500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/500-k-bet-on-rock-paper-scissors-1.5543533
220 comments
Yeah, after the dust settles on the legal battle, I would love to hear the Canadian version of "This American Life" get the full backstory on this. Were these guys pals playing in the living room or at the bar, or was it between strangers at some kind of underground RPS parlor? The latter seems ridiculous, but so does the former, since I imagine it would involve the loser saying "C'mon man you can't be serious?" for weeks, at least.
I couldn't find more indepth coverage in the recent news, but here's a relatively lengthy article from 2017 (before the recently ruled-on appeal):
https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2017/12/can-you-legally-...
It doesn't go into the personal details (or link to the source court documents), but it does say that the men (both "experienced businessmen", which I assume means: "guys with expendable wealth") signed the notarized contract after the game:
> After the match, the winner had the loser sign a notarized recognition of debt contract that was secured by a hypothec (mortgage) over the loser’s house. The winner subsequently attempted to enforce the gambling debt and hypothec, leading to litigation.
I'm intrigued why the loser signed the notarized contract at all if he was planning to fight it in court.
I couldn't find more indepth coverage in the recent news, but here's a relatively lengthy article from 2017 (before the recently ruled-on appeal):
https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2017/12/can-you-legally-...
It doesn't go into the personal details (or link to the source court documents), but it does say that the men (both "experienced businessmen", which I assume means: "guys with expendable wealth") signed the notarized contract after the game:
> After the match, the winner had the loser sign a notarized recognition of debt contract that was secured by a hypothec (mortgage) over the loser’s house. The winner subsequently attempted to enforce the gambling debt and hypothec, leading to litigation.
I'm intrigued why the loser signed the notarized contract at all if he was planning to fight it in court.
My guess is that he wasn't planning to fight it, then got home and his wife said, "You did WHAT???"
I mean, the pretty obviously missing link to all of this would appear to be "copious amounts of alcohol." Can you even imagine THAT hangover?
Perhaps at the time he figured he had more too lose if their business relationship was to sour.
The court argues it is a game of skill but follows up with:
> 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,'
They would have invalidated the bet even if wasn’t “excessive”. Presumably, the law also bans wagers on gambling activities, such as poker.
> 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,'
They would have invalidated the bet even if wasn’t “excessive”. Presumably, the law also bans wagers on gambling activities, such as poker.
I love playing cards, but poker is just... not as much fun because there's too much luck involved compared to, say, Rummy-type games (like my biased favorite, the Brazilian Buraco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraco)
There's only "too much luck" in games like poker, or backgammon, sports betting, over a short timeline, which is probably longer than you think. That can be hundreds, or even thousands of hands or games.
Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players.
Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players.
> Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players.
That's true of any game or sport, though. Poker is just one in which that is "less true".
That's true of any game or sport, though. Poker is just one in which that is "less true".
Poker (or Hold 'Em at least) is right in the sweet spot between "too much luck" where skilled players either don't reliably win or the long run takes too long to converge and "not enough luck" where recreational players don't have fun because they feel like they can never win. Luck obscures who is really winning in terms of EV enough to keep the game going. If there were much less randomness involved, it wouldn't be so popular.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this. While it's true that the more skilled party in a traditional physical sport will do better over the long run, their advantage will also be more apparent over the short run.
Skill in poker comes from managing variance over a long horizon; the advantage for a particular hand is largely determined by randomness
The advantage in sports does not derive from randomness, but from physical skill, and is generally apparent, and quantifiable, over a single contest (typically represented by a point spread or odds of winning). It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt.
Skill in poker comes from managing variance over a long horizon; the advantage for a particular hand is largely determined by randomness
The advantage in sports does not derive from randomness, but from physical skill, and is generally apparent, and quantifiable, over a single contest (typically represented by a point spread or odds of winning). It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt.
> It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt.
You're literally making my point, now, namely: luck is a much bigger factor in poker than in other card games, so I prefer to play those that require less fortune from me and more strategy.
You're literally making my point, now, namely: luck is a much bigger factor in poker than in other card games, so I prefer to play those that require less fortune from me and more strategy.
If you want to call it "variance" instead of "luck", I would agree with that. There aren't that many decisions to be made in a given poker hand, and many times they won't matter anyway. So, I get what you're saying. However, variance is exactly what makes poker a great gambling game. The very skill in poker is managing the variance.
I would also add that poker, in the absence of real money, is not that fun, and that for pure entertainment value, I would rather play a game that relies less on variance.
I would also add that poker, in the absence of real money, is not that fun, and that for pure entertainment value, I would rather play a game that relies less on variance.
Just because poker involves luck does not mean it requires less strategy than any other game.
> Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players.
> It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt.
Not directly relevant, but it just occured to me that, if you're playing poker against someone you know is more skilled than you, the best strategy is to not look at your cards.
> It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt.
Not directly relevant, but it just occured to me that, if you're playing poker against someone you know is more skilled than you, the best strategy is to not look at your cards.
Not true. Consider the following example:
Two players are playing, heads up. Both players always play every hand, and there is always exactly one bet and call per betting round. Under this scenario, the EV for each player is 0, since we could expect them to both win half the hands, and importantly, win exactly the same amount of money each hand.
Now consider a second situation in which player A plays every hand the same way, but player B folds with the lowest EV hand before any additional cards are revealed. (in hold'em this is 2-7 offsuit). What happens is that player B is losing less money with their worst hand than player A. And since this is zero-sum, it means player B will expect a very slight profit.
Now, extrapolate this to player B only playing +EV hands, while player A doesn't even look at their cards and plays every hand. The following betting rounds still proceed the same way. Player B will be losing a small amount - the ante - on poor hands, and willing a much larger amount with their good hands.
This gets to the heart of my argument - that skill in games like poker or backgammon - will inexorably prevail over a long enough timeline. Sure, player A might catch a great string of cards and beat player B sometimes. But play enough and player B will eventually dominate player A even if no other decisions are made.
This is all, of course, just a thought experiment, but it's meant to illustrate that skill in poker is equivalent to making +EV decisions in the face of incomplete information.
Two players are playing, heads up. Both players always play every hand, and there is always exactly one bet and call per betting round. Under this scenario, the EV for each player is 0, since we could expect them to both win half the hands, and importantly, win exactly the same amount of money each hand.
Now consider a second situation in which player A plays every hand the same way, but player B folds with the lowest EV hand before any additional cards are revealed. (in hold'em this is 2-7 offsuit). What happens is that player B is losing less money with their worst hand than player A. And since this is zero-sum, it means player B will expect a very slight profit.
Now, extrapolate this to player B only playing +EV hands, while player A doesn't even look at their cards and plays every hand. The following betting rounds still proceed the same way. Player B will be losing a small amount - the ante - on poor hands, and willing a much larger amount with their good hands.
