Objective proof?

[MisterV]

There's "the law" and then there is "morality."

Unless conduct is specifically proscribed by statute there will be no successful prosecution, as how can one be charged for violating a law if the law does not fit the facts?

Murder wasn't illegal until society specifically made it so; should be the same with this type of "sharp play."

[regnis]

NRS 205.0832(c), a person is also guilty of theft if they obtain goods or services from another person by a “material misrepresentation” with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the goods or services. A material misrepresentation is defined as the use of any pretense, promise, representation or statement of a present, past or future fact that is fraudulent and was instrumental in causing the wrongful transfer the property or services.

Additionally, a person is also guilty of theft if they come across lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another person under circumstances that would have allowed them to at least inquire about the rightful owner of the property, but they instead keep the property without making reasonable efforts to notify the true owner (NRS 205.0832(d)).




NRS 205.0832, a person commits theft when they knowingly:

Control someone else’s property with the intent to deprive that person of the property;
Convert, make an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or without authorization controls any property of another person, or uses the services or property of another person entrusted to him or her or place in his or her possession for a limited, authorized period of determined or prescribed duration or for a limited use;
Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services of another person by a material misrepresentation with the intent to deprive that person of the property or services;
Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another person under circumstances that would have allowed the person to find the true owner, but instead takes the property for his or her own use or that of another person’s use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner;
Controls property of another person knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen;
Obtains services, including, without limitation, audio or visual services, or parts products or other items related to such services which the person knows or, in the case of audio or visual services, should have know are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation or diverts the services of another person to his or her own benefit or that of another person without lawful authority to do so;
Takes, destroys, conceals or disposes of property in which another person has a security interest, with intent to defraud that person;
Commits any act that is declared to be theft by a specific statute;
Draws or passes a check, and in exchange obtains property or services, if the person knows that the check will not be paid when presented;
Obtains gasoline or other fuel or automotive products which are available only for compensation, without paying or agreeing to pay compensation.

I can't find anything in the definition of "Theft" that the Dub Bug would equate to.

[MisterV]

I can't find anything in the definition of "Theft" that the Dub Bug would equate to.

Nope, ain't there.

But yeah, this clearly shows it is illegal in Nevada to keep chips found on the casino floor or credits left by someone else in a slot.

As an aside: i never did read the follow up to the DUB story as it relates to the cause of the problem, IGT: what if anything did they do to compensate the casinos for all the monety the casinos lost due to the failure of IGT to proerly code the game"

Did the casinos seek recompense, and if so what happened, and if not why not?

Frankly I'd be shocked if the bean counters in the executive suites didn't become apoplectic over this and sue IGT.

[Alan Mendelson]

What if only three people played the DUB? Or, only 2? IGT wouldn't have that much liability.

In fact I've heard only two or three people who played the DUB.

Has anyone else heard of anyone using the DUB?

[monet]

What if only three people played the DUB? Or, only 2? IGT wouldn't have that much liability.

In fact I've heard only two or three people who played the DUB.

Has anyone else heard of anyone using the DUB?

I use the DUB all the time.
Today I'm going to double up with the Nordiques -1.5 -120
I don't even want to get into how much I crushed the book for last week with the double up bug.
Let's just say that when all NHL Teams constantly cover the Puck Line and the Dodgers cover the Run Line 7 games in a row... I win.
I couldn't even brag about the amount that I won on this site since I was too scared to post over 50 win tickets.
800, 800, 800, 900, 900, 900 Parlay... Parlay.... Parlay... RIP
Interesting Note about Circa Sports Book Kiosk...
You can't bet a ticket that will win over 1000 dollars but you can print tickets as fast as you can push the button and feed the bill validator if the win amount is under 1000 dollars.

[regnis]

Monet-over the last year or two you got me re-interested in betting hockey. Years ago you couldn't lay the 1 1/2. But lately the favs just keep winning and covering the 1 1/2. I keep thinking it has to stop. I guess it will once the playoffs start. But it is kind of fun right now. No skill required!!!

[monet]

Monet-over the last year or two you got me re-interested in betting hockey. Years ago you couldn't lay the 1 1/2. But lately the favs just keep winning and covering the 1 1/2. I keep thinking it has to stop. I guess it will once the playoffs start. But it is kind of fun right now. No skill required!!!

Funny you bring this up again.
The Evil Empire, Boyd Gaming, is now forcing large favorites to lay 2.5 goals when betting the Puck Line.
Obviously they are hip.
I hope this doesn't catch on.

