vpFREE2 Forums

Illegality, immorality and cheating

#1

Illegality depends on the specific wording of the appropriate statute. If a statute is poorly written or ambiguous, a defendant may be acquitted even though most people believe that what he did was "illegal".

Immorality depends on one's personal code of ethics. To a vegetarian, eating meat may be immoral. To a meat-eater, not so much.

Cheating may be illegal, immoral or neither. Cheating on one's taxes is illegal but many people don't seem to think it is wrong. Cheating on one's spouse is not illegal, but most people believe it is wrong. Playing vp with a cheat sheet (strategy card) is not illegal and even the casinos don't seem to think that it is wrong.

Nestor and Kane are alleged to have asked the casinos to enable the double-up feature on machines that did not have the feature enabled. The double-up feature was an essential ingredient that allowed them to take advantage of the flaw and reap payouts that were ten times larger than their actual wins. Illegal? Who knows? But it should be no surprise that casinos will do everything in their power to convince the authorities to prosecute anyone who tries to do this.

#2

Adultery Is illegal in many states, just to clarify.
Many of the analogies presented on this topic to test legality or morality fall short in one or multiple areas.
We can only weigh in on whether what these people did is cheating and to the point of is it wrong.
I think everyone will agree that cheating is wrong. However, even this with specific examples will have gray areas, but please let's start simple.
Did these people cheat?
Cheating requires intentional deception and yes what they did repeatedly was intentional, but the issue I have is the deception part. They were lying through omission to the manufacturer and casinos about the defective software (not an ATM glitch that occurs 1 in 5,000,000 times). This seems like a stretch that patrons are responsible for integrity reporting on the software code. I at least think that video poker is between player and machine regardless of manufacturer or location, so the person needs to be deceiving the machine. This is the crux of the issue. The software was doing exactly as it was programmed. This makes it similar to Mickey's example of a progressive reset to a much higher base or Bob's example of a much higher than is supposed to be comp rate for that game; however, in this instance far more money is involved and the defect was more difficult to find. Are any of these situations wrong, maybe. Are they cheating? I do not see how that can be the case. The software had a flaw in its programming these people did not cheat the machine.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: decca@shaw.ca
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 13:47:11 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Illegality, immorality and cheating

      Illegality depends on the specific wording of the appropriate statute. If a statute is poorly written or ambiguous, a defendant may be acquitted even though most people believe that what he did was "illegal".

Immorality depends on one's personal code of ethics. To a vegetarian, eating meat may be immoral. To a meat-eater, not so much.

Cheating may be illegal, immoral or neither. Cheating on one's taxes is illegal but many people don't seem to think it is wrong. Cheating on one's spouse is not illegal, but most people believe it is wrong. Playing vp with a cheat sheet (strategy card) is not illegal and even the casinos don't seem to think that it is wrong.

Nestor and Kane are alleged to have asked the casinos to enable the double-up feature on machines that did not have the feature enabled. The double-up feature was an essential ingredient that allowed them to take advantage of the flaw and reap payouts that were ten times larger than their actual wins. Illegal? Who knows? But it should be no surprise that casinos will do everything in their power to convince the authorities to prosecute anyone who tries to do this.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

Happy mothers day

···

Adultery Is illegal in many states, just to clarify.
Many of the analogies presented on this topic to test legality or morality fall short in one or multiple areas.
We can only weigh in on whether what these people did is cheating and to the point of is it wrong.
I think everyone will agree that cheating is wrong. However, even this with specific examples will have gray areas, but please let's start simple.
Did these people cheat?

#4

Great analysis! You hit the nail right on the head.

To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
From: smellypuppy@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 08:58:43 -0700
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Illegality, immorality and cheating

Adultery Is illegal in many states, just to clarify.
Many of the analogies presented on this topic to test legality or morality fall short in one or multiple areas.
We can only weigh in on whether what these people did is cheating and to the point of is it wrong.
I think everyone will agree that cheating is wrong. However, even this with specific examples will have gray areas, but please let's start simple.
Did these people cheat?
Cheating requires intentional deception and yes what they did repeatedly was intentional, but the issue I have is the deception part. They were lying through omission to the manufacturer and casinos about the defective software (not an ATM glitch that occurs 1 in 5,000,000 times). This seems like a stretch that patrons are responsible for integrity reporting on the software code. I at least think that video poker is between player and machine regardless of manufacturer or location, so the person needs to be deceiving the machine. This is the crux of the issue. The software was doing exactly as it was programmed. This makes it similar to Mickey's example of a progressive reset to a much higher base or Bob's example of a much higher than is supposed to be comp rate for that game; however, in this instance far more money is involved and the defect was more difficult to find. Are any of these situations wrong, maybe. Are they cheating? I do not see how that can be the case. The software had a flaw in its programming these people did not cheat the machine.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: decca@shaw.ca
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 13:47:11 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Illegality, immorality and cheating

Illegality depends on the specific wording of the appropriate statute. If a statute is poorly written or ambiguous, a defendant may be acquitted even though most people believe that what he did was "illegal".