This gets to the heart of my argument - that skill in games like poker or backgammon - will inexorably prevail over a long enough timeline. Sure, player A might catch a great string of cards and beat player B sometimes. But play enough and player B will eventually dominate player A even if no other decisions are made.
This is all, of course, just a thought experiment, but it's meant to illustrate that skill in poker is equivalent to making +EV decisions in the face of incomplete information.
And it’s why bad players play it. Poker players should embrace luck because it’d the only reason whales exist.
There’s a lot of luck in a single hand, but over many hands, players’ luck will be similar.
At that point, poker seems to me mostly about the skill of handling uncertainty and communicating with other players.
At that point, poker seems to me mostly about the skill of handling uncertainty and communicating with other players.
unfortunately, humans cannot play one million hands simulataneously and must experience each hand individually.
Burraco (that's how's called here) is fairly popular in Italy as well. My family has been playing it for generations and has been a staple of family reunions.
My family has a lot of long-lost Italian influence (my father is called Mario, same as 5 other relatives including great-grandfather, uncles and cousins...) so I'm not surprised it's popular there! My family actually called it Biriba, which I learned is the name of the Greek variant, though our rules were closer to Buraco...
Now I wonder what your family rules are! A lot of people restrict the types of runs you can play (like only allowing grouped runs with for face cards and aces, or banning groups altogether), but my grandpa was a beast at the game so we played with pretty open rules which actually made the game more aggressive – i.e. wait too much to act and you'll fall behind, but play too open early on and you give away your strategy.
Now I wonder what your family rules are! A lot of people restrict the types of runs you can play (like only allowing grouped runs with for face cards and aces, or banning groups altogether), but my grandpa was a beast at the game so we played with pretty open rules which actually made the game more aggressive – i.e. wait too much to act and you'll fall behind, but play too open early on and you give away your strategy.
Today we play with the official Italian rules, but even before, we actually had only very small divergence (you were not allowed to clean dirty plays, you could play a tris of deuces and you could discard a decue as your last card); also we used to play to 2000 points instead of three games.
More interesting is that we actually called the game canasta, which actually is a different but related game.
More interesting is that we actually called the game canasta, which actually is a different but related game.
There are variants.
The poker variants that are popular are popular exactly because there is so much more chance. The edge that skill gives is less in Texas Holdem than Omaha Hi-Lo. Which is why you see the former more than the latter.
The poker variants that are popular are popular exactly because there is so much more chance. The edge that skill gives is less in Texas Holdem than Omaha Hi-Lo. Which is why you see the former more than the latter.
Not really. Source: Omaha High Low (8 or better) has become surprisingly popular at my local casino, and the edge for skilled players does not seem to be any greater.
Limit poker has thinner edges than no limit, but NL has been the ocular game.
Limit poker has thinner edges than no limit, but NL has been the ocular game.
Yes, really.
Source, my brother-in-law is a WSOP champion in Omaha Hi-Lo. At low levels of play, the edge for skill isn't so big, but once you get someone who knows the game the edge goes up.
Tip, one of the best positions to be in is going for both hi and lo while an opponent thinks they have a lock on one of those. They feel committed to matching any bet, but you're going to walk away with 3/4 of the pot.
Source, my brother-in-law is a WSOP champion in Omaha Hi-Lo. At low levels of play, the edge for skill isn't so big, but once you get someone who knows the game the edge goes up.
Tip, one of the best positions to be in is going for both hi and lo while an opponent thinks they have a lock on one of those. They feel committed to matching any bet, but you're going to walk away with 3/4 of the pot.
I’ve played O8 and Holden for a living in cash games for years. I know multiple world champions in O8, including WSOP world Players of the year. They are all terrible poker players we used to line up to play with in cash games.
Winning tournaments proves little to nothing, the long run is far longer than any tournament. But boy was it great when one of those fish won a bracelet and took their winnings back to our games so we could bleed them of it over months and months.
O8 has similar variance to Holden, there isn’t a big difference. Most Fish quickly learn to rarely draw at the high only, and how to read the board, and that they have to play two cards. They still make numerous smaller mistakes, which is why they are fish.
Winning tournaments proves little to nothing, the long run is far longer than any tournament. But boy was it great when one of those fish won a bracelet and took their winnings back to our games so we could bleed them of it over months and months.
O8 has similar variance to Holden, there isn’t a big difference. Most Fish quickly learn to rarely draw at the high only, and how to read the board, and that they have to play two cards. They still make numerous smaller mistakes, which is why they are fish.
Technically everything is a 'game of chance'. Even being an employee. Usually the odds are pretty high for getting your paycheck (~99.999% maybe).
I think perhaps you vastly underestimate employee turnover.
My estimate was predicated on employment. If you don't have your job anymore, then it's of course 0% (and you are well aware of your $0 EV). The complement equals "company ceases to exist" + "banking errors" + "getting laid off without receiving your last paycheck".
I think they meant that usually (90% of the time, say), you (know you) have a ~99.999% chance of getting your paycheck, and sometimes (the other 10%, say) you know you have <50% chance.
> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho.
IANAL either but to me the law/government is there to uphold contracts. Not judge if they are smart or deemed a good idea.
IANAL either but to me the law/government is there to uphold contracts. Not judge if they are smart or deemed a good idea.
Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power.
("But look at all these other things they do that suck!" - yup, I'm there with you, but the purpose of government is to be just, which is not the same thing as clueless.)
("But look at all these other things they do that suck!" - yup, I'm there with you, but the purpose of government is to be just, which is not the same thing as clueless.)
> Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power.
That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.
That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.
I find it surprising that anyone would disagree with this. What do you view as the purpose of government? Isn't any other role just instrumental to ultimately benefiting society?
Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?
Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?
I didn't state a preferred position, just that it's not that simple. For example, some forms of libertarian thought would definitely disagree that government has any role outside of contract enforcement.
It's "very left" to an Austrian.
To pretty much everyone else it's uncontroversial.
To pretty much everyone else it's uncontroversial.
You're factually wrong.
Judges very much, all the time, deem whether a contract is exploitative or not. Valid contracts are signed between two parties where both are very much aware of what they're doing and fall within non-exploitative bounds.
You're not allowed to contract yourself into slavery no matter how much you want to. Indentured servitude is similarly illegal. You also can't charge someone a billion percent interest on a payday loan.
Now, granted, some people see the absurd levels of modern student debt as something not so far off from indentured servitude. But the point is that the government and judges absolutely draw lines between which contracts are permitted and not, for the express reason of protecting people from being led into terrible mistakes no matter how much they may want to. Kind of the same thinking behind certain drugs being illegal: the government trying to protect people from their worst impulses.
