11 ms·

"This isn’t the first time that MIT has been involved in a gambling controversy." If it isn't illegal, what's wrong with using brains to make money?

dtech 11y ago
Lot's of things aren't exactly illegal, yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid being taxed (Dutch sandwich) My point being, something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. In this case it's mainly strange that the lottery didn't change things when they became aware of the scheme.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  >yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid being taxed I see nothing morally wrong with that. I do agree the law has nothing to do with morality, eg. war on drugs, slavery, etc.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    > I see nothing morally wrong with that. Exactly - if the loan shark has his legs broken and is robbed of his ill-gotten fortune, how immoral is that?
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      I'd say it's more akin to a theft taking a smaller percentage of your income.
      - balabaster 11y ago
        Who's the thief? The lottery company or the person "robbing" the lottery company? Once you pay over your cash, it belongs to the lottery commission. Your chance of winning is infinitesimal to the point that you may as well spend your money on other things, like paying down your mortgage quicker or paying off your car quicker or whatever other debts you have - either way, the money is gone - unless what you're getting out of it is that period between purchase and draw - the _hope_ of the win, you're likely getting nothing out of your purchase. If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. Either way, I'm not really clear on what your point is... perhaps you can clarify.
        networked 11y ago
        >If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. It may not be worth the $5 even if it does give you an emotional high — perhaps especially so. I am reminded of http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/, which argues that winning the lottery is the wrong sort of hope to invest in, both financially and emotionally. I found that article's argument convincing.
        balabaster 11y ago
        I have a number of thoughts about this article. I don't necessarily disagree with what they're saying but: People are going to fantasize anyway, the fantasy is impeded without any possibility of it being fulfilled... they're probably never going to marry a prince(ss), but some do. The dollar they spend makes the fantasy a possibility. Like the little girl playing dress up and make believing what it would be like before she ever has any real understanding of the reality. People fantasize about all kinds of things every day (most with no direct financial cost, except by what they're not earning while they're busy daydreaming), at the cost of things they probably should be worrying about, but don't. Day dreaming is a means of escaping your existing reality... but if you take no action, then your day dreaming is just that. You need to take action to give any possibility of it ever becoming more than that. In this case, the $5 for the ticket is that step. Perhaps the fantasy is what you live for. Perhaps you spend your life with your head buried in romance novels, who knows, the effect is the same - you paid $5 for the book which gave you a few good hours of day dreaming, or perhaps even a number of days of escape. The lottery ticket gave you a couple of hours escape before you come back to reality. It's just a pleasant way to pass the time. You can tell just how many people have this mindset by the number of copies of Fifty Shades of Grey you saw being read on public transit after it came out.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Corporations are amoral entities and taxation is an amoral endeavor. It's essentially a very complicated structure of IF/THEN/ELSE conditions. If it's possible to decrease its tax burden while complying with the law, that's what a corporation is supposed to do. It's not cheating to follow the rules. If one doesn't like the outcome, one should seek to change the law.
  - nyolfen 11y ago
    pretending that the rules of capitalism are somehow beyond the realm of the human and moral is repugnant
    - Spivak 11y ago
      pretending that any two people could agree on what's "moral" actually means and that crying that something is immoral isn't just a more accepted way of saying "I don't like that".
    - LordKano 11y ago
      Pretending that your definition of morality is the only legitimate one is naive. Is it moral for the mafia to use the threat of force to take a percentage of a business's income? I'd submit that it's not and I suspect that you agree with that.(I'll concede that I don't know you and can't speak for you) Why does that same behavior become moral if/when a government does it? Yet, one of those entities can do it legally.
      - phaemon 11y ago
        I am not a member of the mafia, nor have I used any of their services. I do not owe them any money, therefore it would be wrong for them to demand any money from me. I am a member of a society which has a representative government which acts on its behalf. I have used their services and therefore I owe them money. Therefore, it is legitimate for them to demand that money from me. And both these entities can do so legally. It would be entirely legal for the mafia to use the legal system to demand money from you in the same way the government would (or that any business or organisation you used services from would). The very fact they choose not to, suggests their claim is illegitimate.
baldfat 11y ago
While it is a myth that Card Counting is illegal it is also true that no one has the right to gamble and casinos can just refuse to allow a person to participate in their own gambling floors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting MIT students and former students did make it a practice to beat the casinos around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team It is at least strongly controversial that they made millions by turning the tables on casinos. Unlike casinos who ask winners to keep coming back and playing as long as possible since odds are they will lose their winnings if they continue to play. My dad had a friend who had won tens of thousands of dollars in Las Vegas. I still remember my dad talking with him in the 1980s on the phone while he was at the table. My dad told him to take the money and run. My dad's friend lost all of it in the 40 minutes and didn't listen to his advice.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
adrusi 11y ago
Well by gaming the lottery, they are taking a little bit of money from a lot of (largely poor) ticket buyers and profiting big from it. It's the same kind of dynamic as counterfeiting. I'd argue that that's a problem mostly with the lottery system and not with the MIT students' ploy, but they exploited a system with full knowledge of how it operates and how their actions hurt others. That does not come without moral responsibility. I can't find anything morally wrong about card counting though, Blackjack is presented as a game where skill can affect the outcome, even though in absense of card counting it's a game of luck. I'm sure that a fair number of habitual players develop some kind of card-counting heuristic innately, and in that case people who really count cards (without using some kind of device) are just better players and deserve to win (although I think casinos have good reason to forbid the technique, as the alternative would be to get rid of Blackjack).
- pc86 11y ago
  > they are taking a little bit of money from a lot of (largely poor) ticket buyers They absolutely are not. Once someone buys a lottery ticket it's no longer their money. It's the lottery commission's, or the state's, or whomever. To say that the MIT students were taking advantage of "(largely poor) ticket buyers" is at best extraordinarily disingenuous, if not willfully disregarding several key facts.
  - jraedisch 11y ago
    They must be lessening the chances of winning or the amount per win for other players?! After all I am pretty sure that lottery is a zero sum game.
    - TallGuyShort 11y ago
      If you're not a group of geniuses at MIT, you really shouldn't be surprised when you lose money gambling. If you're poor enough that I'm supposed to feel sorry for you, buying a lottery ticket is a very irrational thing to be doing.
  - trombone8 11y ago
caf 11y ago
I think that to many who are not mathematically inclined, the statement "They used mathematics to beat the lottery" is more or less equivalent to "They used magic to beat the lottery".
- jdavis703 11y ago
  Or rather they "hacked" into the lottery. The general population is scared by geeks who can use math and reasoning in the "real world" for actual gain.
balabaster 11y ago
Given the scruples of those running the house (Lottery, Casinos, Government etc.) I'd say there's nothing illegal, immoral or anything otherwise about it. If a loan shark gets their legs broken and they're robbed of their ill gotten gains, who do you blame? Exploiting people's weakness for quick rich schemes, gambling, alcohol, drugs, insecurities and fears is as immoral as those manipulating their systems for their own ends. As far as I'm concerned, good on them.
friendzis 11y ago
Quite a lot of people see gambling as fun and/or random activity. Play some blackjack with friends: everyone wins/loses and have a great time. Then along comes someone who counts cards and... game ceases to be fun and players just drop out. There is nothing neither wrong nor immoral about such behaviour, just a huge portion of others (those who just play for fun or are envious) sees such activity as an act of jerkiness.
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  That's interesting. I have memory issues, I have worked on it, nothing helps, but it made me good at documenting (mainly for my own sake but everybody gains from it). That's also why I tend not to play card games, because most of them seems to be based on recollecting where the cards are.
- omegaham 11y ago
  Er, isn't blackjack usually against the house? I always thought of poker as the quintessential "fun with friends" game. Hang out, drink a couple beers, everyone pitches in $10 on the poker game to make it entertaining. Blackjack isn't really a party game.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    friendzis is contemplating playing with friends at a blackjack table at a casino (which can be super fun, second to a hot craps table, IMO), not playing in a home blackjack game (which is dreadfully boring).
- DennisP 11y ago
  A card counter in a casino doesn't reduce anyone else's fun. He just reduces the profits of the casinos, which generally catch on long before they're seriously hurt. A while back I read about an early Microsoft employee who, once a year, goes to Vegas and counts cards at high stakes until they throw him out. Generally it takes about an hour, he makes several multiples of $10K, and donates it to charity.
  - 11y ago
chinathrow 11y ago
Not using your morale might be wrong.
littletimmy 11y ago
Not saying you're wrong, but this is quintessentially an American statement. The rest of the world regards morality, and not law, as sacrosanct. So even if you can make money legally by exploiting someone (e.g. hedge fund extorting money from the Congo), you ought not to do it. [Yes, I know that these guys weren't exploiting anyone, just answering your question.]
- dkrich 11y ago
  But then shouldn't the government not be able to sell lottery tickets for the same reason?
  - thefreeman 11y ago
    You are probably just being sarcastic. But yes, completely. The kicker for me is that it is illegal for anyone else to run a lottery (Racketeering). Lottery TV commercials literally make me want to puke every time I see them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaB28DCxFQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaB28DCxFQI
    - dkrich 11y ago
      I actually am wholly opposed to government-run lotteries, mainly for the reasons you cited but also because they prey upon the poor and act as a wealth redistribution engine from the poor to the rich. My question is why would taking advantage of this system for one's own gain be unethical? The administrators believe (apparently erroneously) that they have a built-in statistical advantage over anybody playing. So by the logic that the MIT students shouldn't exploit a flaw in the system even though it is legal because it is unethical, then the lottery administrators should not be able to run a lottery for the same reason.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Your statement is not accurate, because the "rest of the world" has different concepts for morality. For instance, other parts of the world have moral principles more in line with "don't get caught" or "don't embarrass your superiors" or "never side with anyone against The Family" than with "do no harm". The typical American standard of morality is set so high that no one, other Americans in particular, including the very person professing that moral standard, can be reasonably expected to live up to it. Hypocrisy abounds among those with ultrahigh moral standards. Furthermore, the details of American morals are so diverse that anyone who manages to be a paragon by one person's standard may be no more than a low-life slimeball by another's. In contrast, compliance with the letter of the law is a far more achievable standard. If there is anyone who is at fault here, it is the mathematically incompetent person who designed the payout system for the lottery. This was, at its heart, no different from a finance quant unraveling the details of a complex derivative to discover an arbitrage opportunity for the firm. Discovery and use of the exploit corrected the artificially high margin for the state in administering the game to one more realistic for the mathematically flawed payout model.
conanbatt 11y ago
Everything that is illegal was legal at some point. Saying something is legal is pretty much the lowest defense you can use to justify something.
- conanbatt 11y ago
  Negative? why?

