Beating Roulette With Computers & Lasers 219
MeerCat writes "The BBC are reporting that a group of gamblers who won more than £1m at the Ritz Casino by using laser technology have been told by police they can keep their winnings.
A laser scanner linked to a computer was allegedly used to gauge numbers likely to come up on the roulette wheel.
Of course this could be Labour spin to try and get people excited about the idea of cheating at mega casinos"
Labour spin? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Though recently they backed off from the idea by reducing the number of initial casinos to about six (I cant remember the original number) as there are fears here that they'd cause more crime and more poverty in the surrounding area due to the envitable rise in gambling addiction.
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would mega-casinos cause gambling addction to rise in the UK? . . . a country where there are bingo parlors, casinos, slot machines and bookmakers (bookies for you yanks) already legal and seemingly found throughout the country.
Are we somehow to assume that the siren's call of a megacasino is somehow more compelling than that of the bookmaker and bingo parlor located round the corner?
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every bar has a few video lottery terminals in the back and they are very accessable for people to use day to day. Rather than going to a big mega casino which usually requires a special trip its right there. And thus it the VLT's are easy to get addicted to.
I've only ever used them once, I put in $2 and pulled out $2
Not to be negative, (Score:2, Interesting)
It's the few people who win at casinos that give the rest hope.
Re:Not to be negative, (Score:2)
People don't need to hear other people's sucess stories to get hooked on anything. Trust me.
Re:Not to be negative, (Score:2)
Yeah, but if they hear alot of failure stories they're more likely to be discouraged from doing it in the first place.
Re:Not to be negative, (Score:2)
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:2)
However, saying that this report is Labour spin is like saying that reports on suicide bombings in Iraq are 'Democratic spin'. It's not, it's news.
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Gambling in casino's in the UK is restricted to private casinos, where you have to register as a member 24 hours before being allowed to make any bets. There are betting shops (bookies) which allow people to make bets on races, but they have to keep the inside of the shop obscured (usually by posters) to avoid anyone falling to temptation. Many pubs and nightclubs have the odd slot machine (fruit machine) with the spinning reels, but they don't really rake in more than maybe 300 pounds a week, and have to have the theme changed every 4-5 weeks, otherwise the punters lose interest. There's also the traditional beach arcades, where you could play various skill games for a pound coin.
The Labour party was caught out with some dodgy visits to and from the Los Vegas casino owners, over the "tightening of gambling laws". The argument goes that since the Internet is allowing people to gamble from home or work, they need new legislation to ban the slot machines from pubs/night clubs, and that these should be replaced by dozens of new super-casinos able to set up all across the UK, especially in deprived areas. The Labour party spin is that this would allow the average UK member of the public to share in the glamour of high society gambling (image of men in tuxedo's and women in elegant evening gowns), although in reality the casinos would simply have hundreds of electronic slot machines linked up for national prizes.
Given the land shortage in the UK, there are far more practical uses for regenerated industrial sites. These include health and fitness centres, shopping malls, conference centres, office blocks, mixed-income housing, with casinos right at the bottom of the list. Especially since there is no real public demand for more casinos.
And there is also a growing public suspicion that New Labour seems to disregard anyone or any business who atttempts to earn a basic living (let alone make a fortune) from honest hard work, but is only interested in people who are prepared to recklessly gamble their own money eg. the obsession with getting "young people" to become entrepeneurs, or getting experienced senior managers to remortgage their homes in order to set up their own companies, or having multi-millionaires buy out companies with declining sales, and simply rebrand everyone and everything with uniforms and company logos.
Re:Labour spin? Huh? (Score:2)
As for regeneration, that all depends on where it is. There is a damn good rege
Problems with land shortage in the UK? (Score:2)
Revenue for the government (Score:2)
Can somebody tell me what this means? Why would Labour (which I assume to mean the UK Labour Party) want to get people excited about cheating at mega casinos?
On one hand, any publicity is good publicity. But more specifically, letting these people keep the money may give the average person the impression that maybe they can try their hand at a laser-roulette scam, or perhaps maybe a card coun
Of course no law was broken! (Score:5, Funny)
"No more bets... And the number is 7... ZAP! I mean 19... ZAP! I mean 22... ZAP! I mean 13... ZAP! I mean 3... The winner is 3! You win again."
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask anyone who's worked in the "gaming" industry. There are NO winners. Sure, the occasional jackpot or lucky player, but that's just advertising.
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:2)
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:5, Informative)
When visiting Las Vegas, I always end up in the back where the high stakes poker tables are. You pay the rake to the casino and unload thick wads of money from other "unsuspecting" tourists who have seen poker on TV
Clarification of 100+% games... (Score:4, Informative)
Many casinos run games like poker, where you play against the other *players*, not the house. The house still wins, because they take a rake off the top. The players (in aggregate) still lose, because the house ends up with more money than it started with...