Immorality depends on one's personal code of ethics. To a vegetarian, eating meat may be immoral. To a meat-eater, not so much.

Cheating may be illegal, immoral or neither. Cheating on one's taxes is illegal but many people don't seem to think it is wrong. Cheating on one's spouse is not illegal, but most people believe it is wrong. Playing vp with a cheat sheet (strategy card) is not illegal and even the casinos don't seem to think that it is wrong.

Nestor and Kane are alleged to have asked the casinos to enable the double-up feature on machines that did not have the feature enabled. The double-up feature was an essential ingredient that allowed them to take advantage of the flaw and reap payouts that were ten times larger than their actual wins. Illegal? Who knows? But it should be no surprise that casinos will do everything in their power to convince the authorities to prosecute anyone who tries to do this.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

To me the man vs. machine morality comes into play. They took advantage of a glich in the program. At least before they went all around the country. I wonder how many of us give back the extra candy bar they get from a machine once in a blue moon; that happens at a less frequent rate than losing your money trying to get a candy from the machine. This is a profound question!

···

To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
From: fryday58@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 23:54:52 +0000
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Illegality, immorality and cheating

Happy mothers day

Adultery Is illegal in many states, just to clarify.
Many of the analogies presented on this topic to test legality or morality fall short in one or multiple areas.
We can only weigh in on whether what these people did is cheating and to the point of is it wrong.
I think everyone will agree that cheating is wrong. However, even this with specific examples will have gray areas, but please let's start simple.
Did these people cheat?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#6

They forced a machine to pay them a win on a wager THEY NEVER MADE. I admit I don't think the machine rules explicitly say that you must place a bet to be paid on a winning hand (maybe it does, I haven't read the help screen in a long time). But I believe an implicit rule in every game of chance is that you won't get paid if you don't place a bet. I cant think of any game where this is not the case. Even in cases of freerolls and freeplay, there are explicit rules to explain how those promotions differ from the implied rule that you will not be paid if you don't make a wager.

If you don't realize that they were getting paid on a wager they never made, consider this. The original $1 hand they played to get quad aces ended as soon as they were paid for them. The double up wager ended as soon as that was resolved. At that point, there are no active bets. Then they select the $10 game and force the machine to pay them for quad aces without ever placing a bet.

There is no difference between this and walking in a casino, seeing that someone had hit quad aces on a machine some time before you got there, and somehow tricking an attendant to pay you for the hand that was left on the screen. If you do not see how what they did is cheating, do you also feel that this is also obviously legitimate?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tim Tucker <smellypuppy@...> wrote:

.Are they cheating? I do not see how that can be the case.

#7

Here's another one up for debate--
is what he did illegal, immoral and/or cheating??

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnstile/phil-ivey-british-casino-embroiled-dispute-over-payment-032520482.html

or http://tinyurl.com/cgsxrcw

Jean H--

The random number generator does not respond
to violence. -Melissa Fine, Strictly Slots

Retirement is like a long vacation in Las Vegas.
The goal is to enjoy it the fullest, but not so fully
that you run out of money. -Jonathan Clements

Life is ten percent what you make it
and ninety percent how you take it!

“I believe in luck: how else can you explain
the success of those you dislike?” —Jean Cocteau

···

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: seedub49 <seedub49@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:59 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

--- In mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com, Tim Tucker <smellypuppy@...> wrote:

.Are they cheating? I do not see how that can be the case.

They forced a machine to pay them a win on a wager THEY NEVER MADE. I admit I don't think the machine rules explicitly say that you must place a bet to be paid on a winning hand (maybe it does, I haven't read the help screen in a long time). But I believe an implicit rule in every game of chance is that you won't get paid if you don't place a bet. I cant think of any game where this is not the case. Even in cases of freerolls and freeplay, there are explicit rules to explain how those promotions differ from the implied rule that you will not be paid if you don't make a wager.

If you don't realize that they were getting paid on a wager they never made, consider this. The original $1 hand they played to get quad aces ended as soon as they were paid for them. The double up wager ended as soon as that was resolved. At that point, there are no active bets. Then they select the $10 game and force the machine to pay them for quad aces without ever placing a bet.

There is no difference between this and walking in a casino, seeing that someone had hit quad aces on a machine some time before you got there, and somehow tricking an attendant to pay you for the hand that was left on the screen. If you do not see how what they did is cheating, do you also feel that this is also obviously legitimate?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#8

This is not cheating. This is no different from Baccarat players at the Golden Nugget or Trump Taj Mahal in AC taking advantage of unshuffled cards put into play by mistake by the casino. It is not the responsibility of the players to protect the casino just as at the poker table it's up to each player to protect their own hands from being exposed to other players.

The Golden Nugget bought Video Poker machines warranted by the manufacturer to be programmed properly. The players pushed buttons on the machine in a manner intended or allowed and the fact that they found a combination of buttons is no different from a player putting together a combination of button pushes on a Nintendo fighting game like Mortal Combat to knock out an opponent. If the casino did not intend for such a combination of button pushes to be allowable they should not have put these machines into play or done a better job of quality control. The casino has recourse for their losses but it's against the game manufacturer not the player.

If anything the casino should be thanking these players for playing these games so aggressively. I would not be surprised if others knew about this weakness and have been milking it, below the radar, for many many years.

#9

For the record, since I could not edit this post, The GN was not the casino in question here. I was just using them as an example because of their previous error in putting unshuffled cards into play and then blaming players for playing them. This is the exact same thing...the fact that the game is electronic should be irrelevant.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpbp2002" <bjbigplayer@...> wrote:

This is not cheating. This is no different from Baccarat players at the Golden Nugget or Trump Taj Mahal in AC taking advantage of unshuffled cards put into play by mistake by the casino. It is not the responsibility of the players to protect the casino just as at the poker table it's up to each player to protect their own hands from being exposed to other players.

The Golden Nugget bought Video Poker machines warranted by the manufacturer to be programmed properly. The players pushed buttons on the machine in a manner intended or allowed and the fact that they found a combination of buttons is no different from a player putting together a combination of button pushes on a Nintendo fighting game like Mortal Combat to knock out an opponent. If the casino did not intend for such a combination of button pushes to be allowable they should not have put these machines into play or done a better job of quality control. The casino has recourse for their losses but it's against the game manufacturer not the player.

If anything the casino should be thanking these players for playing these games so aggressively. I would not be surprised if others knew about this weakness and have been milking it, below the radar, for many many years.

#10

I guess I really don't understand this line of thought and I'm the one missing something here. So by this rationale, if someone steals my car, it is my fault for buying a car that can be hotwired or stolen by whatever means, and I should have done better quality control if i did not intend for my car to be stolen. I should try to recoup my losses from the manufacturer of the car for selling me a car that can be stolen, but the thief should not be prosecuted or in any way held accountable for exploiting the weakness.

Good to know

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpbp2002" <bjbigplayer@...> wrote:

If the casino did not intend for such a combination of button pushes to be allowable they should not have put these machines into play or done a better job of quality control. The casino has recourse for their losses but it's against the game manufacturer not the player.

#11

A casino buys some machines that have buttons that occasionally come unstuck due to a programming glitch. The casino discovers the flaw but decides to leave the machines on the floor because only a few players will take the trouble to call a slot attendant to get a refund when the malfunction occurs.

Is this cheating?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "seedub49" <seedub49@...> wrote:

#12

Sorry, but the "car thief" analogy fails on a key aspect: lack of invitation ...

The car thief has tampered with/hotwired the vehicle -- clearly accessing the vehicle in a manner that isn't normally permitted.

A better analogy would be if you put your car up for sale and permitted someone a test drive ... who then drove it cross country and failed to return (all in the course of "standard" use of the equipment). In this case, your only recourse is with the manufacturer, who failed to protect you from misappropriation of an asset that you permitted someone else to operate.

- H.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpbp2002" <bjbigplayer@> wrote:

> If the casino did not intend for such a combination of button pushes to be allowable they should not have put these machines into play or done a better job of quality control. The casino has recourse for their losses but it's against the game manufacturer not the player.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "seedub49" <seedub49@...> wrote:

I guess I really don't understand this line of thought and I'm the one missing something here. So by this rationale, if someone steals my car, it is my fault for buying a car that can be hotwired or stolen by whatever means, and I should have done better quality control if i did not intend for my car to be stolen. I should try to recoup my losses from the manufacturer of the car for selling me a car that can be stolen, but the thief should not be prosecuted or in any way held accountable for exploiting the weakness.

#13

Manipulating a machine to pay you on bets you never placed is also using it "in a manner that isn't normally permitted."

And regarding someone not returning a car that they took for a test drive, I would have to guess that by breaking the contract terms in which the car was loaned to them, they would also be facing criminal charges of theft.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

Sorry, but the "car thief" analogy fails on a key aspect: lack of invitation ...

The car thief has tampered with/hotwired the vehicle -- clearly accessing the vehicle in a manner that isn't normally permitted.

#14

Please forgive an awkward attempt to invoke a little irony for having obscured my true take here ...

I simply marvel how some find that in essentially having been invited to game, players feel they should be free to walk with whatever they can grab onto, by most any means short of outright deception.