Of course, libertarians (as opposed to liberals and conservatives) think people should be able to contract whatever they want, hence the "liberty" in their name. But pretty much everyone else on the political spectrum thinks it's pretty essential to protect people from the absolute worst irrevocable things.
Judges very much, all the time, deem whether a contract is exploitative or not. Valid contracts are signed between two parties where both are very much aware of what they're doing and fall within non-exploitative bounds.
You're not allowed to contract yourself into slavery no matter how much you want to. Indentured servitude is similarly illegal. You also can't charge someone a billion percent interest on a payday loan.
Now, granted, some people see the absurd levels of modern student debt as something not so far off from indentured servitude. But the point is that the government and judges absolutely draw lines between which contracts are permitted and not, for the express reason of protecting people from being led into terrible mistakes no matter how much they may want to. Kind of the same thinking behind certain drugs being illegal: the government trying to protect people from their worst impulses.
Of course, libertarians (as opposed to liberals and conservatives) think people should be able to contract whatever they want, hence the "liberty" in their name. But pretty much everyone else on the political spectrum thinks it's pretty essential to protect people from the absolute worst irrevocable things.
How can a contract that gives both parties equal chances of winning equal amounts of money be exploitative?
The loser is exploited. Imagine if the losing condition were that the loser is enslaved. Just because you can't tell at the start which party will be the loser (and so exploited) doesn't mean the contract itself isn't exploitative
I’m not sure you’re right about libertarians. I haven’t sensed widespread libertarian support for long term debt collection by the government to recover money for foolish lenders.
Do you have a link to anything like that?
Because the libertarian ethos ought to support debt collection 100%. I'd be shocked to see any libertarian state any position contrary to that. Libertarianism is essentially entirely about the role of government being to enforce contracts and natural rights.
Because the libertarian ethos ought to support debt collection 100%. I'd be shocked to see any libertarian state any position contrary to that. Libertarianism is essentially entirely about the role of government being to enforce contracts and natural rights.
I see a reluctance to involve the government in long term wage garnishing or collection
I very vaguely recall an article on reason.com that opposed protecting credit card lenders from cancellation if debt post bankruptcy (similar to student debt) but honestly I don’t really remember. I briefly tried to find it but couldn’t.
I’d be more interested in knowing more about the libertarian position on bankruptcy
I very vaguely recall an article on reason.com that opposed protecting credit card lenders from cancellation if debt post bankruptcy (similar to student debt) but honestly I don’t really remember. I briefly tried to find it but couldn’t.
I’d be more interested in knowing more about the libertarian position on bankruptcy
I took a semester of contract law, though I am not a lawyer either. I believe what you write is not accurate. I vaguely remember a case about someone who sold a refrigerator for four times it’s retail value to a low income couple, collected three times the value, and then sued for the remainder. The court would not enforce further payment. However I believe it would not reverse what was already paid either.
I probably have a lot about this wrong but I recall the professor saying “if that’s he bargain, that’s the bargain!” Is not a good description of contract law.
Contracts are important and generally are upheld. However there are limits to how much of the governments time, resources, and monopoly on physical force the courts will marshal to enforce contracts.
I probably have a lot about this wrong but I recall the professor saying “if that’s he bargain, that’s the bargain!” Is not a good description of contract law.
Contracts are important and generally are upheld. However there are limits to how much of the governments time, resources, and monopoly on physical force the courts will marshal to enforce contracts.
Not really. I can't contract you to do something illegal for me (e.g. kill somebody, even me!). Now, if you are saying that these kind of contracts SHOULD be valid, that's another thing but that's not the case at the moment (and rightly so, imo)
The validity of hit contracts should probably be upheld in the following way: the contractee must pay the amount (in addition to whatever penalties they face), but that money is seized. It could be put into a fund that helps victims' families.
But you can't contract to do something illegal, and contracts must have consideration ("this for that"). Not sure what their test for excessiveness was.
Reminds me of predatory lending rules like charging more than X% interest is excessive.
Reminds me of predatory lending rules like charging more than X% interest is excessive.
Insanity can be written into contracts. Like an employer who states you aren't allowed to write code for anyone else for at least 5 years after termination.
> 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.
I mean, the guy went to court to weasel out of the bet.
From the article,
>the Superior Court cancelled that mortgage in a 2017 decision, which was appealed by Michel Primeau, who beat Hooper in the game of rock paper scissors — and won the $517,000 wager.
Seems like the court itself decided to cancel the mortgage and the winner was the one who decided to appeal it in court.
>the Superior Court cancelled that mortgage in a 2017 decision, which was appealed by Michel Primeau, who beat Hooper in the game of rock paper scissors — and won the $517,000 wager.
Seems like the court itself decided to cancel the mortgage and the winner was the one who decided to appeal it in court.
How did the Superior Court become aware of it? I doubt they routinely study home mortgages...
https://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad/news/quebec-appeals-judge-in...
>This gambling debt had even been recognized in a notarized contract and had led to the registration of a mortgage on the house of the loser, Edmund Mark Hooper.
>The mortgage was canceled by a judgment rendered by a Quebec Superior Court judge in 2017.
Because it was on a notorized contract. The guy that won is a huge asshole honestly.
>This gambling debt had even been recognized in a notarized contract and had led to the registration of a mortgage on the house of the loser, Edmund Mark Hooper.
>The mortgage was canceled by a judgment rendered by a Quebec Superior Court judge in 2017.
Because it was on a notorized contract. The guy that won is a huge asshole honestly.
Why is no one talking about the true jerk in this situation? The guy legally forcing the other to mortgage his house in order to give him $500k — because of rock, paper, scissors...
Well, we do not know what would happen if the situation were opposite. They both entered into the agreement, presumably seriously. It seems like just playing the game qualifies both sides as jerks.
Yes but sometimes you have a shark that eggs on the game knowing it is rigged.
Google rock paper Scissors robot. It's not inconceivable that a human may have some skills close to that. Or was purposely slowly entering their final state.
Google rock paper Scissors robot. It's not inconceivable that a human may have some skills close to that. Or was purposely slowly entering their final state.
And this is why gambling should be banned. Just because a couple of people "agree" on something, doesn't make it rational or legal.
> And this is why gambling should be banned
How do you propose to enforce this? If these two people had simply gambled the same way, and the loser took out the mortgage and paid the winner, nobody would even know.
It's illegal to gamble where I live, yet every year my friends and I place bets on major sporting events.
The solution to problems isn't always more government. Particularly when the proposed laws are totally unenforceable.
How do you propose to enforce this? If these two people had simply gambled the same way, and the loser took out the mortgage and paid the winner, nobody would even know.
