Non shuffled card deck results in 1.5 million casino loss(philly.com)
philly.com
Non shuffled card deck results in 1.5 million casino loss
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20120904_A_C__s_Golden_Nugget_in_legal_war_with__1_5_million_winners.html
86 comments
There is a joke that casinos have a saying for people who come up with systems to beat the house: "Welcome."
Let's look at it from a business perspective:
When a casino has an unexpectedly large payout, and they can't prove that it was the result of cheating by the customer or an employee, there is only one reasonable thing to do: pay up, and advertise the win loudly and widely.
If you're in the business of suing your customers, there are several results: 1. You stop having so many customers. 2. Even if successful in court, you don't make back anywhere near what you lost. (Customers don't have much money, in general. You already know the ones who do -- you call them whales.) 3. The regulatory commission looks at you more carefully.
When a casino has an unexpectedly large payout, and they can't prove that it was the result of cheating by the customer or an employee, there is only one reasonable thing to do: pay up, and advertise the win loudly and widely.
If you're in the business of suing your customers, there are several results: 1. You stop having so many customers. 2. Even if successful in court, you don't make back anywhere near what you lost. (Customers don't have much money, in general. You already know the ones who do -- you call them whales.) 3. The regulatory commission looks at you more carefully.
Heh, having spent much of my youth in Las Vegas I can tell you that if a casino has an unexpectedly large payout then someone is going to have a really really bad day. And that someone will do anything they can to deflect the repercussions. See the comment about the same issue at the Taj casino, 9 people got fired.
The only way to avoid getting fired is to both prove that the people who won cheated and that their cheat was something you could not have protected against.
The only way to avoid getting fired is to both prove that the people who won cheated and that their cheat was something you could not have protected against.
The Casino made a mistake and wants its money back. Seems totally reasonable to me. I'm sure if a gambler makes a mistake playing a game, they get any of their losses back from the Casino. Such a gentlemanly society we live in!
How is the casino able to sue the gamblers? I would think they would have to sue the card manufacturers for delivering a product that wasn't prepared as agreed, which caused material losses.
Who at the casino thought that suing their customers was a good idea?
Who at the casino thought that suing their customers was a good idea?
It's important to note that in America, you can sue anybody for pretty much anything. The question of whether you can win is entirely irrelevant if you have the resources necessary to batter your targets into submission.
My first business lawyer gave me that advice early on and it was sobering to think through the implications of that.
My first business lawyer gave me that advice early on and it was sobering to think through the implications of that.
This is one of the main reasons I think that all money spent on lawyers should go into an account that both sides get to draw upon equally to pay legal expenses. You simply cannot have a system capable of meting out justice if money can skew "justice" in your favor.
That's an interesting idea. I'll have to think more about what negatives might be involved (simple example: someone badgers you with an expensive to refute claim but uses a cheap lawyer to file the claim, though I guess this is just as possible in the status quo).
The best solution is if free access representation was high quality.
A simple way of doing that might be to give parties the option of their choice of n randomly selected representatives drawn from any practicing lawyer, funded via a fraction of punitive damages redirected to a fund locked to that purpose.
The best solution is if free access representation was high quality.
A simple way of doing that might be to give parties the option of their choice of n randomly selected representatives drawn from any practicing lawyer, funded via a fraction of punitive damages redirected to a fund locked to that purpose.
[deleted]
Because they didn't win a game, they took advantage of a rigged deck. Also they're being sued for exceeding the betting limits. "The gamblers unlawfully took advantage of the Golden Nugget when they caught on to the pattern and increased their bets from as little as $10 to $5,000 and by passing money to fellow gamblers in order to place bets in excess of posted betting limits."
How did the table allow the betting limit to be exceeded? Why didn't they stop it right at the time, and only wait until they lost to decide to retroactively enforce their own rules?
Apparently the pit boss knew something was up but didn't stop the game. Which squarely puts the fault in the casino. The casino could easily have closed that table.
Apparently the pit boss knew something was up but didn't stop the game. Which squarely puts the fault in the casino. The casino could easily have closed that table.
> How did the table allow the betting limit to be exceeded?
ahem:
by passing money to fellow gamblers in order to place bets in excess of posted betting limits.
They posted a bet, and also gave some of their money to another player to post another bet, effectively circumventing the betting limits on individual players. That's not necessarily an obvious behavior. And if the casino didn't know the decks were rigged, why would they close the table and risk angering a bunch of high rollers?
ahem:
by passing money to fellow gamblers in order to place bets in excess of posted betting limits.
They posted a bet, and also gave some of their money to another player to post another bet, effectively circumventing the betting limits on individual players. That's not necessarily an obvious behavior. And if the casino didn't know the decks were rigged, why would they close the table and risk angering a bunch of high rollers?
Yes, I saw that. The limit generally applies per seat or per bet. A reference that this applies to a physical body of meat would be awesome.