[kewlJ]

And lately quite a few of the wins have been an empty net goal. I had one last week that was an empty net goal with 1 second left that that covered. That was fun.

[redietz]

NRS 205.0832(c), a person is also guilty of theft if they obtain goods or services from another person by a “material misrepresentation” with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the goods or services. A material misrepresentation is defined as the use of any pretense, promise, representation or statement of a present, past or future fact that is fraudulent and was instrumental in causing the wrongful transfer the property or services.

Additionally, a person is also guilty of theft if they come across lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another person under circumstances that would have allowed them to at least inquire about the rightful owner of the property, but they instead keep the property without making reasonable efforts to notify the true owner (NRS 205.0832(d)).




NRS 205.0832, a person commits theft when they knowingly:

Control someone else’s property with the intent to deprive that person of the property;
Convert, make an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or without authorization controls any property of another person, or uses the services or property of another person entrusted to him or her or place in his or her possession for a limited, authorized period of determined or prescribed duration or for a limited use;
Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services of another person by a material misrepresentation with the intent to deprive that person of the property or services;
Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another person under circumstances that would have allowed the person to find the true owner, but instead takes the property for his or her own use or that of another person’s use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner;
Controls property of another person knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen;
Obtains services, including, without limitation, audio or visual services, or parts products or other items related to such services which the person knows or, in the case of audio or visual services, should have know are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation or diverts the services of another person to his or her own benefit or that of another person without lawful authority to do so;
Takes, destroys, conceals or disposes of property in which another person has a security interest, with intent to defraud that person;
Commits any act that is declared to be theft by a specific statute;
Draws or passes a check, and in exchange obtains property or services, if the person knows that the check will not be paid when presented;
Obtains gasoline or other fuel or automotive products which are available only for compensation, without paying or agreeing to pay compensation.

I can't find anything in the definition of "Theft" that the Dub Bug would equate to.

Here's my question, regnis and MrV and Alan (whose father had legal training): Is there any legal difference between a person making an "error" and a machine making an "error" that screws the house out of money?

[MisterV]

Here's my question, regnis and MrV and Alan (whose father had legal training): Is there any legal difference between a person making an "error" and a machine making an "error" that screws the house out of money?

The state has to show criminal intent, aka scienter, to convict for theft.

So, if you didn't know and won then no, you're fine.

As for IGT, there is no criminal liability as they did not know of the DUB when they marketed and placed it with the casinos.

I do however see possible civil liablity on IGT due to their negligence in not catching the DUB.

[redietz]

Here's my question, regnis and MrV and Alan (whose father had legal training): Is there any legal difference between a person making an "error" and a machine making an "error" that screws the house out of money?

The state has to show criminal intent, aka scienter, to convict for theft.

So, if you didn't know and won then no, you're fine.

As for IGT, there is no criminal liability as they did not know of the DUB when they marketed and placed it with the casinos.

I do however see possible civil liablity on IGT due to their negligence in not catching the DUB.

Well, here's what I'm getting at. If a programmer or team of programmers did not purposefully create the double up opportunity, that's one thing, but I'm not sure how you could prove it was not purposeful. If they did design it purposefully, wouldn't IGT hide any evidence to that effect so they could shield themselves from liability? No matter what, the IGT storyline will be that it was an accident of design. I have to think that IGT fostering programmers who purposefully designed it carries more liability than IGT just being stupid. Or am I wrong on that?

[Alan Mendelson]

Is it correct to say that a computer cant make mistakes such as the DUB and so a person or persons are responsible?

[MisterV]

Were it proven that IGT deliberately installed the DUB in their machines then yes, there would be hell to pay, but ask yourself this: Why would they deliberately do so?

What would be in it for them?

I can see zero benefit to them under any such scenario, so no, I believe that IGT didn't authorize it.

That possibility seems so unlikely as to be nearly impossible.

But yes, a crooked IGT programmer could do this, and if he did and it damaged casinos then IGT could be liable even though they did not authorize it.

To determine whether it was purposeful, look no further than human nature: if a programmer did it on purpose he would want to exploit it, and there is a dearth of such evidence.

As for whether there would be greater liability for IGT if they knowingly installed the DUB, I suppose it depends on whether Nevada allows the assessment of punitive damages in addition to actual damages.

Me, I am of the opinion it was an unintended programming error, based upon what I have read to date.

[Alan Mendelson]

With so many UNRELATED steps how could it have been accidental?