However, any individual player can consistently win, and Vegas doesn't care - he's taking money from other players, not the house.
(That said, there are some slots that give >100% return. Just not many.)
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:3, Informative)
Face it, anyone who gambles in a casino "to win" is a mug. Although the odds are a bit better than lottery, so are the stakes.
Two exceptions: Poker, where you're trying to find bigger mugs than yourself, and blackjack, where you can theoretically get an edge on the house. In practice, it's difficult, tedious, and a career that will be terminated as soon as you get successful.
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:2)
That's not completely true. Roulette wheels have a 0 and sometimes a 00 on them to skew things slightly in favour of the casino. Your point still stands though. The odds aren't horrible and you can win a bit of money in the short term.
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:2)
Statistically, no matter how you play, the house eventually wins at roulette.
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:3, Interesting)
Statistics only work reliably over long periods of time. Let's say you roll a 12 sided die. Each side has a 1 in 12 chance of coming up. Now let's say that 1-5 represent black, 6 and 7 represent 0 and 00, and 8-12 represent red. The odds are even more against you than in roulette, but it's still quite possible to win 3 or 4 times in a row and then quit.
Overall the house still wins and it's more likely to win than you but it's no
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:5, Informative)
Betting on one number has 1 way to win, but 36 ways to lose. But the house pays odds as though you had a 1-in-36 chance of winning, not 1-in-37. So, the house has an advantage over you - in the long term average, they pay out $36 for every $37 they take back. You can easily work out mathematically that all the other bets (ie, splitting a chip across 2 adjacent numbers etc) work out to exactly the same house advantage. (it's about 2.7% or something)
In fact, short of actually using technology to predict the outcome or to affect the outcome of the spin, there is NO betting scheme, algorithm, pattern or method of placing bets on a roulette wheel that leads to any difference in the house's advantage over you.
You are absolutely correct, however, in your assertion in that you must know when to walk away with your winnings. An even more important skill is to know when to walk away after losing.
(In the USA, the presence of the '00' on the wheel actually doubles the house advantage again)
And finally, a corollary to your assertion that you have won hundreds of dollars at roulette: You have also, on other occasions, lost hundreds of dollars at it.
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:2)
In fact, short of actually using technology to predict the outcome or to affect the outcome of the spin, there is NO betting scheme, algorithm, pattern or method of placing bets on a roulette wheel that leads to any difference in the house's advantage over you.
Sure there is. The five-number bet (only available in the US) gives the house an extra 2% or so of your cash, compared to the other bets.
Re:Of course no law was broken! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Nevada state courts ordered a casino to pay [findlaw.com] a card counter who won a small pile of cash there, which the casino had refused to pay. That pretty much sums up the legality, I believe.
Wrong! (Score:2)
In the U.S. it's illegal to use and sort of electronic computer to 'assist' with casino gambling. The law's main purpose is to prevent card counters from using digital devices to help keep track of which cards have been played, but the law would certainly cover this sort of thing as well.
Re:Of course no law was broken!-Broken Spirit. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a game of chance, yes, however, saying "it's not fair to those not similarly equipped" is irrelevant. You are not competing against other players at the table in any way. You winning or not has no effect on their ability to play, or to win. You are competing against the casino.
The "spirit" of the game is guessing what's going to come up next based on the information available to you and everyone else at the table. If I am smarter than the guy next to me, is that an unfair advantage? If I count cards at blackjack, is that "unfair"? (No, it's not, but will likely get me asked to not play blackjack anymore at that particular casino)
This is not about fairness or anyhting like that, it's purely about profit. Odds are in favor of the house. This device shifts the odds in favor of the players, therefore, the casinos cannot afford to operate the game if these devices are permitted on the premesis. Plain and simple. The same reason they do not allow card counters to play blackjack for too long, becuase they would continuously lose money.
If there was no law on the books against this, then rightly so they should walk away with the money. The casino should do more to protect itself from this.
Re:Of course no law was broken!-Broken Spirit. (Score:2)
Re:Of course no law was broken!-Broken Spirit. (Score:2)
You sound like someone yearning for the "good old days". they never existed, tough guy, never ever.
Re:Of course no law was broken!-Broken Spirit. (Score:2)
Others... (Score:2)
Previous Article (Score:3, Informative)
Roulette Scam [slashdot.org]
Amazing that they did get to keep the cash, at least slashdot kept up on a story for once.
Re:Previous Article (Score:4, Funny)
yea, like that SCO story. slashdot really dropped the ball on that one.
U.K. Gambling perceptions (Score:2, Interesting)
The truth is there are slots machines in tons of roadside stops, sports betting shops (ladbrokes, etc) on busy corners, and national lottery ads [adverts] pervasive on t.v.