dtech 11y ago

Lot's of things aren't exactly illegal, yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid being taxed (Dutch sandwich) My point being, something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. In this case it's mainly strange that the lottery didn't change things when they became aware of the scheme.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
>yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid being taxed I see nothing morally wrong with that. I do agree the law has nothing to do with morality, eg. war on drugs, slavery, etc.
- balabaster 11y ago
  > I see nothing morally wrong with that. Exactly - if the loan shark has his legs broken and is robbed of his ill-gotten fortune, how immoral is that?
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    I'd say it's more akin to a theft taking a smaller percentage of your income.
    - balabaster 11y ago
      Who's the thief? The lottery company or the person "robbing" the lottery company? Once you pay over your cash, it belongs to the lottery commission. Your chance of winning is infinitesimal to the point that you may as well spend your money on other things, like paying down your mortgage quicker or paying off your car quicker or whatever other debts you have - either way, the money is gone - unless what you're getting out of it is that period between purchase and draw - the _hope_ of the win, you're likely getting nothing out of your purchase. If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. Either way, I'm not really clear on what your point is... perhaps you can clarify.
      - networked 11y ago
        >If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. It may not be worth the $5 even if it does give you an emotional high — perhaps especially so. I am reminded of http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/, which argues that winning the lottery is the wrong sort of hope to invest in, both financially and emotionally. I found that article's argument convincing.
        balabaster 11y ago
        I have a number of thoughts about this article. I don't necessarily disagree with what they're saying but: People are going to fantasize anyway, the fantasy is impeded without any possibility of it being fulfilled... they're probably never going to marry a prince(ss), but some do. The dollar they spend makes the fantasy a possibility. Like the little girl playing dress up and make believing what it would be like before she ever has any real understanding of the reality. People fantasize about all kinds of things every day (most with no direct financial cost, except by what they're not earning while they're busy daydreaming), at the cost of things they probably should be worrying about, but don't. Day dreaming is a means of escaping your existing reality... but if you take no action, then your day dreaming is just that. You need to take action to give any possibility of it ever becoming more than that. In this case, the $5 for the ticket is that step. Perhaps the fantasy is what you live for. Perhaps you spend your life with your head buried in romance novels, who knows, the effect is the same - you paid $5 for the book which gave you a few good hours of day dreaming, or perhaps even a number of days of escape. The lottery ticket gave you a couple of hours escape before you come back to reality. It's just a pleasant way to pass the time. You can tell just how many people have this mindset by the number of copies of Fifty Shades of Grey you saw being read on public transit after it came out.
LordKano 11y ago
Corporations are amoral entities and taxation is an amoral endeavor. It's essentially a very complicated structure of IF/THEN/ELSE conditions. If it's possible to decrease its tax burden while complying with the law, that's what a corporation is supposed to do. It's not cheating to follow the rules. If one doesn't like the outcome, one should seek to change the law.
- nyolfen 11y ago
  pretending that the rules of capitalism are somehow beyond the realm of the human and moral is repugnant
  - Spivak 11y ago
    pretending that any two people could agree on what's "moral" actually means and that crying that something is immoral isn't just a more accepted way of saying "I don't like that".
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Pretending that your definition of morality is the only legitimate one is naive. Is it moral for the mafia to use the threat of force to take a percentage of a business's income? I'd submit that it's not and I suspect that you agree with that.(I'll concede that I don't know you and can't speak for you) Why does that same behavior become moral if/when a government does it? Yet, one of those entities can do it legally.
    - phaemon 11y ago
      I am not a member of the mafia, nor have I used any of their services. I do not owe them any money, therefore it would be wrong for them to demand any money from me. I am a member of a society which has a representative government which acts on its behalf. I have used their services and therefore I owe them money. Therefore, it is legitimate for them to demand that money from me. And both these entities can do so legally. It would be entirely legal for the mafia to use the legal system to demand money from you in the same way the government would (or that any business or organisation you used services from would). The very fact they choose not to, suggests their claim is illegitimate.