It's illegal to gamble where I live, yet every year my friends and I place bets on major sporting events.
The solution to problems isn't always more government. Particularly when the proposed laws are totally unenforceable.
> How do you propose to enforce this?
Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt.
This appears to be basically what happened in this case anyway.
Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt.
This appears to be basically what happened in this case anyway.
>Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt.
This is how you get people with broken legs. As much as I dislike the payday loan places... they largely eliminated loan sharks.
You have legal gambling to keep it out of the hands of organized crime who will collect with illegal methods... not through the courts.
This is how you get people with broken legs. As much as I dislike the payday loan places... they largely eliminated loan sharks.
You have legal gambling to keep it out of the hands of organized crime who will collect with illegal methods... not through the courts.
> Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt.
Correct, and you take it a step farther. People don't pay even if they want, both parties engaging in gambling are penalized.
Correct, and you take it a step farther. People don't pay even if they want, both parties engaging in gambling are penalized.
To penalize them, you have to identify them first. Gambling is like corruption, in that two innocent activities (a game and a transfer of money) are combined, and you need to prove that link to prove that gambling occurred.
To be fair, what you actually accomplish there is not to ban gambling, but just to limit it to table stakes. Though that's probably a more useful goal anyway.
Banning gambling doesn’t ban gambling.
It just drives it underground where knuckle-breakers get to make and enforce the rules.
It just drives it underground where knuckle-breakers get to make and enforce the rules.
Then you crack down on such sites. It will prevent the vast majority of gambling from taking place, which will be a net plus on society.
It will not. First, large numbers of people will still gamble, and pay a far higher price to do so.
Sports betting is illegal in my state, yet the poker games at my local casino has always been full of bookies taking bets from other players, at significantly worse lines and higher vig than legal book makers in Vegas charge. And sometimes stiffing winners clients after they have a big win, or using threats of violence to collect from big losers.
A few years ago the poker room had to shut down fir nearly 6 months due to a flood. Private games spring up all over town, and instead of taking $126 an hour ($14 per player per hour) like the casino, they raked as three and four times as much. In one game a friend of mine saw the dealer cashed out $2500 in “tips” from her shift. she had been skimming from the pots and the “host” claims he wasn’t in on it. With no cameras, floor management, security etc, they are lucky they didn’t just get hit by a home invasion given the tens of thousands in cash at each game.
Legalized gambling doesn’t just save lives by keeping it out of organized crime control, it makes it far less costly for participants, and making its negative impacts on society much lower. In a competitive market the rake/vig is much lower, playing poker for $14 an hour has much more limited personal impact than playing it for $50/hour.
Lastly legal gambling can enforce rules to protect players from their worst instincts. One example is banning collection of gambling debts to help ensure players only play with what they can afford to lose.
Sports betting is illegal in my state, yet the poker games at my local casino has always been full of bookies taking bets from other players, at significantly worse lines and higher vig than legal book makers in Vegas charge. And sometimes stiffing winners clients after they have a big win, or using threats of violence to collect from big losers.
A few years ago the poker room had to shut down fir nearly 6 months due to a flood. Private games spring up all over town, and instead of taking $126 an hour ($14 per player per hour) like the casino, they raked as three and four times as much. In one game a friend of mine saw the dealer cashed out $2500 in “tips” from her shift. she had been skimming from the pots and the “host” claims he wasn’t in on it. With no cameras, floor management, security etc, they are lucky they didn’t just get hit by a home invasion given the tens of thousands in cash at each game.
Legalized gambling doesn’t just save lives by keeping it out of organized crime control, it makes it far less costly for participants, and making its negative impacts on society much lower. In a competitive market the rake/vig is much lower, playing poker for $14 an hour has much more limited personal impact than playing it for $50/hour.
Lastly legal gambling can enforce rules to protect players from their worst instincts. One example is banning collection of gambling debts to help ensure players only play with what they can afford to lose.
> Sports betting is illegal in my state, yet the poker games at my local casino...
So gambling is still allowed in your state. I'm saying to ban it completely so the entire market is closed.
It won't be too difficult to crack down on private gambling sites as well. The issue in the US is that each state has its own laws, so this won't work unless there is a ban at the federal level.
> Legalized gambling doesn’t just save lives by keeping it out of organized crime control, it makes it far less costly for participants, and making its negative impacts on society much lower.
I don't agree. There are countries where gambling is banned, and they don't have a gambling or crime problem.
So gambling is still allowed in your state. I'm saying to ban it completely so the entire market is closed.
It won't be too difficult to crack down on private gambling sites as well. The issue in the US is that each state has its own laws, so this won't work unless there is a ban at the federal level.
> Legalized gambling doesn’t just save lives by keeping it out of organized crime control, it makes it far less costly for participants, and making its negative impacts on society much lower.
I don't agree. There are countries where gambling is banned, and they don't have a gambling or crime problem.
You ignore what I said and ignore reality. I gave real examples of two real gambling markets, one legal and illegal, that demonstrated how much worse the effects of the illegal market were.
Instead you claim countries have successfully banned gambling completely. OK name one so we can correct your misapprehension.
For example Sports betting has been illegal almost everywhere in the US for a long time. Illegal sports gambling has peaked near $150B a year.
Instead you claim countries have successfully banned gambling completely. OK name one so we can correct your misapprehension.
For example Sports betting has been illegal almost everywhere in the US for a long time. Illegal sports gambling has peaked near $150B a year.
> There are countries where gambling is banned, and they don't have a gambling or crime problem.
Like which? The only democracy I see that (almost) fully banned gambling seems to be Israel, and their underground gambling industry is estimated at $3.5 billion.
Like which? The only democracy I see that (almost) fully banned gambling seems to be Israel, and their underground gambling industry is estimated at $3.5 billion.
The world is more than just "democratic" nations (which, are also usually "democratic" by name, but are actually something else).
Not sure I follow? If two people have a 'rational' bet, then is that legal in your eyes? Surely you can't be saying that irrational actions should be illegal, or that gambling on 'irrational' decisions (however one might even try to define that) should be banned? Or that all gambling should be banned, because there is a chance that some bets might be irrational? None of those viewpoints seem to make any kind of sense, as far as I can see?
Gambling is strictly harmful to society. There is no reason it should be permitted. It's quite straight forward.
If the roles were reversed, I would have a similar criticism of the other guy. Clearly, the loser didn’t want to pay because he contested it in court — and the victor could have forgiven the debt.
I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.
I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.
> I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.
That's a bit different. Your friend is presumably not deliberately forgetting his wallet while eating $500k lunches, and if he was I bet you'd expect him to pay you back. And the game of Rock Paper Scissors may be trivial and low-effort, but betting $500k on the game is very much not.
