Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CCTV Hack Takes Casino For $33 Million

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the ocean's-down-under dept.

Crime 308

iComp writes "A sophisticated scheme to use a casino's own security systems against it has netted scammers $33 million in a high-stakes poker game after they were able to gain a crucial advantage by seeing the opposition's cards. The team used a high-rolling accomplice from overseas who was known to spend large amounts while gambling at Australia's biggest casino, the Crown in Melbourne, according to the Herald Sun. He and his family checked into the Crown and were accommodated in one of its $30,000-a-night villas. The player then joined a private high-stakes poker game in a private suite. At the same time, an unnamed person got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link. Over the course of eight hands the team fleeced the opposition to the tune of $33 million."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Turnabout is fair play. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198075)

Don't really see a problem here. Casinos expolits players every hour every day of the week.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (5, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198095)

the casino only loses it's reputation in this situation. the monetary losers are the ones sitting across from him on the poker table.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198201)

Can you lose that apostrophe?

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198259)

Can you loose that autism?

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (3, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198465)

Can you loose that autism?

"Loose" it on whom? And how?

The House Can Lose The Poker Losses (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198611)

Because the casino's security network was used to perpetrate the cheat, the casino has liability. Also, when cheated players howl, houses have to make up the cheat-losses to proof that they were not partners in the scam. This is one of the reasons casinos pay top-drawer card-sharpers to scan and play, especially where unnatural luck appears, especially against the house, but also for, for public relations.

High-stakes players are of high value to casinos, even in rent-a-table poker games, because the house's collects a percentage of the stakes, just as auctions do of the knock-down (sale) price.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (3, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198713)

So, who lost more? The suckers around the table lost $33M. The casino lost the reputation that convinces people to drop $33M on their poker tables *every single day*. In the long run, I bet this is far more than a $33M loss for the casino: they've just lost their fishing seat next to a billion-dollar-a-year cash river from high rollers.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198715)

There's this thing called civil court...

The house can't lose at poker. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198121)

The house just provides a table to play at and charges based on the bets placed. So the only people fleeced here were the other players.

Re:The house can't lose at poker. (5, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198135)

For big dollar games like this they don't rake based on bets placed, they charge for time- basically they rent you a dealer and the table. Same end result though.

Re:The house can't lose at poker. (1)

bragr (1612015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198249)

Well arguably the game could be shorter/have few hands if one of the players wielded a significant advantages, thus causing the casino to "lose" money. On the other hand, missing out on possible income isn't exactly stealing.

Re:The house can't lose at poker. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198631)

RIAA and MPAA called. They want you to know you're wrong.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (3, Insightful)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198137)

Casinos operate within things called laws. Yes, they have a mathematical edge in the long run, but this is a known factor (and in the UK at least, the long term odds have to be published). What these people did is illegal, meaning it breaks those laws (specifically, the ones about using a "device" to assist you - eg you can count cards if you want, that's perfectly OK, but you can't use a smartphone app to do it). Nobody is forced to go to casinos, and if anybody is seriously surprised that the odds favour the house then they probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a table on the grounds that they don't have sufficient mental faculties to understand what they're doing.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (4, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198305)

It's typically legal to count cards, however the house isn't legally required to let you do so. And that's even if you aren't using mechanical assistance. Typically if they catch you doing it, the pit boss will come over and switch things up, and if that doesn't work they'll eject you from the casino or ask that you not play any more blackjack.

Which is understandable, blackjack only gives the house about a .5% edge over the player with normal play, and counting cards can easily change the house into operating at a loss.

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198361)

I'll never understand that. How are you supposed to play, if not by counting cards on your mind to decide what's your best bet? Just speak nonsense at random times just to see if you win? And how can they know you're counting cards? It's insane.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198421)

The difference is that if you're counting cards, you're varying your bets so that you're betting more when you're more likely to get a good hand and less when you're less likely to.

And yeah, they've got a pretty good idea as to who is and isn't counting cards. The industry puts a ton of money into figuring that out as they can easily lose tons of money to card counters if they don't. Usually, they're looking at things like bet history, rate at which the player is playing and such, often times the pit boss will go over and chat you up if they think you're card counting, to try and distract you a bit.