And if the casino didn't know the decks were rigged, why would they close the table and risk angering a bunch of high rollers?
To not have to pay out lots of money if something is wrong. But I guess they could just wait to see if the players don't end up giving it all back in the end.
And if the casino didn't know the decks were rigged, why would they close the table and risk angering a bunch of high rollers?
To not have to pay out lots of money if something is wrong. But I guess they could just wait to see if the players don't end up giving it all back in the end.
I imagine they thought for sure the overbets wouldn't pan out, which they would be just fine with.
A casino unfamiliar with the concept of staking someone?
"they took advantage of a rigged deck"
I think that a "rigged deck" assume someone knowingly did something. In this case, from the story, this was an accident and not intentional.
Of course even if the deck was rigged (say someone at the manufacturer turned off the shuffle process) while it would be defacto rigged I'm not sure it would be dejure rigged because there was no connection between the gamblers and the person doing the rigging.
I think that a "rigged deck" assume someone knowingly did something. In this case, from the story, this was an accident and not intentional.
Of course even if the deck was rigged (say someone at the manufacturer turned off the shuffle process) while it would be defacto rigged I'm not sure it would be dejure rigged because there was no connection between the gamblers and the person doing the rigging.
An ordered deck is one arrangement from the set of randomly arranged decks. If the company ensures that decks are not ordered then they're not random. How can it be shown that the deck wasn't shuffled ... indeed if it can then the shuffling is non-random and this appears to amount to some sort of fraud in itself.
Do playing card manufacturers that sell shuffled decks make some sort of call on when a deck is not shuffled "enough". Knowing this information would allow more efficient models to be made for card counters, etc..
Do playing card manufacturers that sell shuffled decks make some sort of call on when a deck is not shuffled "enough". Knowing this information would allow more efficient models to be made for card counters, etc..
There is also a ridiculous law that you can't use math at blackjack tables.
Its like only stupid people can play blackjack and if you are clever enough to beat it, then you are cheating.
Put simply according to them the game is fair only if you lose and casino wins.
Its like only stupid people can play blackjack and if you are clever enough to beat it, then you are cheating.
Put simply according to them the game is fair only if you lose and casino wins.
There is also a ridiculous law that you can't use math at blackjack tables.
Not true. There is no law (in the US) forbidding card counting. However casinos will kick you out (or most likely politely ask if you might want to play something else) if they believe you're counting cards effectively (they have no problem with people who count cards badly). But this has no basis in law and isn't an accusation of cheating. It's just the casino exercising their right to remove anybody from the casino floor for any reason they feel like, much like they have the right to remove you from the casino floor if they don't like the way you're dressed for example.
Not true. There is no law (in the US) forbidding card counting. However casinos will kick you out (or most likely politely ask if you might want to play something else) if they believe you're counting cards effectively (they have no problem with people who count cards badly). But this has no basis in law and isn't an accusation of cheating. It's just the casino exercising their right to remove anybody from the casino floor for any reason they feel like, much like they have the right to remove you from the casino floor if they don't like the way you're dressed for example.
Atlantic City is in New Jersey. Where everyone sues everyone else when they have an issue.
I'm reminded of those stories that seem to come up every so often about the casinos denying slots players jackpots [1][2][3].
On a semi-related note...
I've been wondering with more and more Casino games going digital, is there anything requiring the systems to use realistic odds?
The last time I was in a Casino I had great success (15x return in 90 minutes) essentially betting against the field of players on a large video roulette machine. I was curious and simply bet opposite whenever the board became particularly "unbalanced". The idea being that the machine had some kind of of average return to maintain and that it would avoid big bets (relative to what it was earning) in light of that.
1: http://gizmodo.com/5867314/57-million-winner-loses-prize-aft...
2: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14795166
3: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3772215&page=1#.UE...
On a semi-related note...
I've been wondering with more and more Casino games going digital, is there anything requiring the systems to use realistic odds?
The last time I was in a Casino I had great success (15x return in 90 minutes) essentially betting against the field of players on a large video roulette machine. I was curious and simply bet opposite whenever the board became particularly "unbalanced". The idea being that the machine had some kind of of average return to maintain and that it would avoid big bets (relative to what it was earning) in light of that.
1: http://gizmodo.com/5867314/57-million-winner-loses-prize-aft...
2: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14795166
3: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3772215&page=1#.UE...
Yes, there is a very formal and rigid system for validating the odds on all gaming machines.
In almost every regulated gaming jurisdiction (let's leave US Indian Casinos out of this for the time being), a third-party lab is hired to evaluate the code, look for backdoors, and verify the odds that are specified with the PAR (Probability and Accounting Report) of the machine being tested.