If I enter into a $500k bet on a game of Rock Paper Scissors, it's with the understanding that I stand to lose $500k if I lose the game, and I take that seriously. The only reason that risk is worth taking is if I also stand to win $500k if I win the game. If I win and you turn around and say "oh come on man I really don't want to pay", then you're basically saying you entered into the bet with the intention of scamming me out of an expected sum of $250k, so yes I'll insist that you pay up.
That's a bit different. Your friend is presumably not deliberately forgetting his wallet while eating $500k lunches, and if he was I bet you'd expect him to pay you back. And the game of Rock Paper Scissors may be trivial and low-effort, but betting $500k on the game is very much not.
If I enter into a $500k bet on a game of Rock Paper Scissors, it's with the understanding that I stand to lose $500k if I lose the game, and I take that seriously. The only reason that risk is worth taking is if I also stand to win $500k if I win the game. If I win and you turn around and say "oh come on man I really don't want to pay", then you're basically saying you entered into the bet with the intention of scamming me out of an expected sum of $250k, so yes I'll insist that you pay up.
This is a fair point. Part of the reason I would not make this bet in the first place is because I wouldn’t want the put myself into a situation where I either lose lots of money or risk causing financial hardship on another person. It’s lose-lose, in my opinion (I don’t think it’s worth $500k).
I understand how people can reasonably disagree about this and I take back calling him a jerk (although I hope I would not behave the same way in his circumstance). I also lack information about the specifics of what happened.
I understand how people can reasonably disagree about this and I take back calling him a jerk (although I hope I would not behave the same way in his circumstance). I also lack information about the specifics of what happened.
>and the victor could have forgiven the debt.
That would be equivalent to burning $500,000.
>I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.
What is the minimum amount of effort required to make a bet of $500,000 valid?
That would be equivalent to burning $500,000.
>I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.
What is the minimum amount of effort required to make a bet of $500,000 valid?
If he's a true jerk, he'll report the now cancelled debt to his country's equivalent of the IRS. If you owe money and some or all of that is cancelled, in many countries the amount cancelled might count as income to you for tax purposes.
I'd expect that in this case it would not be income, because it sounds like the court determined that the debt was not valid in the first place and so it is more of a "there was never a debt in the first place" than a "cancelled debt" situation, but being investigated to determine that would likely be annoying.
I'd expect that in this case it would not be income, because it sounds like the court determined that the debt was not valid in the first place and so it is more of a "there was never a debt in the first place" than a "cancelled debt" situation, but being investigated to determine that would likely be annoying.
He didn’t force the other guy to do anything. The other guy showed up at a notary public to sign the contract for chrissakes.
How is the guy an asshole? Don't make bets you cannot afford.
[deleted]
This 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.
> 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.
I fully agree that it's excessive, but I admit that I have no rational basis for that position. I wonder how they would make that claim, while also acknowledging that gambling exists.
You can lose 500k on roulette easily. That seems no less arbitrary
You can lose 500k on roulette easily. That seems no less arbitrary
> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho.
To you it may be, but where do you draw the line though? Is $100,000 excessive? $10,000? $1,000? Tbh, $1,000 does actually sound excessive to me.
To you it may be, but where do you draw the line though? Is $100,000 excessive? $10,000? $1,000? Tbh, $1,000 does actually sound excessive to me.
The definition of "excessive" is "more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate." according to a quick Google search.
I would argue that the wager was for more than a necessary amount, and definitely not normal.
How often do you hear about half million dollar RPS games, really?
I would argue that the wager was for more than a necessary amount, and definitely not normal.
How often do you hear about half million dollar RPS games, really?
I have multiple friends who have lost or won a quarter million in a day of gambling. In some circles this is not uncommon.
> I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment though and took out the mortgage on his house!
Well he didn't commit to it because he went to court to get out of it.
Well he didn't commit to it because he went to court to get out of it.
The rule with friends is to put money on the table immediately and agree on a deposit space/person until the outcome. Otherwise it is a sissy bet & thereby things we don't engage with. The whole betting ritual is a masculinity proxy and proposed solution is levering the fact that people that say A are willingly to agree on B at more at that moment in time than afterwards.
> betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive
wouldn't this depend on income/assets of those involved?
wouldn't this depend on income/assets of those involved?
I 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.
I suspect if it was Bill Gates vs. Larry Ellison they wouldn’t have been able to argue the wager was excessive.
That last line sounds like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho.
Good thing 'L' is not based on 'o' then.
How many finger (not even hand) gestures does it take to click "buy" on a stock broker's app?
Good thing 'L' is not based on 'o' then.
How many finger (not even hand) gestures does it take to click "buy" on a stock broker's app?
Not the same thing. The hand gestures of the rock, paper, scissors game constitute the entirety of the result. whereas, the actions of the entire company over time, coupled with immeasurably complex interactions with the rest of the world, constitute the result of a stock trade.
You can choose to gamble with stock by buying and selling randomly, but that is a property of your behavior, not the entirety of the system.
You can choose to gamble with stock by buying and selling randomly, but that is a property of your behavior, not the entirety of the system.
[deleted]
Jesus, you need new friends. "Weasel" is not a word you want to associate with people you should be able to trust.
If you don't have at least one "weasel" friend, you need more friends.
If you don't have any weasely friends, you just may be their weasel!
It is possible to both have friends you would trust with your life and friends you wouldn’t.
jon_elbrook(3)
I wonder if there's any legal prohibition against excessive bets in canada. Is there a law or doctrine that invalidates such contracts, or is it just courts saying "this doesn't look right to us, therefore it is invalid"
I'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.
Because money has marginal value, and they seem to have lots of it.
That can't be it because he took out a mortgage on his house!
You 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. :)
He has a house to take a mortgage on.
> 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.
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.
Bridge is unfortunately rife with cheating at the highest levels. It's simply too easy to communicate information with your partner that you're not allowed to through subtle signals, and this is very hard to police except at the macro level using a statistical analysis of many games to determine if it seems like players are acting on more information than they should have. The only way to play Bridge without cheating is to isolate each player in a separate room, confiscate all electronics, and have them play on provided computers running electronic Bridge that only transmits bids and cards played. So never bet on Bridge.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/07/the-cheating-p...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/07/the-cheating-p...
> The only way to play Bridge without cheating is to isolate each player in a separate room, confiscate all electronics, and have them play on provided computers running electronic Bridge that only transmits bids and cards played.
You'll still have "cheating" in this scenario. The rules of bridge consider it to be cheating if partners have a bidding convention that they don't explain to the other team. It's stupid, but those are the official rules.
