3 ms·
The catch with this case is that the game involved is overtly a simulation of a physical game, and the only purpose of the simulation is to increase the efficie
by gfodor 14y ago
The catch with this case is that the game involved is overtly a simulation of a physical game, and the only purpose of the simulation is to increase the efficiency for the casino to let more players play a known physical game more quickly, not to change the nature of the game itself. You can make the case that places where the simulation diverges from the physical game were clearly unintended and should be obvious to players to be bugs, not part of the rules of the game, and hence unfair for gamers (or, likewise, casinos) to exploit since they were stepping beyond the bounds of fair play.
I'm not sure how strong this argument is but it's clearly different than just saying it's like a speedrun. Just because the medium is virtual doesn't mean you aren't entering into a implicit contract to play by the rules of poker.
- caf 14y agoThis kind of single player "video poker" has nothing to do with the rules of actual poker.
- gfodor 14y agoCan you elaborate what you mean by "nothing?" Why do they call it video poker? The point is that insofar as the game replicates poker one can basically use that as a way to identify the difference between a "bug" and a "odd game rule."
- pommefrites 14y agoWell, for one thing the "double up" option is not a part of standard poker. More conspicuously, physical poker involves a high degree of observation/manipulation/etc of human opponents and that is not a part of video poker.
- gfodor 14y agoI understand but this is less than "nothing." Yes you remove the human element and change some betting rules but at its core video poker is a simulation of physical poker. The parent doesn't have much of a point other than being overly hyperbolic to discount the reality that there is certainly an argument that this was a bug and hack since the exploit sits clearly outside the realm of the game of poker.
- caf 14y agoIn poker you do not win by having a good hand - you win by either having the best hand of those remaining at showdown, or being the only hand left. There is no "house" - all the players are equivalent, and playing alone is meaningless. When you play real poker in a casino, the casino isn't taking either side of any of the bets - the players are just paying the casino to play (real poker isn't generally very profitable for the casino - where it's offered its generally for "prestige" reasons, to bring in players who will hopefully play other casino game while they're here). The only thing that these played-against-the-house games take from real poker is similar hand rankings.
- cnvogel 14y agoBut as far as I have read the article the glitch is not about the simulation of cards but rather about game mode flags you can carry unintendedly between different game modes. The quoted example makes him pause game one at a high win, switch to game type two to achieve a 'tenfold win' token and then combine this with the paused game. These are arbitrary rules put in place just for the simulated card games in the first place. And of course for him it hugely increases the probability to achieve this scenario intended to be very rare.