The only part of the casino where they ever permit people to be profitable without being lucky, is the slots. The slots will have the pay schedule on the front of the machine, and sometimes you find some machines where they're set to pay out more than they take in. They'll usually be up front near the door to try and entice suckers to come and gamble. And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (2, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198591)

Counting cards is useless when they shuffle every half deck in a set of 12 decks

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (1, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198653)

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198693)

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

That's ridiculous. The reason they use multi-deck shoes is to increase the difficulty of counting cards. If they were only dealing with 52, it would be relatively easy for a normal person to count cards according to a simple system and watch as the odds turned for or against them and increase or reduce their bets or change the level at which they stay. Also, if they use 12-deck shoes, it's impossible for a player to determine when the casino isn't playing with full decks.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198705)

Single deck blackjack is the easiest to do card counting with.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198681)

So you can't count to 624?

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198745)

i think it is safe to say that Google Glass won't be allowed in any casino past the front doors

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (5, Informative)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198515)

How can they tell? Because you're winning - and also because of your betting patterns. The original MIT Bringing Down The House guys got rumbled fairly quickly because of their betting patterns, so they switched to using a low-stakes gambler to do the counting who would continue to lose when the odds were in his/her favour, and they would discretely signal an accomplice to come in and bet big when this happened.

These days casinos combat it by using multiple decks of cards in a shoe which are changed before they've run through enough of them to give a good statistical idea of the remaining contents.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198343)

Because it is known how laws protect the consumer.
The legal take of a slot machine is much higher now than it use to be that is the law of greed.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198367)

Hey, how cool would it be to link this to Google Glass?

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198441)

Yes, they have a mathematical edge in the long run

No in poker. The casino doesn't participate.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198275)

How is players exploiting other players turnabout of casinos exploiting players? I'm pretty sure the players at the receiving end in both cases don't see it as fair play.

Re:Turnabout is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198397)

Yeah, except that this right here is "the american dream" lol. You got owned so bad you may as well resign yourselves to a life of dialup in a HD world.

capcha(yeah no shit lol): overseas.

Trolls trolling trolls... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198077)

All that matters is who has the ear of government.

I've always thought that those who don't work for the good of humankind should have the protection and wealth of society denied to them, whether ruthless businessman or idle gambler.

Re:Trolls trolling trolls... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198139)

That sounds awful. Just because you don't like someone's legal (I.e, tolerated by the government) activities doesn't mean that they should lose all protection from the government.

Re:Trolls trolling trolls... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198211)

That's a circular argument. It won't be legal if it's outlawed.

What sounds just awful is a society where anything is tolerated as long as someone's managed to convince someone else that it falls in the realm of the legal fiction that is property law. Private property is a clever compromise and convenience for the efficient management of modern society - but that is all it is. Where it does not benefit society - and we have to remember that all property exists only because at some point the government assigned and regulated ownership - we do not need to acknowledge it.

(This is essentially what already happens in all modern societies. It's just that in some societies the balance of power on who gets property protection is more heavily weighted in favour of or against minority special interests.)

Hmmm (1)

Durandal1979 (1151197) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198081)

Maybe it turns out as Oceans Eleven movie production....

Nice. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198087)

Shame it wasn't against the house.

Re:Nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198149)

Given the choice between risking jail time, and risking time at the bottom of the nearest river, I can see why these people chose regular chumps as their victims.

Re:Nice. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198667)

risking time at the bottom of the nearest river

That explains all those tourists drowning in the yarra.

Take the copyright from the thieves, already now (-1, Troll)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198089)

and not when they are in jail and want to flog them to Hollywood or some newspaper owned by Mr Scam himself, Rupert Murdoch.

Frist post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198103)

Makes you wonder what they were thinking when he past 10 million.

Headline is wrong. (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198107)

It was a private poker game in a private suite. The casino didn't lose $33 million, the other players lost $33 million. The casino made money (they take a cut from every game).

Re:Headline is wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198175)

This. Unless the casino was playing shills.

Re:Headline is wrong. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198183)

> It was a private poker game in a private suite. The casino didn't lose $33 million, the other players lost $33 million. The casino made money (they take a cut from
> every game).

This is so true. I would also add that the Casino might lose $33 million in lawsuits.

Re:Headline is wrong. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198207)

Isn't the casino taking a cut from every game in exchange for guaranteeing fair playing conditions?

Re:Headline is wrong. (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198289)

I seriously doubt they guarantee anything.

Re:Headline is wrong. (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198373)

They probably don't guarantee anything, but in this case their equipment was used to spy on people, causing millions in damage. So I guess the victims could sue them for at least part of their losses.