In the case of your roulette machine, that code was verified to make sure the random number generator created a valid distribution of numbers. If you had won a large enough jackpot (as those players did in your links), the gaming board technician would have been called in to verify the game's program code against a known verified version of the system as signed off by the third-party lab. When the checksums don't match...no jackpot. That's why every slot says MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS.
That being said, there can still be bugs in the program code. When a machine is listed as paying a max of $2500 and a player wins $1,597,244.10, there's definitely a bug. Casinos, since they own the place, will err on their side and send you home without the jackpot. That's just the way it is. The manufacturer will get an earful and probably lose their positions on the casino floor until the bug is fixed.
Oh and look at your second link. The jackpot was "42 million". Wanna bet it was $42,949,672.95? (Hint: What is 4294967295 in hexadecimal?)
In almost every regulated gaming jurisdiction (let's leave US Indian Casinos out of this for the time being), a third-party lab is hired to evaluate the code, look for backdoors, and verify the odds that are specified with the PAR (Probability and Accounting Report) of the machine being tested.
In the case of your roulette machine, that code was verified to make sure the random number generator created a valid distribution of numbers. If you had won a large enough jackpot (as those players did in your links), the gaming board technician would have been called in to verify the game's program code against a known verified version of the system as signed off by the third-party lab. When the checksums don't match...no jackpot. That's why every slot says MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS.
That being said, there can still be bugs in the program code. When a machine is listed as paying a max of $2500 and a player wins $1,597,244.10, there's definitely a bug. Casinos, since they own the place, will err on their side and send you home without the jackpot. That's just the way it is. The manufacturer will get an earful and probably lose their positions on the casino floor until the bug is fixed.
Oh and look at your second link. The jackpot was "42 million". Wanna bet it was $42,949,672.95? (Hint: What is 4294967295 in hexadecimal?)
Thanks.
One thing I'm still not clear on. In the case of a machine that suggests it is simulating something physical, are the machines required to implement realistic odds or just accurate to what's official stated?
Do virtual card games have to maintain a proper virtual deck? Do virtual slots that suggest 20x20x20 reels have to implement 8000:1 odds?
One thing I'm still not clear on. In the case of a machine that suggests it is simulating something physical, are the machines required to implement realistic odds or just accurate to what's official stated?
Do virtual card games have to maintain a proper virtual deck? Do virtual slots that suggest 20x20x20 reels have to implement 8000:1 odds?
In general, yes. When you're simulating a traditional physical gaming device (a pair of dice, deck of cards, roulette wheel, lotto balls, coin flip), it must match the real device.
From what I recall, card games are a very special animal in the eyes of the gaming board. When you simulate dealing from a deck, there must be a deck of 52 cards in memory. You cannot just pick random numbers from 1 to 52. I believe every hand must have a freshly shuffled "deck" as well.
The way video poker machines manipulate their odds is through the payout. Watch veteran players when they approach a machine. They'll note that some machines offer slightly different payouts for lower wins, and that's where the odds grind out. You can't change the probability of a full house, but you can change how much is paid back.
Slot reels are a loophole. Because you can't see the entire reel, how do you know it only has 20 stops? What if it has 20,000? This concept (known as the Telnaes patent, US #4448419) enabled virtual reels and much much larger payouts than the 8000:1 jackpots before this invention.
Later on, the invention of bonus games and etc kind of ripped up the virtual reel idea. But the math operates on this principle as far as the PAR sheets are concerned (i.e a certain set of stops on the reels starts a bonus game with another known set of odds).
From what I recall, card games are a very special animal in the eyes of the gaming board. When you simulate dealing from a deck, there must be a deck of 52 cards in memory. You cannot just pick random numbers from 1 to 52. I believe every hand must have a freshly shuffled "deck" as well.
The way video poker machines manipulate their odds is through the payout. Watch veteran players when they approach a machine. They'll note that some machines offer slightly different payouts for lower wins, and that's where the odds grind out. You can't change the probability of a full house, but you can change how much is paid back.
Slot reels are a loophole. Because you can't see the entire reel, how do you know it only has 20 stops? What if it has 20,000? This concept (known as the Telnaes patent, US #4448419) enabled virtual reels and much much larger payouts than the 8000:1 jackpots before this invention.
Later on, the invention of bonus games and etc kind of ripped up the virtual reel idea. But the math operates on this principle as far as the PAR sheets are concerned (i.e a certain set of stops on the reels starts a bonus game with another known set of odds).
Virtual slots definitely do not have to simulate the same reel size as their physical counterpart. I've only worked in online gambling, but almost ever slot game I saw had larger reelsets. Some don't even simulate physical reels, but instead just use a probabilistic model to decide what appears.
The Indian casinos are also highly regulated by the National Indian Gaming Commission. For some things, each tribe also has their own regulations that need to be handled, so it can be a major PITA work for or sell a product to more than one tribe's casinos.