Re:U.K. Gambling perceptions (Score:2)
I think its about who'll run them, not of the consequences. The Las Vegas casinos were the ones who started this bill in the UK, and so itll be them who'll get the money.
Most people are seeing that the money will flow out of the UK areas and leaving behind increased crime, poverty and more gambling addicts.
Re:U.K. Gambling perceptions (Score:2)
Re:U.K. Gambling perceptions-Math Failures. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't have an intuitive knowledge of odds calculations, you will likely do poorly at poker, because 'knowing' what your opponents could have, and luring them into betting when *you* know they have a much lower chance of winning than you is the best path to winning.
more facts in hungarian press (Score:2)
check my old comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101 9 59&cid=869 1466
"
Actually their said one beutyful girl was from Hungary with two serb guys. They said they used a mobile-shaped laser-scanning device, but they don't know if it is prohibited.
http://index.hu/tech/tudomany/ritz040323/
in hungarian.
Later they said, that this device cannot exist, as such a device would be least a pc large and needs a calibration of some hours and at least NASA technique to make it.
So at last, they said, that th
Cheating? Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is a portion of the population that think that casinos are stupid waste of time because the odds say that the players CAN'T win.
"Well... time to put a stop to that! Let's tell these smarties that very smart people that study the roulette wheel a lot can predict where the ball will land with some kind of accuracy. We'll suggest that people can tilt the odds in their favor! Haha!
"But we all know that the steps to winning are:
1. Get out casino mentioned in the news and in faux "cheating vegas" documentaries.
2. Encourage these smarties to get themselves to the casino and play some roulette. Those smarties will think they are "honing their predictive capabilities."
3. Profit!
Heck, it worked for Blackjack... let's get them into roulette too!
Re:Cheating? Bah! (Score:2)
Re:Cheating? Bah! (Score:2)
Once casinos catch on to a particular form of cheating, they obviously close down on it. That's why there are multi-deck shoes for dealing blackjack, and huge amounts of video and radio detection equipment and facial recognition tech in the pit in the first place. But there always have been cheats (or rather creative individuals) that fi
Not the first to try (Score:5, Informative)
see
The Eudaemonic Pie [thomasbass.com]
or "The Newtonian Casino" as the UK print was called
Eudaemonic Pie (light spoiler) (Score:2)
Getting banned (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
No, just most of the time. If players never won, the casino would soon find itself out of patrons. They need to have a few BIG winners, and a somewhat larger number of very small winners, and a larger number of losers.
51%(house)-49%(players) is enough, given enough volume. I've seen this sign "Our slots pay 98%!" That means they keep 2% overall.
Those flashing lights and bells when you win are there to generate desire to win. "Hey...he did it..maybe I can." And sometimes someone does.
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
Also, a 100% payoff doesn't mean you get 100% back, it means that for every dollar that goes in, someone gets a dollar back (usually it ends up in the jackpot)
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
The trick is you both winning (Score:2)
So an individual can win and casino's even like that. It makes the rest of
Re:Getting banned (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
Re:Getting banned (Score:2)
With 430K sterling you could buy a major
clothing factory in Vietnam and retire on its
profits.
A slightly more detailed article (Score:5, Informative)
And some theory [newscientist.com] behind it from the previous slashdot article.
This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:4, Interesting)
If it is possible to win by detecting non-randomness then the wheel, or the process for using it, is bent.
My main objection to casinos is not that they provide a place for gambling - people will do this, and it is probably better that they do this in a way subject to some sort of regulation - but that reported incidents suggest they do not run fair games, and that the stacking of the odds on e.g. fruit machines is probably intended to fuel gambling addiction. It's like the alcohol industry producing alcoholic fruit drinks to get kids hooked, or just about any strategy of the tobacco industry. If the casino gets caught by someone using statistical analysis, the law should not protect them from their own dishonesty.
Re:This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:2)
Shhhh! They did, it's called the 0. (you did actually reference it also)
Re:This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:2)
Re:This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:2)
Re:This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:5, Informative)
Your preception of what they did is wrong. What makes the roulette wheel work is that no one, with the naked eye, can measure the initial conditions well enough to predict the outcome. From the articles discussed in various links, the group apparently used a laser to measure spin rate and other variables when the roullette wheel was set in motion. Then a computer estimated the final position of the ball. They had a brief window in which to do this. Bets must be placed before the wheel spins three times. If the reports are true, they could do this on a completely fair wheel.
In other words, they were NOT looking at long term averages and saying, for this wheel, the ball lands an unusual number of times on 6. They were looking at the initial conditions of the spin and used to physics to say on the spin, the ball will likely land here. They reduced the odds from 1 in 32 to 1 in 6.
Re:This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:2)
Now _this_ is the most admirable feat I'v heard of in a long time..!
