17 ms·
500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court
- Hydraulix989 7y agoIs RPS a game of skill?
- ferzul 7y agothe judge allowed that skill might be relevant, but ruled it was an excessive wager
- quickthrower2 7y agoIt could be, if you can react to the other persons movement fast enough but appear to not have cheated. Also repeat RPS is definitely a game of skill for humans since humans don't do random, so if you can guess what the other person's bias is you have an advantage.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- throw0101a 7y ago> Is RPS a game of skill? If you do a 2/3, or 3/5, etc, then maybe. Numberphile did an episode on how you're more likely to win by following a particular strategy: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudzYPHuewc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudzYPHuewc Presumably this works best if the other person is not following the same strategy. The paper that they reference (PDF): * https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf
- petemc_ 7y agoBut then you play someone using similar strategy and you meet the nash equilibrium.
- ulucs 7y agoNo pure Nash Equilibria means they won't ever converge, as humans are great at seeing patterns that aren't there and cannot make random choices without outside help.
- quickthrower2 7y agoI just watched that video. Fascinating. Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one. I guess it gets a bit like poker where you are trying to appear "loose" then suddenly play tight or whatever. I was wondering how a human can generate random numbers while playing. One way could be if you can hear your heart beat, the number of beats between plays mod 3 would allow you to play randomly enough to throw off your opponents strategy. You could also memorise a recently generate sequence of random numbers!
- cesarb 7y ago> Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one. Reminds me of Iocaine Powder: https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~egnor/iocaine.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~e...
- kentonv 7y agoMy favorite entry in that competition was Fork Bot. The contestants were written in C, you see, and all rounds of play executed in the same process. Obviously there's all kinds of ways you could cheat in this environment but Fork Bot struck me as especially clever. Fork Bot, on its turn, would fork() twice and return a different move in each of the three resulting processes. On its next turn, it would look back to the previous turn and see if it won. If not, it would exit(). So only the process where it won every round would survive... Though, it ran into a problem with one of the other cheaters: "Unfortunately, since all three moves lost to the Psychic Friends Network after the first turn, the program exited and the remainder of that match was declared forfeited." http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results2.html http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results2.html
- throw0101a 7y ago> You could also memorise a recently generate sequence of random numbers! 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 …
- nabla9 7y ago20 years ago my friend made simple RPS computer game that always won iterated games against human player. It was relatively simple Bayesian algorithm (not naive Bayes exactly). Humans really suck at producing randomness.
- jsymolon 7y agoA game of skill is a game where the outcome is determined mainly by mental or physical skill, rather than chance. Considering that you can get a robot that will beat RPS 100% of the time, I would consider that a yes. https://newatlas.com/unbeatable-rock-paper-scissors-robot/29653/ https://newatlas.com/unbeatable-rock-paper-scissors-robot/29...
- cafard 7y agohttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#science http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#scienc...
- DennisP 7y agoIf you choose your moves randomly in equal proportion, then you will always win 50% of the time no matter what the other player does (not counting ties). But humans are bad at making truly random choices. If your opponent isn't random, you can exploit what they're actually doing. And if you're exploiting what the opponent is doing, then you're not random anymore and your opponent can exploit what you're doing.
- user5994461 7y agoOf course not. The only edge you can get is if your opponent is making their sign early while their hand is still up. People do that unconsciously. That being said, the game can have an element of strategy if it is played many rounds (hundreds), but humans don't wager beyond one or three rounds. Ain't a fun game if you need paper and keeping track of scores.
- smabie 7y agoI need to move to Quebec so I can get out of some bad futures trades!
- bagpuss 7y agoin 2005, Rock Paper Scissors was used to decide who was to sell $20m of art; Sotheby’s or Christie’s https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-christies-sothebys-played-rock-paper-scissors-20-million-consignment https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-christies-soth...
- codegladiator 7y ago> In the 2017 judgment, Superior Court Justice Chantal Chatelain found that rock paper scissors is not simply a game of luck. > the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence The court can ask him to defeat 10 other people in that game consistently to prove that ? But then he could argue the others were also skilled ?
- tapland 7y agoA nontrivial fraction of people form their selection when _starting to_ move their hand down the final time. It's very much possible to counter that.
- gruez 7y agoIsn't that cheating?
- paulcole 7y agoIf your opponent is playing poorly, it’s unethical not to take advantage.
- IggleSniggle 7y agoHard disagree. Better games make affordances for players of differing skill level (like Go for example), but in games where this is not possible, the ethical calculation is more complex (although I would argue the ethical calculation isn't really relevant in a game, as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems). Whether or not the specific examples constitutes cheating is up for negotiation by the participants.
- paulcole 7y ago> as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems What? Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, “do you want to create a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems?” And having them reply, “oh yeah, I would like to play a game.”
- angel_j 7y agoIn the U.S. you'd be choked by police and jailed for racketeering.
- im3w1l 7y agoHeads I win, tails you pay my lawyers.
- paulgb 7y agoThey should have added a skill-testing question to the contest! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill_testing_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill_testing_question I think these are my favourite legal loophole. I even remember teachers using them as examples in elementary math classes. Edit: this is tongue in cheek, not legal advice
- cowpig 7y agoThe article says RPS was ruled a game of skill, but the wager was ruled invalid because the amount was excessive.
