
Calling the Oregon Lottery's Bluff After Poker Machine Dealt a Strange Hand - pavel_lishin
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-24178-man_vs_machine.html
======
hristov
Really bad article. Goes to great lengths to glamorize that Curzi person, yet
does not provide some of the most crucial information on the subject. For
example - does oregon law require that the machines have certain winning
percentage? And secondly did the state of oregon make a representation to
gamblers that this machine had certain winning percentage?

And finding documents marked "confidential" that say the machine has a certain
winning percentage means nothing. You cannot say that a confidential document
that was unknown to gamblers before Cruzi obtained it from a public records
request mislead anyone. If people do not know about a document there is no way
it can mislead them.

Since the article is quiet on the two questions listed above it seems very
likely that their answer is "no". In that case that Cruzi person, as glamorous
as the article makes him, probably has no case. If the machine is not required
by law or by previous advertisement to give out a certain percentage, I do not
see how the fact that the advice it gives results in a lesser percentage than
other possible advice is at all relevant.

~~~
harywilke
From the article: 'The lottery’s rules require “a close approximation of the
odds of winning some prize for each game” and say those odds “must be
displayed on a Video Lottery game terminal screen.”'

Curzi discovered that the odds displayed were not correct and the commission
knew about it.

~~~
hristov
That is also very puzzling. It gives the above quote but it does not say
whether these odds were actually displayed on the screen of this particular
game, and it does not say which odds were displayed (the ones with using
autohold or the ones without).

------
URSpider94
This is really disturbing. For all of the sleaziness of Vegas, any time I've
asked a dealer or pit boss about the house advantage in a particular game, or
the correct play for a particular hand, they've told me cheerfully and
correctly. They sell strategy cards in all of the gift shops -- and you can
have them on the table with you while you are playing. There's no need for
them to lie -- they already have the advantage, all they need to do is get you
to play long enough to let the odds do their thing.

~~~
kxo
Except that in the case of live poker, they're getting theirs via the rake.

I assume you're talking about blackjack: unless there is a CSM at the table or
an absurd 6:5 blackjack payout (you shouldn't be there in either event,
period) you can absolutely play to your advantage.

~~~
raverbashing
Well, the basic strategy for Blackjack is still slightly in favour of the
house

But yeah, you might track cards (good luck doing that with 10 decks though)

~~~
jacobkg
Most blackjack card counting strategies are no more difficult with a higher
number of decks. Instead of counting actual 'cards', one instead keeps a
running total of points based on the cards that come out.

In fact a higher number of decks can improve one's advantage when counting
because when the count turns in your favor it can happen with more of the deck
left to come (so a longer period of advantageous play)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting)

~~~
CPLX
This is incorrect, the larger the number of decks, as a general rule, the
smaller the advantage of card counting becomes.

~~~
kxo
If you're counting in a (rare) two-deck game with a full table, time between
shuffles is so low that it isn't worth it from a hand/hour standpoint.

~~~
CPLX
That's nonsensical. The EV of an hour would depend far more on the table limit
than any other factor. If I could find a table that would let me vary the bet
from $1 to $10,000 a hand on a two deck game they could have Parkinson's
patients with oven mitts on shuffling with chopsticks for all I care.

------
jab2014
The practices of the Oregon lottery seem wrong to me. Government should be in
the business of helping people and providing uncorrupted resources and facts,
not marketing dreams and hope to people while taking their money hand over
fist. John Oliver just did a good segment about this too
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-
netuhHA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA)

~~~
shit_parade
Many States deflect criticisms of for profit lotteries by advertising that
some of the proceeds go toward schools and other 'public' goods.

It is well known that lotteries pray upon the poor and uneducated, ironic
really.

Instead of monopolizing gambling, or giving sweet-heart deals to those close
to the government, or trying to outlaw it completely so we can see tragedies
like cops shooting people over playing fantasy sports, the state should get
out of the way, maybe provide counseling and treatment, and _gasp_ let people
do what they want with their property.

It's always about power, and ensuring most people don't have any.

~~~
Gustomaximus
Humans have weaknesses that can be abused. This is clearly the case in
gambling. The government must protect in some areas. For example with
financial advice, there are countless cases of people giving inappropriate
financial advice to the elderly, even getting them to sign away their property
while dying in hospitals. Sure it easy to say 'and gasp let people do what
they want with their property'. But what about this scenario? Would you be OK
if that was your relatives being manipulated on their deathbed to give money
to a previous stranger cause it is what they want to do with their property at
that moment in their life. Or, back to gambling, is it fair on the children of
the father/mother who gamble away their pay check each month leaving the
family destitute?

Above is more extreme but real examples to clarify a point. In my mind saying
people can do what they want with their property is overly simplistic and
assumes a more perfect world than the reality.

~~~
SilasX
>Or, back to gambling, is it fair on the children of the father/mother who
gamble away their pay check each month leaving the family destitute?

However bad it might be to prey on people by trying to trick them into
gambling, it's a trillion times better than just taking their money (the other
way of raising revenues).

~~~
umanwizard
why?

~~~
SilasX
Because in one case you can opt out.

~~~
ceejayoz
Gambling addicts can't opt-out very easily, and it causes them to pay tax
rates frequently higher than 100% of their incomes.

~~~
SilasX
It's easier for addicts to opt out of gambling than me to opt out of taxation,
and you can be treated for addiction but not taxation.

~~~
Domenic_S
Don't know why you're being downvoted, you're right.

------
thedufer
Is anyone else horrified by that demographics chart? The "income" pie chart
has a line that splits it almost perfectly in half, yet one side contains 61%
and the other 39%. The 24% piece is clearly way over 1/4, and the 25% way
under. Are they drawing these by hand?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Nice catch.

------
spuz
The conclusion that a lower payout means more money for the lottery and less
for the players is wrong. If a player receives a lower payout than expected
either through bad luck or cheating on the part of the video machine they are
more likely to stop playing. There is an online gambling company here in the
UK who strive to maintain a 95% payout across all their games because it is
deemed the most profitable long term strategy. The chances are that a higher
payout for video poker will result in higher earnings for the lottery company
which means there is a possibility that the auto hold behaviour is as a result
of lazy programming rather than deliberate maliciousness.

~~~
dagw
What if they claimed and displayed 95% payout, but actually only paid out 92%?
Don't you think that would be more profitable? Because that is basically what
they're claiming is happening here. Do you think enough people will keep track
of their winnings for long enough to catch the discrepancy?

~~~
spuz
That's hard to say. In the case in the article, the machine is obviously mis-
leading players by suggesting a less than optimal strategy. At the same time,
if the manufacturer of the machine wanted to lower the payout without
indicating anything to the player, they could simply adjust the probabilities
of the cards as they are dealt (I assume that is how most video poker machines
work anyway). I don't believe that individual players will have any idea
whether or not they are receiving the advertised payout, they can only respond
the the outcome of the game. Gambling companies do often advertise high
payouts but I suspect this is only attracts new players while the real odds
affect how long the players continue to play.

~~~
dagw
_if the manufacturer of the machine wanted to lower the payout without
indicating anything to the player, they could simply adjust the probabilities
of the cards as they are dealt_

Having a different payout than the advertised one is definitely illegal in the
US. What Oregon seems to have done is to find a neat loophole to get around
that law.

 _(I assume that is how most video poker machines work anyway)_

At least based on how I understand the law, you cannot tinker with the
randomness of how the cards are dealt. The only thing you can use to alter
payout percentages is alter the actual payout amounts for different events.

------
PeterWhittaker
tl;dr: Oregon poker machines advise players to make moves that favour the
house, and couple those with an autoplay feature that accepts house
recommendations - recommendations that are inherently unfair to the player. At
least, this is what the lawsuit alleges....

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
You don't have to qualify that with "At least, this is what the lawsuit
alleges".

The lottery is not disputing they make recommendations that are not optimal
for the player. The question is are they obligated to give the best advice?

~~~
Navarr
I think no. Video games traditionally give tips - these are designed to help
out players who aren't sure what to do. They are not designed to be the best
possible move.