baldfat 11y ago

While it is a myth that Card Counting is illegal it is also true that no one has the right to gamble and casinos can just refuse to allow a person to participate in their own gambling floors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting MIT students and former students did make it a practice to beat the casinos around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team It is at least strongly controversial that they made millions by turning the tables on casinos. Unlike casinos who ask winners to keep coming back and playing as long as possible since odds are they will lose their winnings if they continue to play. My dad had a friend who had won tens of thousands of dollars in Las Vegas. I still remember my dad talking with him in the 1980s on the phone while he was at the table. My dad told him to take the money and run. My dad's friend lost all of it in the 40 minutes and didn't listen to his advice.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

adrusi 11y ago

Well by gaming the lottery, they are taking a little bit of money from a lot of (largely poor) ticket buyers and profiting big from it. It's the same kind of dynamic as counterfeiting. I'd argue that that's a problem mostly with the lottery system and not with the MIT students' ploy, but they exploited a system with full knowledge of how it operates and how their actions hurt others. That does not come without moral responsibility. I can't find anything morally wrong about card counting though, Blackjack is presented as a game where skill can affect the outcome, even though in absense of card counting it's a game of luck. I'm sure that a fair number of habitual players develop some kind of card-counting heuristic innately, and in that case people who really count cards (without using some kind of device) are just better players and deserve to win (although I think casinos have good reason to forbid the technique, as the alternative would be to get rid of Blackjack).

pc86 11y ago
> they are taking a little bit of money from a lot of (largely poor) ticket buyers They absolutely are not. Once someone buys a lottery ticket it's no longer their money. It's the lottery commission's, or the state's, or whomever. To say that the MIT students were taking advantage of "(largely poor) ticket buyers" is at best extraordinarily disingenuous, if not willfully disregarding several key facts.
- jraedisch 11y ago
  They must be lessening the chances of winning or the amount per win for other players?! After all I am pretty sure that lottery is a zero sum game.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    If you're not a group of geniuses at MIT, you really shouldn't be surprised when you lose money gambling. If you're poor enough that I'm supposed to feel sorry for you, buying a lottery ticket is a very irrational thing to be doing.
- trombone8 11y ago

caf 11y ago

I think that to many who are not mathematically inclined, the statement "They used mathematics to beat the lottery" is more or less equivalent to "They used magic to beat the lottery".

