Why is Russ Hamilton perpetrator of the Ultimate Bet online poker scandal not in jail?

[astro]

He stole 22 million dollars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Hamilton)How can you do that and not be in jail?

[Tom Tildrum]

I can't really look into it at work because our filter blocks anything remotely related to gambling, but my guess would be that there's some jurisdictional angle; i.e., the tribal government can't reach him, and the province either can't or won't seek extradition. Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahnawake) that "both the Canadian and Quebec governments dispute the legality of Kahnawake's gambling operations." I suppose it's also possible that the evidence cited against Hamilton wouldn't stand up in court (I have no idea whether this is true or not).

[ExcitedIdiot]

60 minutes segment on the cheating scandals. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4639016n)

60 Minutes had the Kahnawake chief stating that they would work with any law enforcement agency that wants to bring them to justice. They said there was jurisdictional issues with the tribal government prosecuting him.

[Pablo O'Malley]

the people running the illegal online gambling operations are criminals themselves, crooks don't call cops on other crooks, then the injuns would have to open up all their books in court

if i steal a few bucks from a mugger

[Colibri]

the people running the illegal online gambling operations are criminals themselves, crooks don't call cops on other crooks, then the injuns would have to open up all their books in court

if i steal a few bucks from a mugger

Moderator Warning

Pablo O'Malley, this is an official warning for use of derogatory language in General Questions. You have received at least four moderator notes, from three different moderators, in the week since you joined for insults and other inappropriate posts. If you continue this behavior, your posting privileges will be under discussion by the moderation staff.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Saint Cad]

Moderator Warning

Pablo O'Malley, this is an official warning for use of derogatory language in General Questions. You have received at least four moderator notes, from three different moderators, in the week since you joined for insults and other inappropriate posts. If you continue this behavior, your posting privileges will be under discussion by the moderation staff.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Not to protest PO'M's warning but I thought you screwed this on up. He said "mugger" and nope it wasn't edited so he didn't originally use "the N word".



Then I saw "injun" :smack:

I need more coffee.

[copperwindow]

He didn't technically steal the money. just by knowing other players cards doesn't guarantee you will win.

[copperwindow]

Also, this should probably be moved to GD or the thing about games.

[Candyman74]

Then I saw "injun" :smack:


Wow - colour me edumacated about American culture. I've seen the word in cowboy films, but I had no idea at all it was perjorative. Given the wrong confluence of circumstances, I'd have totally used that word. I guess I now know better!

[md2000]

He didn't technically steal the money. just by knowing other players cards doesn't guarantee you will win.

"Ahh, yes.. I remember the time...
I had three aces, but he had four! Normally, this doesn't bother me, but I know what I dealt him..."
-WC Fields.

The native bretheren running the casinos and other services, up to and including the biggest cigarette smugling operations in Canada, are in no position to throw stones.

Criminal law in Canada is strictly the federal government's perogative (IIRC, prosecution and courts fall to the provinces). To prosecute this guy, the natives would have to open up to a full federal/provincial investigation team. The people running the illegal gambling operations would have to appear in court and testify to what they were doing, including under cross-examination from the defendant's lawyers.

Back in the early 90's several militant indian groups got into serious confrontations with the police which left one police officer shot dead, and then the Canadian army. Some of these reserves are tacit "no-go" zones where the government leaves it to the indians to run their own show. Smuggling cigarettes from the USA (where taxes are such that they are half the price) is also a favourite fundraising operation in some reserves. Whenever there is money to be made like this, stories are that organized crime is involved.

So the natives are no going to run crying to the government to fix their problems with illegal activities gone wrong. Nor are they likely to make up a system where they can inflict punishments on non-natives that are basically things kidnapping and unlawful confinement. The last time this was tried, in the late 1800's, executing one white man brought the full force of the British Empire down on Louis Riel and the Metis of Manitoba. The confrontations of the early 1990's were equally productive.

So, when crooks steal from each other, the law can do nothing until one side or other cooperates fully.

[copperwindow]

"Ahh, yes.. I remember the time...
I had three aces, but he had four! Normally, this doesn't bother me, but I know what I dealt him..."
-WC Fields.

The native bretheren running the casinos and other services, up to and including the biggest cigarette smugling operations in Canada, are in no position to throw stones.

Criminal law in Canada is strictly the federal government's perogative (IIRC, prosecution and courts fall to the provinces). To prosecute this guy, the natives would have to open up to a full federal/provincial investigation team. The people running the illegal gambling operations would have to appear in court and testify to what they were doing, including under cross-examination from the defendant's lawyers.

Back in the early 90's several militant indian groups got into serious confrontations with the police which left one police officer shot dead, and then the Canadian army. Some of these reserves are tcit "no-go" zones where the government leaves it to the indians to run their own show. Smuggling cigarettes from the USA (where taxes are such that they are half the price) is also a favourite fundraising operation in some reserves. Whenever there is money to be made like this, stories are that organized crime is involved.