If the game autoplayed the best possible moves, what would be the point of
learning poker? Where would skill come into the mix?

This lawsuit seems frivolous to me. I would never expect a game to give me the
most optimal hint - only a hint for how to get closer to winning.

~~~
stillsut
The guy's in software but then he acts dumbstruck that the machine wouldn't
tell him the optimal move? Wouldn't you be happy if there was at least some
player skill involved which would contribute over time help you lose less.

~~~
URSpider94
That's not usually the social contract in gambling. The house usually goes out
of its way to make sure you know the technically correct play (i.e. the one
that 9 out of 10 experienced players would make). These are meant to be games
of chance, not games of skill. At least at the level that you would never draw
to an inside straight, if given the option not to -- that's just dumb. As
others have mentioned, there are times you might turn in a winning hand in
hopes of drawing a royal flush, since so much of the return is in the jackpot
-- that's less clear-cut, and I wouldn't expect a video poker machine to make
the jackpot-seeking recommendation, since it's not how you would play in a
5-card draw table game.

------
chernevik
My understanding is that state lotteries were initially justified as means of
putting criminal numbers rackets out of business. People were going to play
one way or the other, so give them an honest game and stop funding hoodlums.
That makes sense.

But there is no justification for state lotteries as revenue raising streams,
nor for behavior maximizing those revenues. They shouldn't advertise and
shouldn't be creating new games to increase their take. These are just taxes
on mathematical illiteracy and risk factors for people with gambling problems.

Of course, the revenues are more important to the politicians than the general
interest, so here we are.

------
jmspring
I avoid most video machines, but an anecdote from some time I spend in
Helsinki in the early 2000s while working for a company there.

Gambling, in a sense, appeared to be legal in Finland. In Helsinki there was
one Vegas style casino (similar odds, $10 minimum -- memory serving me right);
but many bars had 21 tables. The trip in the "bars" was a tie was not a push,
but went to the house.

Given I was a loner in a country known for it's lack of gregariousness (a
stereotype, I had friend's there, but many focused on family and those outside
the city didn't come in during the week), playing the odds was an interesting
gambit.

Giving up the natural odds in a tie is a push for 21 was a hard one to digest.
However, I offset some of it by always taking the #1 position. Not ideal
overall, but a help.

In the end, after 6 months there, tabulating pure gambling stakes, I ended up
a net positive by about 15%.

On my return to the US, my first trip was with friends to Vegas. My skewed
methodology of playing, assume no tie, for 21, permeated my game for the first
few hours. It resulted in unhappy players, but saw a slight uptick in my own
earnings.

I wish I had the time and energy to more fully document this period, but
playing games that expect one skew and then coming into another that expects
something else, at least for me for awhile was a benefit.

------
logfromblammo
I see a lot of comments here about suboptimal play. These are missing an
important point.

The machine is not playing poker. The machine is presenting a game that
superficially resembles poker, to achieve a slot machine payout rate of 90%.

As a slot machine, it is a game of chance, not skill. If the actual payout of
a machine advertised as 90% is 85%, that is fraudulently advertised odds,
period.

So the lottery posts a notice on the machine that user interactivity may
reduce the odds of winning. Relying on that information, everyone just hitting
the "play" button like a robot--treating this particular type of slot machine
like a regular, non-interactive slot machine--should realize the posted odds.

They did not. The owner of the machine was aware of this. The Lottery made
false statements to its customers, harming them by its deception and profiting
in the process. That's fraud.

It is true that the Auto-Hold function does not need to recommend the optimal
Draw Poker play. _IT MUST RECOMMEND THE PLAY THAT ACHIEVES THE ADVERTISED SLOT
MACHINE PAYOUT_.

------
brendanr
If you found this article interesting, check out the book Addiction by Design:
Machine Gambling in Las Vegas, by Natasha Dow Schüll.

It's an incredibly interesting book about building addictive gameplay, the
industry that does it, and the people that use it.

------
fsk
OPTIMAL strategy for video poker is hard. (assuming standard 9/6 JoB paytable)

For example, what do you hold with

(1) AH QH TH JD 3H

vs

(2) AH QH TH 9D 3H

On (1), you hold the 4-flush.

On (2), you go for the 3 card royal. (Reason: Discarding the jack makes it
slightly less likely to draw the straight, tipping the otherwise close
decision to favor the 4-flush.)

In the article, the machine was advising plays anyone with basic competence
would never make.

~~~
fryguy
Optimal strategy for a given hand isn't that hard to calculate, either. There
are 32 choices of how to hold. 5 of them have 46 possible outcomes, 10 have
2070 possible outcomes, and the remaining can be looked up in a table with
less than 13.5k entries.

------
swang
This is completely unacceptable, but the State will probably get away with it.

If the study he found showed the machines paid out _more_ than it should (but
still positive to the State) you bet there would be audits of the machine.

------
lnanek2
Don't even understand how this is an article, they flat out have a disclaimer:
> Auto-hold strategies vary by game, based on the particular features of a
game and do not necessarily result in theoretical payouts

On smart phone games auto is often not the best strategy, just the easiest
(Summoner's War with 30 million downloads, I'm looking at you).

Sounds like the guy was just ignorant and thought auto was something it was
specifically declaimed not to be. If it was labeled "Best" I might feel
something for him.

~~~
mwexler
... Or the guy was just like so many average humans and assumed that the
machine was doing something more than randomly picking cards to hold. If the
machine said it was auto-picking the worst cards, we'd all be mad. If the
machine said it was randomly picking the cards, we'd all be surprised: why
even do that? Who does it help? Therefore, from an implicatures pov, the only
reason for the machine to pick cards (or "suggest" cards) is to recommend a
good hand. Since the computer can often pick the best hand, why would we not
assume that it's doing so, to give us mere humans "a fighting chance", so to
speak? Why should we assume that it's not picking the computably best cards to
hold, other than our belief that the machine "cheats"? And that's what the
article examines.

I don't think it's ignorance on our gambler's part; I think it's the standard
"Black Hat UI" issue mentioned on HN so often: We assume that sw does
somethign to maximize utility for the user, based on the design or experience,
when it's instead doing something to maximize profit for some other entity.

Yes, it's a gambling machine; we all understand that it's designed to take our
money. But offering a feature as part of the experience that appears to help
when it doesn't (or to a lesser degree than would be expected via
presentation), would be deemed misleading by any reasonable person, small
print and disclaimers aside.

------
ck2
I'm waiting for "quick pick" lotto draws to be reviled as not actually random
but the machine picks numbers least likely to win because they recently won.

~~~
ivanche
:) Lotto draws are independent so you have an equal chance of winning with any
numbers.

~~~
VLM
You'd like to think they're independent and fair, but thats kind of the whole
point of the article.

To quote the state director in the article “I don’t think we’ve ever
represented that the auto-hold gives you the optimal result,” he says. “The
idea was that it gives you a good result.”

You'll get a perfectly good result if the lotto balls are loaded. Might not be
optimal, might not be random, but it'll be a good result, as in not some
random negative integer or a float or wrong number of balls.

~~~
ivanche
I agree with you that lottery _might_ make lotto draws unfair. For example,
they see in advance which combination of numbers is NOT played and somehow
they cheat and draw exactely that numbers. Lottery can do that for several
weeks in a row, thus making the prize pool bigger and bigger and atmosphere
between players hotter and hotter. As a side bonus, lottery can use fresh cash
(from stakes) for several weeks at 0% interest rate.

But, can they really do it? Manipulating lotto balls and drum (mechanical
devices really) is much harder than manipulating software behind some video
poker game. I don't say it's impossible, but harder.

------
pbreit
The Oregon commission is clearly in the wrong but I'm not sure determining the
losses is very straightforward. I'm guessing the lower payouts mostly result
in more time spent at the machines with nearly the same losses.

------
ivanche
I was developing online gambling games for 6 years and I'm totally on Justin
Curzi's side here. Oh, and if anyone's interested in how those games are made
feel free to AMA.

