4 ms·

Well, exactly! I have three aces, and the computer has double pairs. We are in the turn. I go all in!!! The computer calls ... and deals itself a full house. I

Well, exactly! I have three aces, and the computer has double pairs. We are in the turn. I go all in!!! The computer calls ... and deals itself a full house. I am bankrupt :( How do I know? How can I ever trust playing poker with a machine, when it is doing the dealing? Or, let me put it this way: I will play any machine, no limit, if I can do the dealing (secretly, that is, as the machine is doing). Another issue entirely is chess: no secret dealing going on. All are playing with the same in-game information.

Permit 13y ago
This is easily remedied by retaining a human dealer. It's fairly trivial to create a computer that can identify dealt cards on the table.
- gonvaled 13y ago
  That would be fair, to be sure - or, to be precise, as fair as playing any other table in the casino. The dealer can still be cheating, but doing that in the open does not raise any further suspicions as any other table in the casino would raise.
- tbirdz 13y ago
  You could still have the problem with a human dealer. There are many ways to cheat at dealing cards, and a very skilled human could be able to do it without being detected.
LargeWu 13y ago
Any Vegas casino found to be employing such machines would be subject to fines far, far beyond what they could ever win from these machines. Suspension of their gaming license is also a possibility. Casinos have huge disincentives to rig their games. I believe you severely overestimate the likelihood that a casinos regularly cheat, at least in Nevada.
- TomGullen 13y ago
  That argument might of had more weight to it several years ago. The Ultimate Bet scandal does show that companies are willing to risk their entire business for comparitvely meagre rewards. A default position of mistrust when it comes to gambling is a healthy and safe attitude.
  - sanswork 13y ago
    The Ultimate Bet scandal was about employees cheating to make money for themselves not the company itself cheating. In this case employees cheating in this game wouldn't be able to profit themselves.
adamlett 13y ago
Two points: 1) This is (fixed) limit Hold'em; you can't suddenly go all-in. 2) You ask how you could trust the machine. It would be trivial to keep track of all hands played and show that in the situations like the one you describe, the computer only makes a full house the expected ~9% of the times.

Permit 13y ago

This is easily remedied by retaining a human dealer. It's fairly trivial to create a computer that can identify dealt cards on the table.

gonvaled 13y ago
That would be fair, to be sure - or, to be precise, as fair as playing any other table in the casino. The dealer can still be cheating, but doing that in the open does not raise any further suspicions as any other table in the casino would raise.
tbirdz 13y ago
You could still have the problem with a human dealer. There are many ways to cheat at dealing cards, and a very skilled human could be able to do it without being detected.

LargeWu 13y ago

Any Vegas casino found to be employing such machines would be subject to fines far, far beyond what they could ever win from these machines. Suspension of their gaming license is also a possibility. Casinos have huge disincentives to rig their games. I believe you severely overestimate the likelihood that a casinos regularly cheat, at least in Nevada.

TomGullen 13y ago
That argument might of had more weight to it several years ago. The Ultimate Bet scandal does show that companies are willing to risk their entire business for comparitvely meagre rewards. A default position of mistrust when it comes to gambling is a healthy and safe attitude.
- sanswork 13y ago
  The Ultimate Bet scandal was about employees cheating to make money for themselves not the company itself cheating. In this case employees cheating in this game wouldn't be able to profit themselves.

adamlett 13y ago

Two points: 1) This is (fixed) limit Hold'em; you can't suddenly go all-in. 2) You ask how you could trust the machine. It would be trivial to keep track of all hands played and show that in the situations like the one you describe, the computer only makes a full house the expected ~9% of the times.