So the natives are no going to run crying to the government to fix their problems with illegal activities gone wrong. Nor are they likely to make up a system where they can inflict punishments on non-natives that are basically things kidnapping and unlawful confinement. The last time this was tried, in the late 1800's, executing one white man brought the full force of the British Empire down on Louis Riel and the Metis of Manitoba. The confrontations of the early 1990's were equally productive.

So, when crooks steal from each other, the law can do nothing until one side or other cooperates fully. This is very different. If Mr Hamilton was controlling the cards, that would have been stealing. By seeing other players pocket cards increases your chances of winning, but does not guarantee it.

[md2000]

And if it was because of a flaw in the web site software that cards were "visible", then whose fault is that? Of course, hacking is a crime in most jurisdictions, but first you have to prove it was hacking...

[BlinkingDuck]

Wow - colour me edumacated about American culture. I've seen the word in cowboy films, but I had no idea at all it was perjorative. Given the wrong confluence of circumstances, I'd have totally used that word. I guess I now know better!

In that case...don't use the word 'Nip' to talk about someone from Japan.

You can thank me later.

[ExcitedIdiot]

This is very different. If Mr Hamilton was controlling the cards, that would have been stealing. By seeing other players pocket cards increases your chances of winning, but does not guarantee it.

The best player in the world couldn't beat an amateur, if the amateur can see the hole cards.

[copperwindow]

And if it was because of a flaw in the web site software that cards were "visible", then whose fault is that? Of course, hacking is a crime in most jurisdictions, but first you have to prove it was hacking...

It wasn't hacking either, Russ had the original software that allowed him to do this

[Clark Cello]

This is very different. If Mr Hamilton was controlling the cards, that would have been stealing. By seeing other players pocket cards increases your chances of winning, but does not guarantee it.

Increasing your chance of winning = stealing. There doesn't need to be a guarantee.

[copperwindow]

The best player in the world couldn't beat an amateur, if the amateur can see the hole cards.

The best player in the world could beat an amateur, or vise versa. Seeing your opponents hole cards isn't enough to win every hand. Mr Hamilton didn't win every hand, there are always bad beats that you can't control, unless you are controlling the cards being dealt.
Increasing your chance of winning = stealing. There doesn't need to be a guarantee.
I disagree. Increasing your chances=cheating, but not stealing. If Russ lost 4 million dollars on bad beats, did he steal -4million dollars? You can't tell me how much money he won from seeing his opponents cards verses how much money he won due to luck.

[Chronos]

If you can see the other players' cards, then you guarantee that when you lose a hand, you lose only the ante, but when you win, you win it all. You're not guaranteeing the outcome of any given hand, but you are guaranteeing the outcome of the whole game.

[copperwindow]

If you can see the other players' cards, then you guarantee that when you lose a hand, you lose only the ante, but when you win, you win it all. You're not guaranteeing the outcome of any given hand, but you are guaranteeing the outcome of the whole game.

This is incorrect. If you can see my pocket and I go all in preflop every hand, you will have good odd of winning my money (like when I have 2-7 offsuit and you have pocket aces) but you cannot garentee winning the hard unless you can control the flop, turn, and river.

[Bricker]

I assume we're all aware that the use of the word "steal" here is in common parlance, not legal theft.

[Xema]

... you cannot garentee winning the hard unless you can control the flop, turn, and river.
As Chronos noted, it's not about guaranteeing the outcome of any particular hand, it's about guaranteeing the overall outcome across some decent number of hands - and knowing the opponents' hole cards most definitely allows this.

[copperwindow]

I assume we're all aware that the use of the word "steal" here is in common parlance, not legal theft.

This is exactly my point.
As Chronos noted, it's not about guaranteeing the outcome of any particular hand, it's about guaranteeing the overall outcome across some decent number of hands - and knowing the opponents' hole cards most definitely allows this.
If you cannot guarantee the outcome of any hand, how can you guarantee overall outcome of the game? Once again, if I go all in preflop every hand, how can you guarantee me you will win any of the hands without controlling the cards being dealt?

[Ludovic]

This is exactly my point.

If you cannot guarantee the outcome of any hand, how can you guarantee overall outcome of the game? Once again, if I go all in preflop every hand, how can you guarantee me you will win any of the hands without controlling the cards being dealt?You can't guarantee anything when you rob someone at gunpoint, either. Your gun may jam, or you may have a sudden heart attack, or trip over while running away, etc. Doesn't mean that you won't make money 95% of the time if your victims don't fight back or run away.

[copperwindow]

You can't guarantee anything when you rob someone at gunpoint, either. Your gun may jam, or you may have a sudden heart attack, or trip over while running away, etc. Doesn't mean that you won't make money 95% of the time if your victims don't fight back or run away.

Then you are talking about robbery vs attempted robbery. If I show you a gun and you give me your money, it's robbery. If I don't get your money, it's attempted robbery. We seem to be getting off topic though...