- code_duck 7y agoIt says that while it is considered partially based on skill, it has a large element of chance. It seems likely they would have invalidated it based on that alone.
- flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago>The court also upheld the lower court's conclusion that the $517,000 wager was excessive. Quebec courts are not arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is not a game of skill. They only ruled that the bet was "excessive" which is against the law. IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment though and took out the mortgage on his house! My friends would try every angle to weasel their way out of a $100 light hearted bet!
- Quanttek 7y agoThis does not hold true for the appellate court's decision: > While it found the game may call up a certain measure of skill, "it seems evident … that the game also involves a large part of chance, so that it does not take 'only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties,'" the court concluded.
- cat199 7y ago> betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive wouldn't this depend on income/assets of those involved?
- hedora 7y agoI think the fact that a mortgage was taken out to pay off the debt was used to argue the loser didn’t have adequate assets to cover the bet, and that it was excessive. I suspect if it was Bill Gates vs. Larry Ellison they wouldn’t have been able to argue the wager was excessive.
- aspenmayer 7y agoThat last line sounds like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
- npo9 7y ago> My friends would try every angle to weasel their way out of a $100 light hearted bet! I mean, the guy went to court to weasel out of the bet.
- huhtenberg 7y ago> the game also involves a large part of chance I can't find the source right now, but I remember reading about a court case centered around whether Bridge (the card game) is gambling or not due to the influence of chance on its outcome. It was settled by holding a string of games that pitched players with varying experience against each other and the outcome was that better skilled ones _always_ prevailed. And so the Bridge was ruled to be a game of skill.
- nogabebop23 7y agoNeither a bridge or poker player, but these games that have both a huge mathematical and psychological component to their strategy seem to be obvious games of skill. Even blackjack with much stricter (loosing) probabilities IMO is a game of skill because "good" players will lose at a slower rate than bad ones (even without card counting). Rock-paper-scissors just seems too simple to allow for any performance improvements that don't involve luck or cheating. For a judge to highlight "speed of execution" or "the sense of observation" doesn't make sense; this sounds like bridge players using secret signals, or a roulette player trying to squeeze their bet onto the board after the wheel has slowed - skill should be related to performance within the parameters of the game, not waiting for your opponent to throw scissors and changing to rock...
- spunker540 7y agoOne theory I have with RPS is if you say right before the game “I’m gonna play rock”, it may change the odds slightly to non-random. I’m not sure any sort of speech is within the bounds of a fair game though.
- CydeWeys 7y agoThe only way I'd play Bridge with anything serious on the line would be to generate a long truly random string of moves beforehand, and then memorize them and play them. Then, you can analyze your performance afterwards and if you're statistically losing more than you should be, you know you're giving tells.
- 7y ago
- roenxi 7y agoThis article is so stupid I assume there is fraud involved somewhere; or at least a lot more to the story than mentioned.
- elwell 7y agoYou have to wonder if Rock, Paper, Scissors is a front for some other wager/deal they had to settle. E.g., a large bitcoin transaction, a drug deal, idk. Since they wanted it notarized, they had to change the face of it.
- dghughes 7y agoMany times here in Canada when there are contests you often see (always really) "void in Quebec". It's like a Canadian Heritage Moment.
- alricb 7y agoThat's because of the Act respecting lotteries, publicity contests and amusement machines, art. 58 and following: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/L-6?langCont=fr#se:58 http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/L-6?langCont=fr#...
- Causality1 7y agoIt seems illogical to me that a flippant statement can be legally binding in some circumstances but not others.
- jameslk 7y agoI'm interested in the backstory. How do two people decide to wager such amounts of money over rock paper scissors? Like were they bored or was there some serious reason such a casual game was chosen over a serious amount of money? Clearly the loser couldn't easily afford the amount they were wagering since he had to take out debt for it, which makes it even more confusing why this seemed like a prudent decision.
- michaelcampbell 7y agoBecause money has marginal value, and they seem to have lots of it.
- renewiltord 7y agoThat can't be it because he took out a mortgage on his house!
- mydongle 7y agoHe has a house to take a mortgage on.
- erichdongubler 7y agoYou can have the money and still decide that you can beat the interest from mortgage with another investment, i.e., stocks. So, that's not necessarily indicative of a financial standing. :)
- sircastor 7y agoI want to know more about the circumstances that led up to this. What situation results in someone saying "I'll let you $500k I can beat you at Rock, Paper, Scissors..." And actually being willing to follow through?
- ta1771 7y agoI'm trying to figure out the circumstances that you'd make a promise and not follow through on it. There's something to be amazed by, by this story, but it's not doing what you say you will. This thread's...disappointing.
- jldugger 7y agoIt's really the same thing. Under what circumstances would you figure 'as a person who does what i say i will do, 500k is a reasonable amount to bet, even though I need to take out a mortgage'?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- surround 7y agoThe ruling seems to have a lot of ambiguity. At what point does a game of skill become a game of chance? What amount of money is considered “excessive?” Is such ambiguity normal for court rulings? (Genuine question - I’m not super familiar with legal stuff)