You'll still have "cheating" in this scenario. The rules of bridge consider it to be cheating if partners have a bidding convention that they don't explain to the other team. It's stupid, but those are the official rules.
Oof. The game itself just doesn't lend itself to fair competitive play owing to its very nature. It's like how the overhead press was removed as a powerlifting lift in competition: It's just not possible to judge fairly (too easy to cheat using your legs).
This I don’t agree with: they should have left it as leg-assisted overhead press. So what that you helped with your back and legs? It’s a full-body activity anyway.
There already is a "leg-assisted overhead press" widely seen in competition -- the jerk. Except you see it in Olympic lifting, not powerlifting, and it's generally not done on its own, but as part of the clean and jerk. The snatch is another form of leg-assisted overhead press.
So if that's what you're into ... take up Olympic lifting!
So if that's what you're into ... take up Olympic lifting!
There is no element of overhead press in snatch. In jerk feet are moving. I think it would be beneficial to have third exercise where the final motion is overhead press after pause and feet are not allowed to move.
I guess bridge is a game where having a poker face is a disadvantage.
No, you want the poker face; you don't want your opponents to be able to discern anything, and if it seems to a judge that you might be communicating information based on your reactions to certain plays then you could be disqualifed.
So you need the poker face, and you need a surreptitious system to exchange information out of band.
So you need the poker face, and you need a surreptitious system to exchange information out of band.
Neither 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...
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...
Fwiw when playing my wife at rock paper scissors I once won over 20 times in a row. The odds against this happening randomly are pretty extreme - but I know her very well and can read her well enough that it was possible. I think it's fair enough to say that there might be a psychological element there that could pull the game out of straight random chance.
One 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.
The 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.
Then, you can analyze your performance afterwards and if you're statistically losing more than you should be, you know you're giving tells.
Many times here in Canada when there are contests you often see (always really) "void in Quebec". It's like a Canadian Heritage Moment.
That'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#...
in 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-soth...
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-christies-soth...
> 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 ?
> 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 ?
A 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.
Isn't that cheating?
I don't think it would be considered cheating. It's more like a poker player with a way too obvious tell that is used (abused) by the other player to gain an advantage in the game that should be random.
If your opponent is playing poorly, it’s unethical not to take advantage.
Hard 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.
Whether or not the specific examples constitutes cheating is up for negotiation by the participants.
> 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.”
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.”
I've given this a little more thought after reading your comment. And I was wrong. The point of games is drama.
Drama in music comes from an anticipated causality from A->B and either the fulfillment or denial of that causality. Romantic-era music strives for maximum drama by injecting as many fulfillment/denial moments as possible, with denials that are stretched to the limit of the implicit rules of the cultural context / musical system.
Minimalist music does something entirely different, by first breaking the expectation of resolution, and then becoming the flame that we stare into; it begins within a known system and then subverts it through stasis.
Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, "do you want to skip all the boring parts and get to the final note?" Or, "yeah, ok, I don't want to see or even know what happens in the movie, just tell me what the final shot is."
In games, the drama of the "game part" is in exploring the edges of a system, with the added engagement of partial agency towards "resolution" (in a musical sense).
I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point. Whether or not employing agency from outside the system is appropriate for a game is up for negotiation among the players, but without some level of adherence to an agreed system, it ceases to be a multiplayer game and becomes a game of solitaire where the rules are whatever the cheater decides.
I can appreciate that there is drama in that, and perhaps the drama of avoiding being caught is more satisfying than the drama of performing "the perfect game" for some people. In that situation, though, I think I'd still describe games as "a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems."
Drama in music comes from an anticipated causality from A->B and either the fulfillment or denial of that causality. Romantic-era music strives for maximum drama by injecting as many fulfillment/denial moments as possible, with denials that are stretched to the limit of the implicit rules of the cultural context / musical system.
Minimalist music does something entirely different, by first breaking the expectation of resolution, and then becoming the flame that we stare into; it begins within a known system and then subverts it through stasis.
Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, "do you want to skip all the boring parts and get to the final note?" Or, "yeah, ok, I don't want to see or even know what happens in the movie, just tell me what the final shot is."
In games, the drama of the "game part" is in exploring the edges of a system, with the added engagement of partial agency towards "resolution" (in a musical sense).
I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point. Whether or not employing agency from outside the system is appropriate for a game is up for negotiation among the players, but without some level of adherence to an agreed system, it ceases to be a multiplayer game and becomes a game of solitaire where the rules are whatever the cheater decides.
I can appreciate that there is drama in that, and perhaps the drama of avoiding being caught is more satisfying than the drama of performing "the perfect game" for some people. In that situation, though, I think I'd still describe games as "a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems."
> I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point.
After skimming your comment, I’ve decided you’re intentionally splitting hairs to create a difference between point and objective.
Ask yourself: What is the point of going to the grocery store? What is the objective of going to the grocery store?
After skimming your comment, I’ve decided you’re intentionally splitting hairs to create a difference between point and objective.
Ask yourself: What is the point of going to the grocery store? What is the objective of going to the grocery store?
The argument isn't against good/poor play; it's if this is cheating. You're essentially saying it's unethical not to cheat if you can get away with it, which is obviously untrue
It’s not cheating. Your opponent knows they’re supposed to keep their throw a secret as long as possible. Otherwise why not just say, “here comes rock” before they start? It’s the same as a pitcher tipping their pitches in baseball.
[deleted]
Some players consistently make it to the final rounds in RPS tournaments [0].
[0]: https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper...
[0]: https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper...
Oh wow that's news to me, I had no idea there was a world competition for this ! Guess i'll have to edit my other comment now :-/
edit: wait something looks odd at http://www.worldrps.com/ , is it really an internationally recognized competition ?
edit: wait something looks odd at http://www.worldrps.com/ , is it really an internationally recognized competition ?
It's also apparently a college sport. From one of my favorite Metafilter comments:
One chilly night in the fall of 2004, I chanced to find myself upon the streets of Toronto. I represented one half of the august top-rated debate team from a small upstate NY liberal arts school ([cough] named after a man shot by Aaron Burr), recovering from a day in which we had arrived at a debate tournament and discovered, 11 minutes before the commencement of Round 1, that we would be competing using a format heretofore unknown to us. A lot of hemming and hawing ensued, before we ultimately turned to face the task awaiting us, and swaggered to the podium to stare down the fate bearing down on us like a hawk on a rabbit. The night was not kind to us, and by 11PM, we had succeeded in drowning our sorrows in a heretofore unimagined selection of Labatt's higher-gravity options available at the corner pub.