If they can check the machine, they should have done so before allowing people to play. After all, they aren't paying back the losses on the "malfunctioning" machine.
It's to make sure the player or other third party hasn't messed with the code. And if the machine is paying out less than it should, there are penalties from the gaming commission.
If this was to prevent fraud, that would be what the signs on the machines say. "Malfunction voids all pays" is to minimize payouts, even when the gambler is not at fault, e.g. buggy software, non-verified software, unrelated tampering or tampering attempts. It's sufficient that "something" is wrong when the jackpot is won.
The argument I was trying to make was an ethical one: By accepting the gambler's money, the casino should take responsibility for the state of the machine at that point, thus incentivizing them to be diligent. To void a jackpot, they should have to prove fraud by the gambler or their associates to a court of law.
The argument I was trying to make was an ethical one: By accepting the gambler's money, the casino should take responsibility for the state of the machine at that point, thus incentivizing them to be diligent. To void a jackpot, they should have to prove fraud by the gambler or their associates to a court of law.
Case 1 seems to be that the siren accidentally went off. The board still showed 4 matches instead of the 5 needed.
Case 3, as joezydeco pointed out, gave out more money than was possible as printed on the machine.
I'm sure there are thousands of cases of jackpots not being given out for bugs, so I tend to think they should assume responsibility for the bugs that aren't in their favor, and pay out the maximum as printed on the machine.
Case 3, as joezydeco pointed out, gave out more money than was possible as printed on the machine.
I'm sure there are thousands of cases of jackpots not being given out for bugs, so I tend to think they should assume responsibility for the bugs that aren't in their favor, and pay out the maximum as printed on the machine.
The most serious claim in this article, that hasn't been mentioned in the comments so far is that although a Judge ordered the Casino to cash the remaining chips, and the Casino has claimed it won't appeal, they will only cash the chips if the gamblers drop ALL other charges.
Is that even legal? To impose a condition on an order from a judge? This seems to me far more dodgy than the allegations of avoiding betting limits.
I've heard from a Vegas lawyer that basically all of the serious law firms there do some amount of business with each of the casino chains. This is intentional on the casinos part, and gives the law firms a very simple conflict of interest claim when someone wants to sue a casino.
Combine this with the fact that Nevada doesn't allow out of state lawyers (and passing the Nevada Bar requires a considerable investment in time), and as a consequence the only counsel you can get to sue a casino amounts to the sort of low-budget lawyer you might see advertising on a billboard.
If I had enough money and brass, I'd hire a bunch of promising attorneys from out of state, relocate them to vegas, get them certified in Nevada, and then create a firm specializing in suing casinos. I'm sure there's a fortune to be made (if you don't get bought/killed by organized crime)
Combine this with the fact that Nevada doesn't allow out of state lawyers (and passing the Nevada Bar requires a considerable investment in time), and as a consequence the only counsel you can get to sue a casino amounts to the sort of low-budget lawyer you might see advertising on a billboard.
If I had enough money and brass, I'd hire a bunch of promising attorneys from out of state, relocate them to vegas, get them certified in Nevada, and then create a firm specializing in suing casinos. I'm sure there's a fortune to be made (if you don't get bought/killed by organized crime)
[deleted]
They aren't exactly imposing a condition on an order from a judge. They are promising not to appeal if their conditions are met.
Strictly speaking, it would only be imposing a condition on an order from a judge if they had exhausted all of their appeals and just said "Drop all the other charges or we won't pay you."
In that scenario, it would clearly be illegal.
Strictly speaking, it would only be imposing a condition on an order from a judge if they had exhausted all of their appeals and just said "Drop all the other charges or we won't pay you."
In that scenario, it would clearly be illegal.
>The gamblers unlawfully took advantage of the Golden Nugget when they caught on to the pattern and increased their bets from as little as $10 to $5,000
I don't understand why a casino feels like it's legally entitled to a profit even when it fails to perform the simplest possible action to maintain an edge: shuffle the cards!
I don't understand why a casino feels like it's legally entitled to a profit even when it fails to perform the simplest possible action to maintain an edge: shuffle the cards!
Somewhere or other I read an example of protocol design: handling the lint trap in your dryer. One way to do it is empty the trap at the end when the clothes are dry. Another way is at the beginning, right after loading the wet clothes. In a mathematical sense they're equivalent, because in both cases the lint gets removed once per load. But in practice, emptying first is better because the protocol will "work" even if someone fails to empty the trap.
Same situation here. Blaming the card company and the customers and doing all this suing is a lot of work compared to shuffling the damn cards. It's a bad protocol. If they always shuffled, this kind of thing couldn't happen.
Same situation here. Blaming the card company and the customers and doing all this suing is a lot of work compared to shuffling the damn cards. It's a bad protocol. If they always shuffled, this kind of thing couldn't happen.
Yes, you guarantee the cards are shuffled, but you also add a question as to whether you've shuffled the deck in your favor. A competitor might make the point that they play unopened decks while you manipulate the decks before the game.
That competitor is free to try and capitalize on the expected value of the three gamblers that switch because of it while managing the liability induced by the expected value of the black swan event. In practice, I don't know why a gambler would trust unshuffled decks over shuffled ones. In the end, anybody gambling is a sucker anyway.
Read the entire quote:
"The gamblers unlawfully took advantage of the Golden Nugget when they caught on to the pattern and increased their bets from as little as $10 to $5,000 and by passing money to fellow gamblers in order to place bets in excess of posted betting limits"
Where was the pit boss to shut those players down when the bets were coming in that large? Or did the casino believe these players would eventually lose most of it back and relax the table limits while this much money was in play?
"The gamblers unlawfully took advantage of the Golden Nugget when they caught on to the pattern and increased their bets from as little as $10 to $5,000 and by passing money to fellow gamblers in order to place bets in excess of posted betting limits"
Where was the pit boss to shut those players down when the bets were coming in that large? Or did the casino believe these players would eventually lose most of it back and relax the table limits while this much money was in play?
Cards were not shuffled. They didn't enforce their own rules regarding betting. I honestly don't see how they can come at them. I am not a lawyer so I wonder what legal stance they have in this to sue the gamblers?
Totally agree that the casino has almost no footing here. The fact that the cards were not shuffled isn't really a factor here. That is the casino's responsibility. It's also the casino's responsibility to monitor and shut down games that are out of control, and that doesn't seem to have happened here.
Casinos are allowed to break their own rules regarding betting limits. Unless the state/jurisdiction has a limit, it's up to the house to decide when/if a bet is over the max. If a large enough player shows up at a $5K table and wants to bet $10K, you can be sure that he'll be allowed to play.
Casinos are allowed to break their own rules regarding betting limits. Unless the state/jurisdiction has a limit, it's up to the house to decide when/if a bet is over the max. If a large enough player shows up at a $5K table and wants to bet $10K, you can be sure that he'll be allowed to play.
A comparable situation might be a misprinted price tag at a car dealership, which they are not required to honor as long as it's corrected when discovered.
The problem is that the car dealership would indeed be required to honor the misprinted price tag if it was discovered after they completed the sale. This situation is like, a car dealership misprints the price tags; the salespeople spend hours selling cars; and then the dealership turns around and sues the people who bought cars and drove away. It's not going to be a winner.
(N.B., no analogy is really going to help us too much here, because the outcome will depend on the specifics of state law regarding malfunctioning gambling machines and any agreements made by those particular gamblers to get into that particular casino. So anyone who tells you they have any idea what will happen is either a gambling law expert or making it up. I just thought the car dealership thing was an interesting example.)
(N.B., no analogy is really going to help us too much here, because the outcome will depend on the specifics of state law regarding malfunctioning gambling machines and any agreements made by those particular gamblers to get into that particular casino. So anyone who tells you they have any idea what will happen is either a gambling law expert or making it up. I just thought the car dealership thing was an interesting example.)
I agree the analogy breaks down.
My point was mostly that mistakes are often forgiven in business.
Whichever way the legal ruling goes, once the gamblers discovered the mistake, they were, in my mind, cheating by exploiting it.
Imagine the opposite scenario. By my understanding, a deck full of face cards benefits the gambler in blackjack. If a dealer notices that his cards are missing say, the jack of diamonds, it would be wrong of him to keep dealing knowing that the house had a better advantage that intended. Surely players losing money in such a situation would want their money back.
Again, the analogy isn't perfect, but I can see the casino's point of view... even if the decision to sue customers is short-sighted.
My point was mostly that mistakes are often forgiven in business.
Whichever way the legal ruling goes, once the gamblers discovered the mistake, they were, in my mind, cheating by exploiting it.
Imagine the opposite scenario. By my understanding, a deck full of face cards benefits the gambler in blackjack. If a dealer notices that his cards are missing say, the jack of diamonds, it would be wrong of him to keep dealing knowing that the house had a better advantage that intended. Surely players losing money in such a situation would want their money back.
Again, the analogy isn't perfect, but I can see the casino's point of view... even if the decision to sue customers is short-sighted.
The analogy is beyond not perfect -- it is completely broken. The "opposite" scenario you bring up requires actually breaking the game. The deck was not broken at all in this case, it was just in an unfavorable ordering to the house: an ordering that is still perfectly possible. Regardless of being very unlikely to happen, having the ordering these players dealt with over and over, it is still possible. Realize that if even one of the decks had been shuffled, then the players' strategy would have failed and they would have probably lost it all again. The players did not know all the decks would be unshuffled, they saw a pattern and took their chances. That is in fact the whole reason you play a luck based game -- for the off chance that luck falls in your favor.