Kudos to the team that managed to do somthing like this
This is money well earnt!
Re:This is probably pure ignorance but (Score:3, Informative)
It's been done, against the house! I remember reading about an engineer that used the non-random aspect of the real-world imperfect table to locate a table within the casino that had a bias. He used this and may have broken the bank.
Jeez, just googled for it, found it! From this [thegoodgam...uide.co.uk] page:
Read the "Eudaemonic Pie" by Thomas Bass (Score:2, Informative)
Now if only .... (Score:3, Funny)
My opinion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Was it fair? No. But it's theirs now.
Spin (Score:3, Funny)
Of course this could be Labour spin...
Spin. Roulette. Heh.
THis is so sweet!! (Score:3, Interesting)
They let cheaters keep the money??? (Score:2, Interesting)
These are cheaters, plain and simple. Why would we think them any different?
Re:They let cheaters keep the money??? (Score:2, Insightful)
The goal of roulette is to try to guess where the ball will land, and to bet accordingly. These people simply used technology to make better guesses than everyone else.
There is a huge difference between people who break the rules, and people who exploit a loophole in the rules.
If the rules clearly stated (like the do in Nevada) that you cannot use electronic devices to predict the outcome of a game, then they would be cheating. But if there is no rule about it, t
Warning!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Now do this with a stock camera phone (Score:4, Interesting)
It has to find and register the wheel, which is an object of known form. Lane Hawk [evolution.com] could do this. It then has to find and track the ball, which is not too hard (try the Lucas-Kanade feature tracker in OpenCV) and extract position and velocity. Given that information, prediction is possible.
Now that 3D game capability is going into camera phones, there's enough processing power in phones to consider this. It can all be done with passive sensors. You don't need lasers.
Re:Now do this with a stock camera phone (Score:2)
Online Casinos (Score:2)
I'm in the Gaming Business right now (Score:3, Informative)
A wheel dealer with about 1-2 years experience, is generally good enough to hit quadrants (groups of 9 #'s) and sectors (groups of 6 #'s). The casino I work for wants about a spin every 90 seconds under a full table (12 players). If you are a dealing during busy hours all the time (evenings) that is still 1200 spins a week.
I know of 2 dealers, each with about 10 years of experience, that are capable of hitting numbers about 1/3 times.
Remember to tip your dealer. We are more than happpy to give away the casino's money if you help us too.
If you are cheap asshole, don't be surprised when they change out dealers on you. All of a sudden your numbers stop hitting, (anything you play will stop hitting).
Interesting note, The board ( the display of the numbers that have come up in the last 10-15 spins) is ranked the biggest improvement in gambling technology in 20 years by most casinoes.
"Oh, number is going to hit next"
Suckers love flashing, colorful lights. (Slots fall here too)
The roulette table has no memory, each spin is a new event.
Oh, the stories I could tell after only 6 monthes, I really have a bad out look on the human race as whole from these experiences.
It is fun to play a game that you are statically stacked to win for 8 hours a day! If I don't like you , I take your money.
Re:MIT (Score:5, Informative)
The famous MIT story is that teams didn't use any kinds of computers. You don't need to use computers to beat blackjack either. But they did get kicked out of casinos since they're private property and they dont like cardcounting. The fact it's legal is irrelevant.
Re:MIT (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MIT (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MIT (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though they are fined by the feds for not paying out they just eat the fines and come out on top anyways.
I spent a part of my collegiate career at that casino since it was right down the road
--J
UCSC, not MIT (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MIT (Score:2)
I am one of the few around here old enough to remember Maxwell Smart the TV detective.
I don't think that's true at all. Or else I'm suddenly feeling very old!
Re:Didn't break the law! (Score:2, Funny)
white coat stuff and funny glasses?
Re:Didn't break the law! (Score:5, Insightful)
They probably did break casino rules, and they have almost certainly been banned from going back. But, that doesn't mean they broke the law.
Re:Didn't break the law! (Score:2, Insightful)
oh, america.
Re:Didn't break the law! (Score:2)
Funny how you can say something completely moronic and it gets modded down, but if you mention RIAA you're suddenly "insightful".
Re:Didn't break the law! (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this would have been against the law in Vegas.
Re:Didn't break the law! (Score:3, Informative)
rj
Re:lasers! (Score:2)
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Funny)
Oh... wait.
"Hermit" crab?
Never mind...
Re:Idea for a Casino Royale Modern Update Scene (Score:2)
Bond: I hardly think I'll need to know about that, Q.
Re:Idea for a Casino Royale Modern Update Scene (Score:2)
Re:Dabo!!! (Score:2)
Re:I want one (Score:2)
Re:Magnets (Score:2)
The house already has an edge on the odds...no need to influence the wheel more. Just ban electronic prediction methods. And being a private business, they can do that.