Which is when we were wholly taken aback to encounter none other than Syracuse University's internationally ranked (!!) team of rock-paper-scissors players, fresh off their top-32 finish in that year's invitation-only (!!!) tournament. I admit I was skeptical as to the provenance of their accolades, but a quick glance at the large medallions hanging off two team members' necks was enough to assuage any doubts; these were our fellow Upstate New Yorkers, and they had come to win RoShamBo rounds and chew bubblegum, and they were all out of bubblegum.
Naturally, we did what any self-respecting half-in-the-bag Americans would do upon meeting so-called champions of the rock-paper-scissors arena on the streets of a foreign nation, and challenged them to a duel on the spot. We proceeded to go a spectacular 0-24 against our fellow countrymen, before realizing that maybe there's more to the metagame than we had previously considered. It's only now, 15 years later, upon reading this description of the algorithm, that I have come to understand the instrument of our demise.
https://www.metafilter.com/181225/Iocaine-Powder#7714208
One chilly night in the fall of 2004, I chanced to find myself upon the streets of Toronto. I represented one half of the august top-rated debate team from a small upstate NY liberal arts school ([cough] named after a man shot by Aaron Burr), recovering from a day in which we had arrived at a debate tournament and discovered, 11 minutes before the commencement of Round 1, that we would be competing using a format heretofore unknown to us. A lot of hemming and hawing ensued, before we ultimately turned to face the task awaiting us, and swaggered to the podium to stare down the fate bearing down on us like a hawk on a rabbit. The night was not kind to us, and by 11PM, we had succeeded in drowning our sorrows in a heretofore unimagined selection of Labatt's higher-gravity options available at the corner pub.
Which is when we were wholly taken aback to encounter none other than Syracuse University's internationally ranked (!!) team of rock-paper-scissors players, fresh off their top-32 finish in that year's invitation-only (!!!) tournament. I admit I was skeptical as to the provenance of their accolades, but a quick glance at the large medallions hanging off two team members' necks was enough to assuage any doubts; these were our fellow Upstate New Yorkers, and they had come to win RoShamBo rounds and chew bubblegum, and they were all out of bubblegum.
Naturally, we did what any self-respecting half-in-the-bag Americans would do upon meeting so-called champions of the rock-paper-scissors arena on the streets of a foreign nation, and challenged them to a duel on the spot. We proceeded to go a spectacular 0-24 against our fellow countrymen, before realizing that maybe there's more to the metagame than we had previously considered. It's only now, 15 years later, upon reading this description of the algorithm, that I have come to understand the instrument of our demise.
https://www.metafilter.com/181225/Iocaine-Powder#7714208
RPS in the strictest sense is a totally balanced game which cannot have a winning strategy if played completely logically.
Yet, all the RPS algorithm starts from the same premise.
The counter-intuitive reason why there can be winning strategy to RPS is that people try to devise winning strategies. Once you deviate from purely randomly choosing RPS, your adversary can try to analyze your past moves to create a model of your strategy and used that model to defeat you.
As for us poor humans, we're really bad at choosing randomly, so the best RPS players are very good at picking up what type of players you are.
PS: and in any population of players in a tournament, the mere presence of a few that want to have a non-random strategy will win over those without strategy. The strategy-less will just have a random streak of wins and losses no matter who they are facing. Of those with a strategy, the one with the best analysis of their opponent will win.
Yet, all the RPS algorithm starts from the same premise.
The counter-intuitive reason why there can be winning strategy to RPS is that people try to devise winning strategies. Once you deviate from purely randomly choosing RPS, your adversary can try to analyze your past moves to create a model of your strategy and used that model to defeat you.
As for us poor humans, we're really bad at choosing randomly, so the best RPS players are very good at picking up what type of players you are.
PS: and in any population of players in a tournament, the mere presence of a few that want to have a non-random strategy will win over those without strategy. The strategy-less will just have a random streak of wins and losses no matter who they are facing. Of those with a strategy, the one with the best analysis of their opponent will win.
>> No one has yet dominated Rock Paper Scissors like Tiger Woods dominated golf; no winner of the RPS world championship in Toronto has ever won twice. According to Fox, however,
So no one has used math to back up their claims of skill, but one anecdote says "there's totally skill involved"...
So no one has used math to back up their claims of skill, but one anecdote says "there's totally skill involved"...
OK - then make these guys play 100 or 1000 games against each other and see if anything beyond the very small sample size is responsible for the difference in win. If the previous winner is superior at RPS he should show a statistical advantage over the loser.
"not simply a game of luck". Of course there's luck involved. There's luck involved in tennis as well. Would you consider tennis a coin flip?
I can insist that there is skill in coin toss too.
I think what we want to look at is how much luck/skill percent is there. If tennis was luck overpowering skill, it wouldn't be an international sport in my opinion.
So rock paper scissors is 90% luck + 10% skill. A kid can potentially beat a professional rock player. Same is not the case for tennis.
I think what we want to look at is how much luck/skill percent is there. If tennis was luck overpowering skill, it wouldn't be an international sport in my opinion.
So rock paper scissors is 90% luck + 10% skill. A kid can potentially beat a professional rock player. Same is not the case for tennis.
> I can insist that there is skill in coin toss too.
There is a detailed analysis in 10.3 "How to cheat at coin and die tossing" of E.T. Jaynes's Probability Theory.
There is a detailed analysis in 10.3 "How to cheat at coin and die tossing" of E.T. Jaynes's Probability Theory.
You can't influence the result of a coin toss, unless you're using a manipulated coin.
I'd put rock paper scissors more into the poker category, but actually there's less of a luck-component in rps, because there's no drawing of random cards. You're only playing your opponent, and unless your opponent hast figured out a way to be completely random, you can "read" them if you're good enough. But that's very hard and impossible to do perfectly, so we call it luck.
Tennis is mostly a matter of the body, rps or poker are games of the mind.
I'd put rock paper scissors more into the poker category, but actually there's less of a luck-component in rps, because there's no drawing of random cards. You're only playing your opponent, and unless your opponent hast figured out a way to be completely random, you can "read" them if you're good enough. But that's very hard and impossible to do perfectly, so we call it luck.
Tennis is mostly a matter of the body, rps or poker are games of the mind.
When I was a kid I learned how to reliably cheat at a coin toss. The trick was to use the popular method where you flip the coin into the air, catch it in the palm of the same hand, then flip it over on top of your opposite wrist. And you would have the other person call heads or tails during the toss.
Normally if the coin landed heads-up in your palm, it would then be tails-up on your other wrist. But with a little practice it was easy to sneak in a half-flip during that last maneuver, so heads-up in your palm would also be heads-up on your wrist.
If you did all this fast enough, the other person wouldn't notice that you got a peek at the coin as it landed in your palm, so you could decide whether to do the expected final flip or the sneaky one.