It is enlightening that you cannot come up with the "opposite" scenario without actually breaking the game. Here allow me to come up with the opposite scenario for you: an ordering that does not favor the player, which by the way, happens basically EVERY HAND. That's why the house basically always wins, because these games are designed to have the odds against the player. By shuffling the cards the house is actually ensuring a higher likelihood of unfavorable outcomes.
That is what is so upsetting about these cases to me: the fundamental reasoning this all comes down to is that people are "not supposed" to win these games, thus winning must be cheating. If you design a game with the odds against the player, then spend tons of money outsourcing the randomization of cards to guarantee no card counting etc, and then encourage superstitious playing to keep people hooked and losing more money -- then on top of all this the player still wins, sue them?
Please.
It is enlightening that you cannot come up with the "opposite" scenario without actually breaking the game. Here allow me to come up with the opposite scenario for you: an ordering that does not favor the player, which by the way, happens basically EVERY HAND. That's why the house basically always wins, because these games are designed to have the odds against the player. By shuffling the cards the house is actually ensuring a higher likelihood of unfavorable outcomes.
That is what is so upsetting about these cases to me: the fundamental reasoning this all comes down to is that people are "not supposed" to win these games, thus winning must be cheating. If you design a game with the odds against the player, then spend tons of money outsourcing the randomization of cards to guarantee no card counting etc, and then encourage superstitious playing to keep people hooked and losing more money -- then on top of all this the player still wins, sue them?
Please.
I think we are at an impasse, because I feel the game was broken when the decks were not shuffled. A fair game requires a random (in the sense of unpredictable) deck. No, it wasn't guaranteed, but it was certain enough for me to call it broken.
I hope you can at least understand how it would be more broken by actually having different cards, because again, even after shuffling the events that took place here are still possible. No amount of shuffling or not shuffling can change how many face cards in a deck.
With regard to it being "certain enough", consider whether you would have done the same thing as these people. I can tell you that had I sat at that table, I would have not continued betting higher and higher with the possibility that the next deck is not in my favor and thus possibly losing everything. It of course looks certain in retrospect knowing the whole story of how they were actually unshuffled -- but when you are actually at the table, without this knowledge -- it is again just a chance. You have no idea how many decks come from what company or anything thats going on to result in this. For all you know it might have just been two decks that had the same order due to some weird malfunction. I am sure in the history of gambling lots of people have thought they've seen a pattern recur, bet a lot on it, and LOST -- again, to the favor of the casino.
In other words, consider it from a game theory perspective -- the casino's "long term" winnings absolutely rely on this kind of behavior from patrons. If patrons were to think to themselves "uh oh, something is fishy and this might be unfair, better stop betting" every time they thought they had spotted a pattern or had a system, then the casino would lose tons of money, since they are 99.99% of the time wrong. Casino's winnings fundamentally rely on greediness. That's the basic point I'm trying to make: you can't have it both ways, you can either have greedy patrons who almost always lose everything because of it, or weird bizarro-world patrons that are looking out for the casino.
With regard to it being "certain enough", consider whether you would have done the same thing as these people. I can tell you that had I sat at that table, I would have not continued betting higher and higher with the possibility that the next deck is not in my favor and thus possibly losing everything. It of course looks certain in retrospect knowing the whole story of how they were actually unshuffled -- but when you are actually at the table, without this knowledge -- it is again just a chance. You have no idea how many decks come from what company or anything thats going on to result in this. For all you know it might have just been two decks that had the same order due to some weird malfunction. I am sure in the history of gambling lots of people have thought they've seen a pattern recur, bet a lot on it, and LOST -- again, to the favor of the casino.
In other words, consider it from a game theory perspective -- the casino's "long term" winnings absolutely rely on this kind of behavior from patrons. If patrons were to think to themselves "uh oh, something is fishy and this might be unfair, better stop betting" every time they thought they had spotted a pattern or had a system, then the casino would lose tons of money, since they are 99.99% of the time wrong. Casino's winnings fundamentally rely on greediness. That's the basic point I'm trying to make: you can't have it both ways, you can either have greedy patrons who almost always lose everything because of it, or weird bizarro-world patrons that are looking out for the casino.
I think you are right about the retrospect aspect. No one who thought they had detected a pattern (which wasn't later confirmed in the news) would then offer to return the money because they cheated. So I suppose my comment that the gamblers were cheating once they detected the pattern is only really valid in retrospect.
That said, I still don't think I could keep the winnings knowing, in retrospect, that I had won them unfairly, but I think you are right about the casinos needing to sometimes suck it up and take a loss if that's the game they're going to play.
That said, I still don't think I could keep the winnings knowing, in retrospect, that I had won them unfairly, but I think you are right about the casinos needing to sometimes suck it up and take a loss if that's the game they're going to play.
It's fairly common for people to buy high value antiques for a tiny fraction of their actual value at flee-markets etc. However, the seller does not get to say, 'my bad sale is void'.
