4 ms·
I see a lot of complains why this is illegal. It is illegal, as anything that it is illegal, because the law says so. As, for example, in Nevada: "NRS 465.075
by kartan 10y ago
I see a lot of complains why this is illegal. It is illegal, as anything that it is illegal, because the law says so.
As, for example, in Nevada:
"NRS 465.075 Use of device for calculating probabilities.
It is unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or possess with the intent to use, any device to assist:
1. In projecting the outcome of the game;
2. In keeping track of the cards played;
3. In analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. In analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,
except as permitted by the commission."
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Nevada/ http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Nevada/
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y agoThe way gambling laws work is that any method that allows the consumer to consistently beat the odds (even if it has a winning rate of 50.00000001%) is illegal.
- dafty4 10y ago"any device to assist"... where the human brain is not a device? ;)
- JimboOmega 10y agoTraditionally yes. This is why card counting (in your head) isn't illegal - though it can get you banned. Using a device to do the same thing for you IS illegal.
- windsignaling 10y agoThere are a lot of things the law says are illegal that are completely ridiculous (a Google search will confirm this). The discussion is about whether those laws make sense and are moral, or if they were designed by greedy guys in suits trying to punish anyone who dares to play their game in a way different than intended.
- EpicEng 10y agoAnd by 'greedy' you mean 'want to stay in business'. What do you think would happen if people were allowed to guarantee wins at a casino? They're not running a charity.
- windsignaling 10y agoAll businesses want to stay in business. Not all businesses need ridiculous laws for that to be so. It makes total sense for a business to act greedily, I wasn't saying otherwise. It does not make sense for it to become law.
- cortesoft 10y agoPeople want to be able to gamble at a casino, even when they know the odds are in the house's favor. If you want to be able to gamble at a casino, you have to make it illegal to cheat; otherwise casinos would go out of business.
- kls 10y agoOr they would get off their laurels, stop resting on law and innovate every time they find a new way someone is gaming the system. It was easy to stop card counting by adding in more cards, but it took catching someone counting and seeing how they where doing it, to come up with a simple hack to stop it. I see no problem with banning a "cheater" (I don't even like the word, as they just figured out the rules of the game better than the house), from the casino, but to legislate that people cannot use an advantage that they have discovered seems like an abuse of law. The casinos don't have to offer games they know can be gamed, and they are free to come up with their own solutions to restore the odds in their favor. To me abusing the law is just laziness on their part to help maintain their advantage, while criminalizing a class off people who where nothing more than smarter than the house.
- windsignaling 10y agoConsider this: there are advertisements in the subways that warn people against the psychological dangers of gambling. Should those be illegal, given that they cause the casino to lose money? Should Uber be illegal, given that they cause taxis to lose money? I'm not talking about incentives here. Everyone will act according to their incentives. That's nature. The taxi industry will lobby against Uber. That's nature. The justification for passing a law should not simply be to help a business stay in business. Businesses should thrive based on a superior product, not because they threaten people with punishment for not doing things the way they want.
- cityhall 10y agoThe irony here is it's only illegal to beat the games because the casinos figured out how to rig the democratic process to get favorable laws passed. If we put it to a vote, what would the public think was more unethical, using a mechanical device to count cards or using lobbyists to make sure you can't lose?
- huac 10y agoIf a casino could lose money, you'd either have only small, locals casinos, or none at all. Votes are rarely referendums on ethics. In this case we'd (and by we, I mean Nevada residents) compare two scenarios: a world without the big Vegas casinos (and their tax revenue, their employees, the good stuff), or a somewhat rigged world with the casinos.
- gech 10y agoWhat a defeated view. Hopefully one day those Nevada residents may see a horizon beyond the sprawling parking lot of a casino.
- huac 10y agoIf there is an industry that can profitably offer better jobs/economic incentives to Nevada, then I think you would see that industry gain power and relatively weaken the grip of the casinos on Nevada. So maybe in 5 years we'll be complaining about how Nevada residents can't see beyond 'rigged' tech jobs that don't pay as much as the Bay Area...
- EpicEng 10y agoIf a casino lost money more often than not... well, there'd be no more casinos. C'mon, be at least slightly realistic here. Where is it written that casinos are supposed to provide you with great odds? It's entertainment.
- fredgrott 10y agoso if someone uses their brain to compute such things...it is in the gray area depending upon casino?
- tantalor 10y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Man