TheLastCylon
Banned User - violation of rule 1.19
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
Continued from this thread.
That's one of my ultimate points. No court would ever allow that violating the T&Cs automatically translates into a criminal violation. The law is a bad law, but courts aren't stupid. Well, sometimes they are stupid, but they certainly will protect their turf when it comes to determining what is and isn't a law.
The two examples you cited are both active. And while it does not limit it, if we assume a nebulous definition of "cheat," we're left in the situation of casino's writing laws with their T&Cs. Again, no court would accept that. Many casinos ban pattern betting, and we know beyond doubt that that is not cheating.
Basically, the point of this very discussion is to analyze what cheating means. In colloquial terms, cheating could mean violating the T&Cs, even though I don't accept that, but I'm primarily concerned with what constitutes criminal cheating.
How does it alter the game? How does needing sleep matter at all? Unless we are talking about tournaments where total bets are what determines the ends, that doesn't matter. And even in that situation, I would argue that calling it criminal cheating is a huge stretch. And again, it doesn't matter if something is banned from the game. No court would ever accept that violating the T&Cs necessarily constitutes a criminal offense.
As I was writing this, I realized that there is a theoretical situation that would almost undoubtedly count as cheating. The colluding players could combine their knowledge of all their hands in an attempt to determine the probability that a single "mark" has certain cards. This would be most acutely a problem with a limited number of decks in a shoe, and most online casinos operate with as many as ten decks in a shoe. Still, as has been determined, it doesn't matter if the actions of the cheaters actually increase the odds in their favor. All that matters is the intent.
So on this point I concede: poker collusion is probably classifiable as criminal cheating.
it is not my fault that the UK government has drafted their gambling cheating laws so broadly that it is (almost) possible to claim that any breach of Ts and Cs is an offence. There does need to be an attempt to gain unfair advantage but that is it. Break the Ts and Cs and try to make money (even if you lose) is an offence. The law is hugely broad and relatively undefined via case law.
That's one of my ultimate points. No court would ever allow that violating the T&Cs automatically translates into a criminal violation. The law is a bad law, but courts aren't stupid. Well, sometimes they are stupid, but they certainly will protect their turf when it comes to determining what is and isn't a law.
No. The case law shows that cheating can be very passive - just being told by your captain to bowl a no ball or starting a dog race 2 mins early is an offence. The result does not need to be altered. The law says that just trying to cheat is an offence - the clause you refer to (3) specifically says that it does not limit that general offence in clause 1.
The two examples you cited are both active. And while it does not limit it, if we assume a nebulous definition of "cheat," we're left in the situation of casino's writing laws with their T&Cs. Again, no court would accept that. Many casinos ban pattern betting, and we know beyond doubt that that is not cheating.
Basically, the point of this very discussion is to analyze what cheating means. In colloquial terms, cheating could mean violating the T&Cs, even though I don't accept that, but I'm primarily concerned with what constitutes criminal cheating.
A poker bot fundamentally alters the game. You are betting against an automation not a person, they cannot tire, their programming never steps outside what it considers correct AND IT IS BANNED FROM THE GAME. It is cheating.
How does it alter the game? How does needing sleep matter at all? Unless we are talking about tournaments where total bets are what determines the ends, that doesn't matter. And even in that situation, I would argue that calling it criminal cheating is a huge stretch. And again, it doesn't matter if something is banned from the game. No court would ever accept that violating the T&Cs necessarily constitutes a criminal offense.
As for collusion and poker - stud games where knowledge of the cards dealt makes a huge difference is the No1 problem, cooperating in sit and go/MTT tournaments by raising and re-raising to force non colluders out comes second and chip dumping in tournaments to help players hit the top prizes comes a distant third. Chip dumping in cash games for money laundering is both uncommon and unrelated to cheating in games vs other players. It is not collusion in terms of the game.
As I was writing this, I realized that there is a theoretical situation that would almost undoubtedly count as cheating. The colluding players could combine their knowledge of all their hands in an attempt to determine the probability that a single "mark" has certain cards. This would be most acutely a problem with a limited number of decks in a shoe, and most online casinos operate with as many as ten decks in a shoe. Still, as has been determined, it doesn't matter if the actions of the cheaters actually increase the odds in their favor. All that matters is the intent.
So on this point I concede: poker collusion is probably classifiable as criminal cheating.