jdavis703 11y ago
Or rather they "hacked" into the lottery. The general population is scared by geeks who can use math and reasoning in the "real world" for actual gain.

balabaster 11y ago

Given the scruples of those running the house (Lottery, Casinos, Government etc.) I'd say there's nothing illegal, immoral or anything otherwise about it. If a loan shark gets their legs broken and they're robbed of their ill gotten gains, who do you blame? Exploiting people's weakness for quick rich schemes, gambling, alcohol, drugs, insecurities and fears is as immoral as those manipulating their systems for their own ends. As far as I'm concerned, good on them.

friendzis 11y ago

Quite a lot of people see gambling as fun and/or random activity. Play some blackjack with friends: everyone wins/loses and have a great time. Then along comes someone who counts cards and... game ceases to be fun and players just drop out. There is nothing neither wrong nor immoral about such behaviour, just a huge portion of others (those who just play for fun or are envious) sees such activity as an act of jerkiness.

dorfsmay 11y ago
That's interesting. I have memory issues, I have worked on it, nothing helps, but it made me good at documenting (mainly for my own sake but everybody gains from it). That's also why I tend not to play card games, because most of them seems to be based on recollecting where the cards are.
omegaham 11y ago
Er, isn't blackjack usually against the house? I always thought of poker as the quintessential "fun with friends" game. Hang out, drink a couple beers, everyone pitches in $10 on the poker game to make it entertaining. Blackjack isn't really a party game.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  friendzis is contemplating playing with friends at a blackjack table at a casino (which can be super fun, second to a hot craps table, IMO), not playing in a home blackjack game (which is dreadfully boring).
DennisP 11y ago
A card counter in a casino doesn't reduce anyone else's fun. He just reduces the profits of the casinos, which generally catch on long before they're seriously hurt. A while back I read about an early Microsoft employee who, once a year, goes to Vegas and counts cards at high stakes until they throw him out. Generally it takes about an hour, he makes several multiples of $10K, and donates it to charity.
- 11y ago

chinathrow 11y ago

Not using your morale might be wrong.

littletimmy 11y ago

Not saying you're wrong, but this is quintessentially an American statement. The rest of the world regards morality, and not law, as sacrosanct. So even if you can make money legally by exploiting someone (e.g. hedge fund extorting money from the Congo), you ought not to do it. [Yes, I know that these guys weren't exploiting anyone, just answering your question.]

dkrich 11y ago
But then shouldn't the government not be able to sell lottery tickets for the same reason?
- thefreeman 11y ago
  You are probably just being sarcastic. But yes, completely. The kicker for me is that it is illegal for anyone else to run a lottery (Racketeering). Lottery TV commercials literally make me want to puke every time I see them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaB28DCxFQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaB28DCxFQI
  - dkrich 11y ago
    I actually am wholly opposed to government-run lotteries, mainly for the reasons you cited but also because they prey upon the poor and act as a wealth redistribution engine from the poor to the rich. My question is why would taking advantage of this system for one's own gain be unethical? The administrators believe (apparently erroneously) that they have a built-in statistical advantage over anybody playing. So by the logic that the MIT students shouldn't exploit a flaw in the system even though it is legal because it is unethical, then the lottery administrators should not be able to run a lottery for the same reason.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Your statement is not accurate, because the "rest of the world" has different concepts for morality. For instance, other parts of the world have moral principles more in line with "don't get caught" or "don't embarrass your superiors" or "never side with anyone against The Family" than with "do no harm". The typical American standard of morality is set so high that no one, other Americans in particular, including the very person professing that moral standard, can be reasonably expected to live up to it. Hypocrisy abounds among those with ultrahigh moral standards. Furthermore, the details of American morals are so diverse that anyone who manages to be a paragon by one person's standard may be no more than a low-life slimeball by another's. In contrast, compliance with the letter of the law is a far more achievable standard. If there is anyone who is at fault here, it is the mathematically incompetent person who designed the payout system for the lottery. This was, at its heart, no different from a finance quant unraveling the details of a complex derivative to discover an arbitrage opportunity for the firm. Discovery and use of the exploit corrected the artificially high margin for the state in administering the game to one more realistic for the mathematically flawed payout model.

conanbatt 11y ago

Everything that is illegal was legal at some point. Saying something is legal is pretty much the lowest defense you can use to justify something.

conanbatt 11y ago
Negative? why?