I'm just guessing here but I think an employee had to do it. Maybe as a joke? Maybe as part of a threat? Maybe as employee insurance?

An "accident" would be like pressing the 50-cent denomination but getting $2 instead.

But with the contrived steps how could it be accidental?

[redietz]

Were it proven that IGT deliberately installed the DUB in their machines then yes, there would be hell to pay, but ask yourself this: Why would they deliberately do so?

What would be in it for them?

I can see zero benefit to them under any such scenario, so no, I believe that IGT didn't authorize it.

That possibility seems so unlikely as to be nearly impossible.

But yes, a crooked IGT programmer could do this, and if he did and it damaged casinos then IGT could be liable even though they did not authorize it.

To determine whether it was purposeful, look no further than human nature: if a programmer did it on purpose he would want to exploit it, and there is a dearth of such evidence.

As for whether there would be greater liability for IGT if they knowingly installed the DUB, I suppose it depends on whether Nevada allows the assessment of punitive damages in addition to actual damages.

Me, I am of the opinion it was an unintended programming error, based upon what I have read to date.

MrV, I'm not suggesting IGT as an entity knew about it. I'm saying that if programmers were caught having done it, IGT would keep it quiet.

[smurgerburger]

With so many UNRELATED steps how could it have been accidental?

I'm just guessing here but I think an employee had to do it. Maybe as a joke? Maybe as part of a threat? Maybe as employee insurance?

An "accident" would be like pressing the 50-cent denomination but getting $2 instead.

But with the contrived steps how could it be accidental?

This is a mischaracterization of how the bug works. It's not some random sequence of inputs, it's a very simple flaw in the programming logic.

Namely that the bill accepting routine does not get suspended when the "Double up?" code initiates [I'm not intending to use these terms in a technically correct way].

Once you initiate the bill accepting routine by sticking a bill in, that gives you access to the denomination and game selection screen.

So you get to the "double up?" prompt, stick a bill in, and are then free to select a new denom. You can then hit deal (or whatever it is) and the unresolved payout that was waiting on a response to the DUP prompt resolves at the new denom.

I'm not a programmer but I have a strong hunch it was not intentional. To me it seems like a very natural error, essentially a mistake in a flow chart.

It's nothing like the Konami code where a meaningless series of inputs produces an inexplicable outcome.

[MisterV]

MrV, I'm not suggesting IGT as an entity knew about it. I'm saying that if programmers were caught having done it, IGT would keep it quiet.

Tough to say, I guess it depends on how honest and ethical they are in the executive suites.

No idea as to who actually owns and controls IGT these days, but if memory serves IGT was started by former folks from Ballys, and according to what I read in "The Boardwalk Jungle" Ballys allegedly had ties to organized crime many, many years ago, but that was then and this is now.

If an exec at IGT was told by someone other than the coder that the DUB existed I don't see how they could hope to quash it and keep it a secret; disgruntled employees, loose lips sinking ships: word would get out and then it would really hit the fan, arguably destroying the company.

[regnis]

I always assume intent. But that’s just me. I assume a programmer put it in and quietly used it for years for his own benefit. His bad luck that these shucks stumbled onto it.

No facts. Just my opinion.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thank you smurgerburger. The way you explained makes it easy for me to see it could have been a simple error in a flow sequence.

So yes, accidental seems likely.

I actually had an FCC First Class Radiotelephone Operators License but that was before computers. It was easier back then. We just had to screw in resistors and plug in tubes. LOL

[monet]

You bastards jinxed me.
Tomorrow Home Team 3 Teamer.
All Puck Line

Florida Panthers
LA Kings
Calgary Flames

Book It!

Florida -1.5 at -233... seems off.
Hopefully that lowers overnight.

-233
+110
+120

Pays 5.6 to 1

Chicago and Dallas on a back to back and not playing well.
Fuck Detroit!
"Even if I lose, I'm still the best." - Fast Eddie Felson -

Oh and St. Louis is playing lights out.
Get Greedy and make it a 4 teamer if you like with the Blues Puck Line paying +130.
That brings it up to 14.2 to 1 which is better.
When you win.

If you really want to get nuts look into adding the Mets and the Athletics into the mix as they have a couple aces on the mound.
Money Line paying around -135 and -130.
Of course the Run Line equals better pay for more greed.
But San Fran is no slouch, remember that.
5 out of 6 home Teams though... Root, Root, Root.
San Jose can be funny with the Puck Line too.
Damn San Fran and San Jose could spoil the whole thing.