 blackjack tables and more $25 minimum tables. vegas can afford to turn their hold percentage much lower because millions of people go there every year and there's competition. Versus a lone indian casino in california's central valley.
- theobon 10y ago
  I think that the odds of walking out of a casino with equal to or more than you walked into it is less than 40%. My stats knowledge is failing me right now but if you start with $100 and feed slots at $12/m after an hour the average person should have less than $50 remaining based on the house cut in the article (7.129%). It would be interesting to see what the likelihood of being up after an hour of regular play is by different common games.

epx 10y ago

As the guy in "Casino" movie said, they're all greedy.