EX: Value ~6,000$ sale price 14$.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/03/31/man-finds-picasso-o...
EX: Value ~6,000$ sale price 14$.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/03/31/man-finds-picasso-o...
1) I'm sad to find your totally reasonable comment downvoted. Decline in HN standards, etc...
2) An alternative scenario: what if a car dealership simply mis-priced a car? They're holding a rare race car but the owner asked his know-nothing nephew to appraise it, who was busy texting his girlfriend and absent-mindedly wrote down $500. If you buy this car and the owner realizes his mistake the next day, can he ask for the car back?
2) An alternative scenario: what if a car dealership simply mis-priced a car? They're holding a rare race car but the owner asked his know-nothing nephew to appraise it, who was busy texting his girlfriend and absent-mindedly wrote down $500. If you buy this car and the owner realizes his mistake the next day, can he ask for the car back?
1. I'm just confused, but that's OK.
2. As far as I know, the situation does not apply for mis-pricing. Some information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29
It seems the situation is basically if a mistake is made that still seems reasonable (pricing a car for $19000 instead of $20000), it must be honored. If the mistake is completely unreasonable (pricing a car for $20 instead of $20000) it does not have to be honored. But a mistake in business knowledge (pricing a $20000 car for $2000 because you think that's all it's worth) still has to be honored.
2. As far as I know, the situation does not apply for mis-pricing. Some information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29
It seems the situation is basically if a mistake is made that still seems reasonable (pricing a car for $19000 instead of $20000), it must be honored. If the mistake is completely unreasonable (pricing a car for $20 instead of $20000) it does not have to be honored. But a mistake in business knowledge (pricing a $20000 car for $2000 because you think that's all it's worth) still has to be honored.
The price tag is not a contract and until a contract is executed nothing legally exists.
It takes an offer and acceptance.
If the price tag says $15,000 for the car, and you enter into a contract which the dealer signs then the dealer has to sell you the car. The same as if you make a mistake in your calculations and sign to purchase the car.
Now in the case where perhaps a dealer employee had changed the price and it could be proven that you knew that there would be some legal concept that allows the dealership to get out of the contract.
It takes an offer and acceptance.
If the price tag says $15,000 for the car, and you enter into a contract which the dealer signs then the dealer has to sell you the car. The same as if you make a mistake in your calculations and sign to purchase the car.
Now in the case where perhaps a dealer employee had changed the price and it could be proven that you knew that there would be some legal concept that allows the dealership to get out of the contract.
The casino was not required to keep the table running.
It's not illegal to count cards but the casino can tell you to leave, and it you don't you are then trespassing.
It's not illegal to count cards but the casino can tell you to leave, and it you don't you are then trespassing.
In New Jersey the casino is not allowed to ask you to leave for counting cards. They can only force you to bet the same amount and/or shuffle every hand.
I don't understand:
Can someone explain?
Since the cards were never shuffled at the plant - the
casino doesn't shuffle them again - the same patterns
kept repeating in game 802
Can someone explain?
Each game likely used a fresh, unopened deck of cards. If each deck is non-shuffled then each time a fresh deck is opened you will see the same cards in the same order. Assuming the casino arranged for their vendor to pre-shuffle the decks it seems reasonable, if not a bit lazy, to not do a shuffle at the table. If I were the casino I'd be suing the vendor, not the gamblers.
They're suing both the card manufacturer and the gamblers.
Could this have something to do with the superstitious aspect of baccarat? The fact that the deck has been shuffled before it got to the casino but not even the casino itself has any way of knowing the order?
The article mentioned superstition, but I've never played baccarat myself.
The article mentioned superstition, but I've never played baccarat myself.
Pure speculation: shuffling the cards takes time. Time which could be more profitably used to separate gamblers from their money. This is consistent with the way in which MBA's look at retail transactions and logistics.
Card shuffling does take time, and a lot of houses use automatic shuffling units to speed that process up. But those units aren't perfect either and will jam and break down.
You also have the problem of players possibly marking cards (bends, folds, tiny nicks, spots) for later use. In the casino's eye, it's a lot cheaper to use new preshuffled decks in every shoe and drop the expensive ShuffleMaster machine.
You also have the problem of players possibly marking cards (bends, folds, tiny nicks, spots) for later use. In the casino's eye, it's a lot cheaper to use new preshuffled decks in every shoe and drop the expensive ShuffleMaster machine.
Does that go against their case or is it irrelevant? If you make a cost-benefit decision, in this case to "not shuffle cards", then is your position weakened when you cry about a reasonably forseeable outcome tied to your very decision? "They took advantage of us when our own decision backfired!"