Re:Headline is wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198399)

So who gets whacked? And by whom?

Re:Headline is wrong. (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198559)

The casino made money (they take a cut from every game).

No. The casino made money from renting the suit, and also made money for renting out the use of the dealer. They did not take a cut from every game

Julia Roberts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198117)

Did Julia Roberts make a sudden, unexpected appearance at the casino?

Er, what? (5, Insightful)

frootcakeuk (638517) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198163)

" got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link" Who's to say the casinos don't do this themselves on a daily basis? The fact that this was possible at all makes me question the frequency of such an 'exploit', and not only that, the fact that the opposing players cards were 'readable by security camera' is something that should worry pretty much everyone

Re:Er, what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198205)

1) They don't need to, since they get a cut anyway
2) They really, really, don't want to get accused of that, as they'll lose business
3) They are routinely audited and will get caught if their take is too high.
4) They really don't need to, since the money is in getting the license and players.

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198229)

> " got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link" Who's to say the casinos
> don't do this themselves on a daily basis? The fact that this was possible at all makes me question the frequency of such an 'exploit', and not only that, the fact
> that the opposing players cards were 'readable by security camera' is something that should worry pretty much everyone

Interesting point but not realistic.

1) They would need a ton on manpower/computing power to watch the cards and signal.
2) Why would casinos need to do this? The casinos already have a edge and all they need is for you to keep playing. In the long run they win.
3) There is no shortage of cameras in a casino, so I am not surprised that they can read your cards, I would be more surprised if they could not read your cards

Re:Er, what? (2)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198773)

2) Why would casinos need to do this? The casinos already have a edge and all they need is for you to keep playing. In the long run they win.

A casino staff is essentially composed of several humans, each of them with a variable amount of greed and honesty. The house might not benefit from the scam, but all it takes is one employee.

Re:Er, what? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198319)

Please name a casino game played against the house in which seeing the players cards can change anything for the house.

I'm pretty sure there isn't one, because having such a thing would only serve as a way for the casino to lose huge amounts of money.

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198337)

http://dictionary.pokerzone.com/House+Player

Re:Er, what? (0)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198415)

Blackjack.

Re:Er, what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198431)

Blackjack.

Ask me how I know you've never stepped foot in a casino in real life.

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198569)

How? The dealer is forced to stay on 17 and hit on 16 and below. Knowing the player's cards makes no difference.

Re:Er, what? (4, Informative)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198685)

In blackjack the rules for how the casino plays is pre-determined. So even if the casino know the players cards it wont affect what happens in a hand. The casino has to act the same way anyhow.

Re:Er, what? (3, Interesting)

citizenr (871508) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198459)

Exactly. Story about CCTV is bullshit, they would need HD cameras pointed a players back at specific angle to even make the cards out.
This leads me to believe Casino security got compromised to the point of someone planting cameras in the room beforehand, maybe even Casino employees being on the scam.

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198511)

Yes, that part is PURE speculation by the press, the summary is rubbish.

Re:Er, what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198473)

Oh no! You don't understand.

The Dollar has been hacked! We're all... doomded.

Put your money into summer squash futures!

[Well... it makes as much sense to say that, as to say bitcoin has been hacked when somebody exploits a security vulnerability in an exchange - doesn't it?]

8 Hands? (1)

dsavage (645882) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198167)

Really... 33 million in 8 hands. Obviously the marks at the table had the cash to lose if they so desired. If I were them, I would be mad at the casino that their security was so weak, but if I'm betting and losing 33mil in eight hands, I'm really going to be more mad at myself. (Let's be realistic though, if I lost $33 in 8 hands I would probably walk away from the table. :-)

Re:8 Hands? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198213)

Really... 33 million in 8 hands. Obviously the marks at the table had the cash to lose if they so desired. If I were them, I would be mad at the casino that their security was so weak, but if I'm betting and losing 33mil in eight hands, I'm really going to be more mad at myself.

(Let's be realistic though, if I lost $33 in 8 hands I would probably walk away from the table. :-)

Depends. Some rich arab asshole probably had half a billion dollars as change money. What's 30 million dollars to lose ? Nothing.

Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hide. (5, Interesting)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198181)

33 mil in eight hands? Wow...more than 4 mil per hand?