I got away with this for quite some time before anyone figured out what I was doing!
Normally if the coin landed heads-up in your palm, it would then be tails-up on your other wrist. But with a little practice it was easy to sneak in a half-flip during that last maneuver, so heads-up in your palm would also be heads-up on your wrist.
If you did all this fast enough, the other person wouldn't notice that you got a peek at the coin as it landed in your palm, so you could decide whether to do the expected final flip or the sneaky one.
I got away with this for quite some time before anyone figured out what I was doing!
There's a great scene at the beginning of American Gods where the protagonist ("Shadow") is talking to a guy in a bar ("Wednesday") who wants to hire him for miscellaneous purposes. The protagonist doesn't really want to take the offer, but he humors Wednesday by flipping a coin for it. (Wednesday has already identified himself pretty unambiguously as Odin, but Shadow is quite unintelligent.)
You see this sequence:
> Shadow took a quarter from his pocket, tails up. He flicked it up in the air, knocking it against his finger as it left his hand to give it a wobble that made it look as if it were turning, caught it, slapped it down on the back of his hand.
> "Call," he said.
> "Why?" asked Wednesday.
> "I don't want to work for anyone with worse luck than me. Call."
> "Heads," said Mr. Wednesday.
> "Sorry," said Shadow, revealing the coin without even bothering to glance at it. "It was tails. I rigged the toss."
> "Rigged games are the easiest ones to beat," said Wednesday, wagging a square finger at Shadow. "Take another look at the quarter."
> Shadow glanced down at it. The head was face-up.
> "I must have fumbled the toss," he said, puzzled.
> "You do yourself a disservice," said Wednesday, and he grinned. "I'm just a lucky, lucky guy."
You see this sequence:
> Shadow took a quarter from his pocket, tails up. He flicked it up in the air, knocking it against his finger as it left his hand to give it a wobble that made it look as if it were turning, caught it, slapped it down on the back of his hand.
> "Call," he said.
> "Why?" asked Wednesday.
> "I don't want to work for anyone with worse luck than me. Call."
> "Heads," said Mr. Wednesday.
> "Sorry," said Shadow, revealing the coin without even bothering to glance at it. "It was tails. I rigged the toss."
> "Rigged games are the easiest ones to beat," said Wednesday, wagging a square finger at Shadow. "Take another look at the quarter."
> Shadow glanced down at it. The head was face-up.
> "I must have fumbled the toss," he said, puzzled.
> "You do yourself a disservice," said Wednesday, and he grinned. "I'm just a lucky, lucky guy."
Gross.
That's a nice explanation.
Tennis would also have some part of mind games right ? The more I think about it, obviously it definitely is a matter of body excellence, but if you can always predict where your opponent going to hit, wouldn't that be a sure win (considering the players equal in matter of body)?
I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent).
Poker also gives you some amount of time to "react" to what others did. So I am still seeing RPS heavily biased towards luck.
Tennis would also have some part of mind games right ? The more I think about it, obviously it definitely is a matter of body excellence, but if you can always predict where your opponent going to hit, wouldn't that be a sure win (considering the players equal in matter of body)?
I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent).
Poker also gives you some amount of time to "react" to what others did. So I am still seeing RPS heavily biased towards luck.
Tennis certainly has a mind-game component, but it's smaller, I believe, because you're reacting intuitively, you simply don't have the time for mind games, unless those at the press conference where you tell everyone that you've barely been able to train.
> I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent).
But you do have ways to predict the choice of your opponent. You "just" need to understand how they think. If you chose rock and they chose scissors, what will they choose next? Are they the type that figures "he will choose rock again, I'm going to pick paper", or are they thinking "he will try to mix it up and pic scissors because he thinks I'm going to react to rock by using paper, I'll take rock"?
If you played against a computer that just used a perfect random number generator, I'd agree with you. But you're playing a human, and they're terrible at being random.
It would be absolutely a game of luck if you played one game against one person without knowing who they are. But since, similar to Poker, you can learn over multiple rounds, the luck quickly fades. And apparently, if you're playing the odds, many people will start with certain choices, and they don't pick each choice at the same rate. There are quite a few articles (and books) out there, and they often mention the World Rock Paper Scissors Society, which also holds international tournaments.
> I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent).
But you do have ways to predict the choice of your opponent. You "just" need to understand how they think. If you chose rock and they chose scissors, what will they choose next? Are they the type that figures "he will choose rock again, I'm going to pick paper", or are they thinking "he will try to mix it up and pic scissors because he thinks I'm going to react to rock by using paper, I'll take rock"?
If you played against a computer that just used a perfect random number generator, I'd agree with you. But you're playing a human, and they're terrible at being random.
It would be absolutely a game of luck if you played one game against one person without knowing who they are. But since, similar to Poker, you can learn over multiple rounds, the luck quickly fades. And apparently, if you're playing the odds, many people will start with certain choices, and they don't pick each choice at the same rate. There are quite a few articles (and books) out there, and they often mention the World Rock Paper Scissors Society, which also holds international tournaments.
Influencing a coin flip is certainly possible. If you can reliably flip it the same way each time it's not hard to get 5-10 heads in a row, with a little practice.
This changes the game - it's not "coin prediction" it's now "coin manipulation"
the entire accepted premise of a coin flip is fair probability; yoou've subverted the game otherwise and should probably start working at a carnival.
the entire accepted premise of a coin flip is fair probability; yoou've subverted the game otherwise and should probably start working at a carnival.
> You can't influence the result of a coin toss, unless you're using a manipulated coin.
With a fair coin and enough practice, you can: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8248810/
With a fair coin and enough practice, you can: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8248810/
Heads I win, tails you pay my lawyers.
I 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?
I'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.
There's something to be amazed by, by this story, but it's not doing what you say you will.
This thread's...disappointing.
It'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'?
It seems illogical to me that a flippant statement can be legally binding in some circumstances but not others.
The 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)
Is such ambiguity normal for court rulings? (Genuine question - I’m not super familiar with legal stuff)
I need to move to Quebec so I can get out of some bad futures trades!
[deleted]
Is RPS a game of skill?
> 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
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
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
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
I 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!
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!
> 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/~e...
Reminds me of Iocaine Powder: https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~e...
My 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
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
> 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 …
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 …
20 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.
Humans really suck at producing randomness.
It 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]
the judge allowed that skill might be relevant, but ruled it was an excessive wager
If 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.
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.
A 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/29...
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/29...
Of 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.
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.
angel_j(2)
This article is so stupid I assume there is fraud involved somewhere; or at least a lot more to the story than mentioned.
You 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.
They should have added a skill-testing question to the contest!
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
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
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!