I might have a little empathy if the players didn't have any suspicion that they were engaged in behavior that wouldn't be condoned by the casino (or were at least willing to stand behind that behavior and confront any consequence).

But when the reaction to a machine malfunction is, "Oh f***!", and they abandon the machine with credits on the meter, all bets are off.

- H.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "seedub49" <seedub49@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but the "car thief" analogy fails on a key aspect: lack of invitation ...
>
> The car thief has tampered with/hotwired the vehicle -- clearly accessing the vehicle in a manner that isn't normally permitted.
>

Manipulating a machine to pay you on bets you never placed is also using it "in a manner that isn't normally permitted."

And regarding someone not returning a car that they took for a test drive, I would have to guess that by breaking the contract terms in which the car was loaned to them, they would also be facing criminal charges of theft.

#15

I would consider this cheating. In the help screen, I believe it tells you how to select your cards and draw replacements. If this glitch in effect does not allow you to select what cards you want to hold, it is in violation of the posted rules in the help screen and therefore would be cheating by definition.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Slowpoke" <decca@...> wrote:

A casino buys some machines that have buttons that occasionally come unstuck due to a programming glitch. The casino discovers the flaw but decides to leave the machines on the floor because only a few players will take the trouble to call a slot attendant to get a refund when the malfunction occurs.

Is this cheating?

#16

The machine is not being forced to pay them. They are not making the machine do anything outside of what it is programmed to do. Deceiving an employee is not analogous.

I want to thank everyone for weighing in on this issue. Though I have presented points as if this is a clear cut issue, in reality I have wrestled with what my morality would be if I were in this situation (I doubt I will be in a situation like this) and reading everyone's discussion of this situation has been beneficial.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: seedub49@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 03:59:00 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tim Tucker <smellypuppy@...> wrote:

.Are they cheating? I do not see how that can be the case.

They forced a machine to pay them a win on a wager THEY NEVER MADE. I admit I don't think the machine rules explicitly say that you must place a bet to be paid on a winning hand (maybe it does, I haven't read the help screen in a long time). But I believe an implicit rule in every game of chance is that you won't get paid if you don't place a bet. I cant think of any game where this is not the case. Even in cases of freerolls and freeplay, there are explicit rules to explain how those promotions differ from the implied rule that you will not be paid if you don't make a wager.

#17

Instead of saying:
"They forced a machine to pay them a win on a wager THEY NEVER MADE."

if you prefer, I could say:
"Because of their actions the machine could respond in no other way than to pay them a win on a wager they never made."

I just felt it was easier to say it the first way, and I believe it is an appropriate word choice given the following definitions from merriam-webster.com

force - 3: to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity

logic - 1 c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

necessary - 1 c: determined or produced by the previous condition of things

Which points out that the main difference in what they did and deceiving an employee is that no matter how they attempt to trick the employee, the employee would still have a choice not to pay them, whereas the machine can not do anything else. In my mind that makes what they did an even greater manipulation.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tim Tucker <smellypuppy@...> wrote:

The machine is not being forced to pay them. They are not making the machine do anything outside of what it is programmed to do. Deceiving an employee is not analogous.

#18

Interesting article. I'm not entirely sure yet whether I find it illegal, unethical, and/or cheating, but I intuitively think that how I feel about it would have to factor in that Ivey and his companion had to take an active role in making this possible. Namely, they had to request that the 8s and 9s be turned 180 degrees as well as request that the casino re-use the cards that would have normally been trashed. Also, since they had to assume the casino would not honor their requests if they told the casino why they wanted the cards turned and the cards brought back into play, they misrepresented themselves by saying it was because of superstition. I feel this does make it a different case than when players just happened to notice that the decks were not pre-shuffled correctly in AC. I'm still not sure how that affects my view of the Ivey case, but I definitely think it should come into consideration.

One thing I find fun is speculating on exactly what the casino was thinking. While it is easy (and probably popular on this forum) to just assume the casinos made a boneheaded mistake in honoring those requests, wouldn't it be funny if the casino was working an angle on Ivey while he was working an angle on them?

Obviously the casino found the requests suspicious, or they wouldn't have denied payment. What if a casino suit had decided that they were 100% positive that the gaming laws in London would allow them to get away with not paying Ivey if he won? Then they could have decided that if Ivey had a bad run, they could make millions, while if he won, they wouldn't have to pay him. In that case, they might have decided to honor the requests because they would be on a freeroll for millions.

There's certainly no reason to assume that is the case, but it makes for an interesting story at least.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, K/J Haka <kjhaka@...> wrote:

Here's another one up for debate--
is what he did illegal, immoral and/or cheating??

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnstile/phil-ivey-british-casino-embroiled-dispute-over-payment-032520482.html