I must assume that at least some of the people around the table will have faster and more extreme ways to recover their cash and/or pride than regular law enforcement. Plus the dude was dumb enough to check in with his family?

Hope they live long enough to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Mind you, one could argue that taking 33 mil from people who are clearly prepared to gamble it away is less immoral than mugging a tramp...

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198481)

You'd have to mug a LOT of tramps to net $33 million.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198601)

Not really. His mum is easy and rich.

Re:Astonishing amount to win. He'd better run n hi (3, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198535)

Mind you, one could argue that taking 33 mil from people who are clearly prepared to gamble it away is less immoral than mugging a tramp...

And clearly more profitable.

Do they have proof? (2)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198187)

Do they have proof or are they just bitter they lost so much money and need an excuse to ruin a really good gambler?

Welcome.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198191)

Slashdot....Welcoming you the the world of last weeks news

Re:Welcome.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198691)

Slashdot editors save some stories that were submitted during the week specifically for 'Slow News' Sundays.

Everything that's old is new again ha ha... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198193)

Damn criminals copying Mission Impossible.

oceans 14 (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198209)

sounds like a movie plot.

Back in the old west doing some thing like this got you shot.

Re:oceans 14 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198235)

They had CCTV in the old west??

"Next, on The Varmint Channel: your poker hand."

Re:oceans 14 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198345)

They had CCTV in the old west??

"Next, on The Varmint Channel: your poker hand."

Nope, they had wits and six shooters.

back in the old west cheating at poker got you sho (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198381)

back in the old west cheating at poker got you shot well they did not cheat like this but they did in other ways.

Income desparity much? (3, Insightful)

anarchy_man3 (768249) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198239)

I think the real story here is that a handful of people had $33 Million to blow on a card game while others are dying on the street, and there wasn't a pitch fork and torch wielding rebellion.

Re:Income desparity much? (0, Flamebait)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198281)

Because those 33m were stolen from the people on the street. Childish tribal mentality: I have something and you don't, therefore I owe you a cut, just because.

Re:Income desparity much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198501)

if it was gained honestly? I wouldn't have a problem.

tax evasion is illegal
tax avoidance is MORALLY wrong.

Any money gained in a morally wrong way - is morally right for me to want taken away:)

Look at
Vodafone
HSBC
Google
Facebook

I'd love to know where some of his millions came from. Of course there is a reason why they say there is no such thing as an honest businessman.

Re:Income desparity much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198543)

More childish tribal mentality: I have something and you don't. I won't share at all, not even a little and I'll crow about not sharing it because I'm mean.

Re:Income desparity much? (3, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198303)

This may come as a surprise, but plenty of people (even those in lower income brackets) prefer to not have the government set wages and redistribute income to a great extent... even if it means that some other fellow might be making way more than themselves.

Re: Income desparity much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198313)

I think you have to much money.

Re: Income desparity much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198451)

Perhaps, but at least I don't have too much money.

Re: Income desparity much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198525)

Me too.

Re: Income desparity much? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198615)

I think that "much" is not a verb.

Re:Income desparity much? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198331)

That's hardly news.

Wait, what? (2)

k.a.f. (168896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198245)

Security cameras in casinos are able to resolve the cards that poker players hold in their hands? That sounds like an incredibly obvious attack vector - I'm surprised this hasn't happened previously. (Of course, casino management isn't exactly known for transparency, so probably it has.)

Re:Wait, what? (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198477)

Are we certain that the casino doesn't fix some games? And what they are pissed about is that someone figured out their system and used it for their own gain.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Interesting)

whois (27479) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198491)

I haven't read the article so I'm not sure of the details, but you generally don't need to be able to read all the cards. Lots of cards are distinguishable from each other. An 8 for instance looks nothing like an Ace. A face card can easily be distinguished from a regular card. You could tell if the card was black or red even if you couldn't see the suite.

With Texas holdem and other community card games, it's easier to see the important details. Does he have a pair? Does he have a flush? A straight? An Ace or a face card? You could at least have some confidence of what they don't have.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198523)

No evidence of this, the reporters are just making it up. As you indicate the casino isn't transparent, so they aren't saying anything.

Gambling: (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198317)

Sometimes you're gambling on whether the game is rigged.

But they probably got enough free callgirl visits to ease the pain a bit.

Re:Gambling: (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198383)

In gambling the game is always rigged. The house is always going to win. In poker what you are gambling is your strategies and skill are better than the opponents.

