Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I see a lot of complains why this is illegal. It is illegal, as anything that it is illegal, because the law says so.

As, for example, in Nevada:

"NRS 465.075 Use of device for calculating probabilities.

It is unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or possess with the intent to use, any device to assist:

      1.  In projecting the outcome of the game;

      2.  In keeping track of the cards played;

      3.  In analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or

      4.  In analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,
except as permitted by the commission."


The irony here is it's only illegal to beat the games because the casinos figured out how to rig the democratic process to get favorable laws passed. If we put it to a vote, what would the public think was more unethical, using a mechanical device to count cards or using lobbyists to make sure you can't lose?

If a casino could lose money, you'd either have only small, locals casinos, or none at all. Votes are rarely referendums on ethics.

In this case we'd (and by we, I mean Nevada residents) compare two scenarios: a world without the big Vegas casinos (and their tax revenue, their employees, the good stuff), or a somewhat rigged world with the casinos.

What a defeated view. Hopefully one day those Nevada residents may see a horizon beyond the sprawling parking lot of a casino.

If there is an industry that can profitably offer better jobs/economic incentives to Nevada, then I think you would see that industry gain power and relatively weaken the grip of the casinos on Nevada.

So maybe in 5 years we'll be complaining about how Nevada residents can't see beyond 'rigged' tech jobs that don't pay as much as the Bay Area...

If a casino lost money more often than not... well, there'd be no more casinos. C'mon, be at least slightly realistic here. Where is it written that casinos are supposed to provide you with great odds? It's entertainment.

There are a lot of things the law says are illegal that are completely ridiculous (a Google search will confirm this).

The discussion is about whether those laws make sense and are moral, or if they were designed by greedy guys in suits trying to punish anyone who dares to play their game in a way different than intended.

And by 'greedy' you mean 'want to stay in business'. What do you think would happen if people were allowed to guarantee wins at a casino? They're not running a charity.

All businesses want to stay in business. Not all businesses need ridiculous laws for that to be so.

It makes total sense for a business to act greedily, I wasn't saying otherwise.

It does not make sense for it to become law.

People want to be able to gamble at a casino, even when they know the odds are in the house's favor. If you want to be able to gamble at a casino, you have to make it illegal to cheat; otherwise casinos would go out of business.

Consider this: there are advertisements in the subways that warn people against the psychological dangers of gambling.

Should those be illegal, given that they cause the casino to lose money?

Should Uber be illegal, given that they cause taxis to lose money?

I'm not talking about incentives here. Everyone will act according to their incentives. That's nature. The taxi industry will lobby against Uber. That's nature.

The justification for passing a law should not simply be to help a business stay in business.

Businesses should thrive based on a superior product, not because they threaten people with punishment for not doing things the way they want.

Making fraud illegal is pretty common in lots of industries. That is what these laws are; they are saying you can't agree to a casino's terms for their games and then break them.

It is like it being illegal to dine and dash - you could say, "well hey, he restaurant should have made me pay first if they didn't want me to just leave after my meal! They need to change their business model, not resort to the law"

Or they would get off their laurels, stop resting on law and innovate every time they find a new way someone is gaming the system. It was easy to stop card counting by adding in more cards, but it took catching someone counting and seeing how they where doing it, to come up with a simple hack to stop it.

I see no problem with banning a "cheater" (I don't even like the word, as they just figured out the rules of the game better than the house), from the casino, but to legislate that people cannot use an advantage that they have discovered seems like an abuse of law. The casinos don't have to offer games they know can be gamed, and they are free to come up with their own solutions to restore the odds in their favor. To me abusing the law is just laziness on their part to help maintain their advantage, while criminalizing a class off people who where nothing more than smarter than the house.

The way gambling laws work is that any method that allows the consumer to consistently beat the odds (even if it has a winning rate of 50.00000001%) is illegal.

"any device to assist"... where the human brain is not a device? ;)

Traditionally yes.

This is why card counting (in your head) isn't illegal - though it can get you banned. Using a device to do the same thing for you IS illegal.

so if someone uses their brain to compute such things...it is in the gray area depending upon casino?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact