4 ms·

Virginia Lottery director Ken Thorson pled to the press. “It is an opportunity for the common man to spend a small sum for the possibility of a higher prize… W

by gesman 8y ago

Virginia Lottery director Ken Thorson pled to the press. “It is an opportunity for the common man to spend a small sum for the possibility of a higher prize… We never anticipated a group trying to make such a large purchase.” Neither corporate lawyers nor government would ever acknowledge that loophole in a business models does not necessarily equals to fraud.

kbenson 8y ago
> Neither corporate lawyers nor government would ever acknowledge that loophole in a business models does not necessarily equals to fraud. There's a lot of negations in there, I'm not sure if I'm reading it incorrectly, or you have one too many, but is sounds like you're saying that corporate lawyers and government will always maintain that a loophole in a business model is fraud?
- mamon 8y ago
  Exactly, because they want business model to benefit them, not customers. Think about casinos banning players for counting cards in Black Jack: the only reasonable strategy of playing the game is considered illegal. In other words - you are welcome to play if you are bad at it, but once you get good you are considered "fraud"
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Card counting is generally legal in the US as long as it's done with the mind, and not an external device[1]. That said, it's usually against casino rules, so they will make you leave if they suspect it, and possibly put your face on the internal list they have of known card counters if you do it enough or win enough. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Legal_status
    - mamon 8y ago
      Ok, so maybe it is not against a federal law but still, making you leave the casino because you are too good at the game you're playing seems weird.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        Eh. They've defined rules that say you can't count cards. If you do so, you aren't playing by the rules, therefore you aren't allowed to play. It's slightly odd to set rules that define what you can and can't do within your own mind, but it's not out of bounds, just hard to correctly enforce. Lucky for casinos, they don't care about correctly enforcing, they just care about making money. They're happy to let you count cards badly and lose money, and they're happy to kick out people winning a lot, regardless of whether they are actually breaking any rules. It's sort of like cheating at playing Marco Polo. Sure, you're capable of opening your eyes when people can't see, but doing so is cheating, and calling out people you suspect of cheating but can't prove can be somewhat common.
  - khacking 8y ago
    The casino, if they become aware of you counting cards/advantage playing etc will often allow you to continue playing because if you do win (these methods don’t always win you the game of course, it’s easy to make mistakes), then they can disallow your win for you changing the nature of the game. If you don’t win then no harm done, they’ll take it thanks. They’re freerolling the player.
- a1369209993 8y ago
  Yes, that's correct. (It's not actually literally always, even in cases like this, but "always" makes a pretty good aproximation in practice.)
astura 8y ago
No, not necessarily: https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 Specifically https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vv/lottery-cash-winfall-letter-july-2012.pdf https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vv/lottery-cash... >Based on the documents reviewed by the OIG and the interviews described above, I have concluded that Cash WinFall was a financial success for the Lottery . It generated about $300 million in ticket sales, with nearly $120 million of that going to Lottery operations and the pool of funds distributed to cities and towns. The high -volume bettors were a financial boon to the Lottery, collectively buying roughly $2 million in tickets for a typical roll -down drawing – 40 percent of which the Lottery would keep to redistribute to cities and towns. Cash WinFall was designed to attract a huge influx of betting by distributing a windfall to bettors whenever the jackpot reached $2 million. The emergence of individuals and groups buying large volumes of tickets was legal and financially advantageous to the Lottery . As long as the Lottery announced to the public an impending $2 million jackpot that would likely trigger a roll -down, an ordinary bettor buying a single ticket or any number of tickets was not disadvantaged by high- volume betting. In short, no one’s odds of having a winning ticket were affect ed by high- volume betting. Small bettors enjoyed the same odds as high- volume bettors. When the jackpot hit the roll -down threshold, Cash WinFall became a good bet for everyone, not just the big -time bettors . However, the unique structure of the game created unprecedented enforcement challenges for the Lottery.

by gesman 8y ago

kbenson 8y ago

> Neither corporate lawyers nor government would ever acknowledge that loophole in a business models does not necessarily equals to fraud. There's a lot of negations in there, I'm not sure if I'm reading it incorrectly, or you have one too many, but is sounds like you're saying that corporate lawyers and government will always maintain that a loophole in a business model is fraud?

mamon 8y ago
Exactly, because they want business model to benefit them, not customers. Think about casinos banning players for counting cards in Black Jack: the only reasonable strategy of playing the game is considered illegal. In other words - you are welcome to play if you are bad at it, but once you get good you are considered "fraud"
- kbenson 8y ago
  Card counting is generally legal in the US as long as it's done with the mind, and not an external device[1]. That said, it's usually against casino rules, so they will make you leave if they suspect it, and possibly put your face on the internal list they have of known card counters if you do it enough or win enough. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Legal_status
  - mamon 8y ago
    Ok, so maybe it is not against a federal law but still, making you leave the casino because you are too good at the game you're playing seems weird.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Eh. They've defined rules that say you can't count cards. If you do so, you aren't playing by the rules, therefore you aren't allowed to play. It's slightly odd to set rules that define what you can and can't do within your own mind, but it's not out of bounds, just hard to correctly enforce. Lucky for casinos, they don't care about correctly enforcing, they just care about making money. They're happy to let you count cards badly and lose money, and they're happy to kick out people winning a lot, regardless of whether they are actually breaking any rules. It's sort of like cheating at playing Marco Polo. Sure, you're capable of opening your eyes when people can't see, but doing so is cheating, and calling out people you suspect of cheating but can't prove can be somewhat common.
- khacking 8y ago
  The casino, if they become aware of you counting cards/advantage playing etc will often allow you to continue playing because if you do win (these methods don’t always win you the game of course, it’s easy to make mistakes), then they can disallow your win for you changing the nature of the game. If you don’t win then no harm done, they’ll take it thanks. They’re freerolling the player.
a1369209993 8y ago
Yes, that's correct. (It's not actually literally always, even in cases like this, but "always" makes a pretty good aproximation in practice.)

astura 8y ago

No, not necessarily: https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 Specifically https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vv/lottery-cash-winfall-letter-july-2012.pdf https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vv/lottery-cash... >Based on the documents reviewed by the OIG and the interviews described above, I have concluded that Cash WinFall was a financial success for the Lottery . It generated about $300 million in ticket sales, with nearly $120 million of that going to Lottery operations and the pool of funds distributed to cities and towns. The high -volume bettors were a financial boon to the Lottery, collectively buying roughly $2 million in tickets for a typical roll -down drawing – 40 percent of which the Lottery would keep to redistribute to cities and towns. Cash WinFall was designed to attract a huge influx of betting by distributing a windfall to bettors whenever the jackpot reached $2 million. The emergence of individuals and groups buying large volumes of tickets was legal and financially advantageous to the Lottery . As long as the Lottery announced to the public an impending $2 million jackpot that would likely trigger a roll -down, an ordinary bettor buying a single ticket or any number of tickets was not disadvantaged by high- volume betting. In short, no one’s odds of having a winning ticket were affect ed by high- volume betting. Small bettors enjoyed the same odds as high- volume bettors. When the jackpot hit the roll -down threshold, Cash WinFall became a good bet for everyone, not just the big -time bettors . However, the unique structure of the game created unprecedented enforcement challenges for the Lottery.