Strategy [nytimes.com] , though is frowned upon in most cases. This, however, goes a bit beyond typical strategy. It does, to me, justify the assertion that poker is not gambling. I think it is crap, but if you can rig the game so you win, by whatever means, then it no longer gambling.

Re:Gambling: (2)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198471)

The house is always going to win. In poker what you are gambling is your strategies and skill are better than the opponents. Strategy [nytimes.com], though is frowned upon in most cases

What is frowned upon? That your strategy is better than the opponents? Not so, it is the only way there is poker. You can't, without cheating, get an edge on your opponent in poker in any other way than skill. Poker isn't, and never was, gambling. It is purely a game of skill.

Re:Gambling: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198743)

It is not a game of skill like Chess or Go.

Where the best player will always win (Over a set of say 20 games likely have the best player drawing all his games with black and winning a few with white).

The element of chance means even the best poker player is likely to lose some games.

33 Million!? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198437)

Why is anyone even allowed to HAVE 33 Million when there are people in this world who don't even have anything to eat?

We have a serious problem with our own race when humans allow other humans to accumulate excessive and unnecessary wealth and resources while allowing other humans to starve to death.

I'm starting to think Karl Marx had it absolutely right. Personally I am fine with allowing certain important people to accumulate more wealth than they need once there is no one left who doesn't have food or shelter or other basic life needs.

But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, _needs_ 33 million dollars... for ANYTHING. It's just outrageous that we even allow it when 90% of the world's population lives in poverty.

Re:33 Million!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198507)

I imagine you are just trolling, but just so you know - the pure communism that Marx has espoused has been shown to be impossible to achieve (as the proles all starve to death). From each... to each... only works when there is an incentive to work hard - and the communism philosophy takes incentive and throws it out the window. More limited "socialist" states like much of the EU can work for longer, but eventually they have the problems that are plaguing Greece, Italy, and now Spain, and eventually France.

Communism failed? (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198593)

Pure communism has been shown impossible? I agree there are some considerable theoretical pitfalls, but that's an extremely bold claim considering that it's never even been *attempted* on a scale beyond monasteries and private households, where it is actually very common and works pretty well. Sure some nations have claimed to be communistic, but if you actually look at the details that was mainly a PR snow job to facilitate a state of "We own everything, and will give you what you need. Trust us."

Re:Communism failed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198771)

Pure communism has been shown impossible? I agree there are some considerable theoretical pitfalls, but that's an extremely bold claim considering that it's never even been *attempted* on a scale beyond monasteries and private households, where it is actually very common and works pretty well. Sure some nations have claimed to be communistic, but if you actually look at the details that was mainly a PR snow job to facilitate a state of "We own everything, and will give you what you need. Trust us."

That's what we here on Earth call a "clue".

Re:33 Million!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198651)

But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, _needs_ 33 million dollars... for ANYTHING. It's just outrageous that we even allow it when 90% of the world's population lives in poverty.

Dude, do you have any idea what a Gulfstream jet costs?

Or a nice house in New York, one in London, one in Nevis...

First rule of poker (3, Insightful)

trout007 (975317) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198455)

Protect your cards.

They did it wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43198583)

Consistently winning is a sure sign of cheating. They could have pulled the same thing and gotten away with it if they had strategically lost some hands, but kept winning enough to stay in the game and eventually win. Also, if you pull something like this off, you don't stick around... even the MIT students who were cheating were stupid enough to keep going back...

Can someone say FIREWALL? (1)

CPNABEND (742114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198625)

Assuming the casino had a basic firewall for outside of the hotel access, I am thinking the accomplice may have been in a room in the hotel. If that were the case... How could they not have a separate firewall to protect the CCTV feeds? It would seem to me the CCTV should have stand-alone servers and a stand-alone firewall. That being said, I would like to meet the intruder. I have a business proposition for him :-)

Backdoors Will be Used (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43198719)

I am surprised that no one has commented on the fact that this is another case of a backdoor that was intended for the use of whitehats being commandeered by blackhats. When you build backdoors into systems you weaken security.

Another, really amazing story along those lines is the cell-phone wire-tapping of greece [ieee.org] during the months before the last olympics games in athens. The system was designed with a wire-tapping backdoor, greece didn't even purchase that feature when they bought the switches, but the blackhats were able to turn it on and listen in to the phone calls of the mayor of athens and the prime minister of greece.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?