I mean, at the start of a shoe, draw the first three cards, if they are consecutive, then shuffle the decks or or burn the entire shoe. You end up shuffling or destroying an insignificant number of shoes by pure chance, but you don't lose 1.5 million dollars when you find out too late the guy pressing the shuffle button at the factory for $7/hr decided to take an extended lunch.
I mean, at the start of a shoe, draw the first three cards, if they are consecutive, then shuffle the decks or or burn the entire shoe. You end up shuffling or destroying an insignificant number of shoes by pure chance, but you don't lose 1.5 million dollars when you find out too late the guy pressing the shuffle button at the factory for $7/hr decided to take an extended lunch.
The cards are pre-shuffled at the manufacturer. It's a smart move since the casinos don't have to spend time dealing with shuffling cards manually (and losing time) or automatically (and investing in expensive machines).
The whole situation came up because the playing card manufacturer forgot to shuffle the cards before packaging. So all the cards came in the same pattern out of the box, which I'm assuming is determined by how they were cut from the sheet or whatever is done. There's no mention that they came out in suit/count order (like the packs most people normally buy in stores).
The mini-baccarat game seems to take 6-8 packs and combine them into a large shoe. The pattern would not have been obvious after the first 52 cards but when the next 52 showed up in the same order, that's when the betting started going nuts.
The whole situation came up because the playing card manufacturer forgot to shuffle the cards before packaging. So all the cards came in the same pattern out of the box, which I'm assuming is determined by how they were cut from the sheet or whatever is done. There's no mention that they came out in suit/count order (like the packs most people normally buy in stores).
The mini-baccarat game seems to take 6-8 packs and combine them into a large shoe. The pattern would not have been obvious after the first 52 cards but when the next 52 showed up in the same order, that's when the betting started going nuts.
It's a smart move, but it opens them up to black swan events like this, that shuffling the cards themselves wouldn't.
Right now the cost of a deck is negligible, but if the card manufacturers start being on the hook to the tune of millions of dollars for a handful of decks not being shuffled, pre-shuffled decks are going to get more expensive, as additional QC and insurance that the card manufacturers have to buy get passed on. Eventually it'll turn back into a real cost/benefit analysis: do we make enough on casino customers losses in this game to justify $10/pack or $50/pack decks?
Right now the cost of a deck is negligible, but if the card manufacturers start being on the hook to the tune of millions of dollars for a handful of decks not being shuffled, pre-shuffled decks are going to get more expensive, as additional QC and insurance that the card manufacturers have to buy get passed on. Eventually it'll turn back into a real cost/benefit analysis: do we make enough on casino customers losses in this game to justify $10/pack or $50/pack decks?
I thought a shuffler was a standard feature on most card tables. Still, even barring that and using the decks once and once only, as some games do, it seems odd that the dealer didn't notice, and the pit boss was completely oblivious to this winning streak. They're supposed to be paying attention to things like this.
Yeah, I'm pretty surprised that the people working at the casino wouldn't notice the same pattern emerging and either stop the game or start manually shuffling the cards.
Perhaps the cards aren't shuffled as they are first fed into the table through an automated process...but are subsequently shuffled after having been used
The gamblers took advantage of the information they had available to them.
And this reminds me of someone else who figured out a pattern and cashed in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Larson
And this reminds me of someone else who figured out a pattern and cashed in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Larson
That's quite the story - too bad it ends on such a downer...!
I don't see how abducting people the next day isn't a criminal offence. But I also don't see anyone caring. Weird.
Summary if tl;dr
"Someone in Kansas City allegedly had forgotten to turn on the automatic shuffler before the cards got shipped out. Since the cards were never shuffled at the plant - the casino doesn't shuffle them again - the same patterns kept repeating in game 802. The players noticed, kept on betting and upped their wagers."
"Someone in Kansas City allegedly had forgotten to turn on the automatic shuffler before the cards got shipped out. Since the cards were never shuffled at the plant - the casino doesn't shuffle them again - the same patterns kept repeating in game 802. The players noticed, kept on betting and upped their wagers."
I think the real question here is: if the non-shuffled deck had somehow worked in the Casino's favor and caused an otherwise-virtually-impossible losing streak for the customers, would the casino now be scurrying to reimburse them all for their losses?
The most surprising thing to me is that the casino let the betting go on for over 2.5 hours.
"They saw a pattern and didn't know how long it would last," said Feldman, whose clients are Asian and speak little or no English.
Is there a reason why casinos are not shuffling decks in-house before sending them to the tables?
In Vegas, they'll often distribute little pads of paper and pencils you can use to take notes on past hands, and mini-baccarat tables often have electronic signs showing the player/banker/tie outcome of several past hands.
(This is funny because the game is memory-less.)
The folks who manage the games must have discovered that when they encouraged players to bet superstitiously, players stayed for longer and bet more.
How deliciously ironic for a casino to encourage people to try to find patterns and bet on them, and then lose and sue after they finding a pattern that worked!