[markdash]

If you had a significant bankroll at all, it would be impossible to lose with knowledge of your opponent's hole cards. You would always know when you were favored, and could make pot odds calculations with absolute certainty. You would never lose a showdown, and could muck hands immediately when your opponents suck out on you. You might lose a hand here or there, but it wouldn't take many hands at all to make up for it.

[copperwindow]

If you had a significant bankroll at all, it would be impossible to lose with knowledge of your opponent's hole cards. You would always know when you were favored, and could make pot odds calculations with absolute certainty. You would never lose a showdown, and could muck hands immediately when your opponents suck out on you. You might lose a hand here or there, but it wouldn't take many hands at all to make up for it.

Okay, then this weekend we should meet up for a high stakes game. My hole cards will be dealt face up and I will choose the flop cards. How does Sunday afternoon work for you?

[Xema]

If you cannot guarantee the outcome of any hand, how can you guarantee overall outcome of the game?
Suppose we agree to a game where you repeatedly roll two dice: if the total of the up faces is seven, I pay you $1; for any other result, you pay me $1. The outcome of any one trial is obviously uncertain - but the chance you will be money ahead declines with every roll of the dice. Probability theory allows the long-term result to be predicted with accuracy.


Once again, if I go all in preflop every hand, how can you guarantee me you will win any of the hands without controlling the cards being dealt?
Strictly speaking, I can't: there's a finite chance you will win 10,000 times in a row, though we might not expect this to happen unless we played for a billion years or so.

But that's not the issue here. We're considering whether knowing opponents' hole cards could allow Russ Hamilton to alter the chance of winning strongly in his - or his collaborators' - favor. The answer is yes, absolutely.

[Princhester]

copperwindow why is it so damned important to you as to whether the alleged crime was stealing or fraud?

[copperwindow]

I think the real question here is why Russ was so egregious in his winning. If he lost some hands on purpose, Todd Witteles and others would not have suspected cheating and an independent investigation would have never uncovered it and he could continue what he was doing.

[Apex Rogers]

If you cannot guarantee the outcome of any hand, how can you guarantee overall outcome of the game? Once again, if I go all in preflop every hand, how can you guarantee me you will win any of the hands without controlling the cards being dealt?

Do you acknowledge that casinos are profitable based on a slim house edge? If so, then you should be able to realize that merely having a statistical edge is enough to be profitable given enough time and enough hands. Do you acknowledge that Hamilton used unfair means to increase his odds against other players? If so, then how is what he did not a form of fraud bordering on outright stealing? You may disagree with the terminology, but I don't see much of an argument beyond that.

[markdash]

Okay, then this weekend we should meet up for a high stakes game. My hole cards will be dealt face up and I will choose the flop cards. How does Sunday afternoon work for you?

Sorry, I meant it would be impossible assuming normal game play otherwise.

Clearly, someone with knowledge of the hole cards would not win if they were out of the country (thereby blinding away their stack), did not understand the hand hierarchy, or were trying to lose intentionally.

Are there any other silly technicalities I forgot to mention?

[Maserschmidt]

This is very different. If Mr Hamilton was controlling the cards, that would have been stealing. By seeing other players pocket cards increases your chances of winning, but does not guarantee it.

You know what's ironic about this argument? For years poker players and lobbyists have been arguing that poker is a game of skill, not a game of chance. Even a dismal player who can see the hole cards will win in the long run.

[Randvek]

You know what's ironic about this argument? For years poker players and lobbyists have been arguing that poker is a game of skill, not a game of chance. Even a dismal player who can see the hole cards will win in the long run.

Ha, any skill game turns into a chance game when one side cheats.

[Tom Tildrum]

You know what's ironic about this argument? For years poker players and lobbyists have been arguing that poker is a game of skill, not a game of chance. Even a dismal player who can see the hole cards will win in the long run.

Hey, cheating's a skill. :cool:

[anson2995]

copperwindow why is it so damned important to you as to whether the alleged crime was stealing or fraud?

It gets to the OP's question, and the answer is that Hamilton did not break any criminal laws. The fraud would be a civil matter, and in fact, he has been the target of several lawsuits seeking restitution.

[BigT]

It gets to the OP's question, and the answer is that Hamilton did not break any criminal laws. The fraud would be a civil matter, and in fact, he has been the target of several lawsuits seeking restitution.

Huh? Fraud is too against the law. Heck, it's defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) as a legal term.

If the guy is committing fraud, that means he is getting money from deception. From a moral standpoint, fraud is merely a subset of stealing.

[Princhester]

It gets to the OP's question, and the answer is that Hamilton did not break any criminal laws. The fraud would be a civil matter, and in fact, he has been the target of several lawsuits seeking restitution.

What BigT said. Fraud is a crime.

[anson2995]

Huh? Fraud is too against the law. Heck, it's defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) as a legal term.

If the guy is committing fraud, that means he is getting money from deception. From a moral standpoint, fraud is merely a subset of stealing.

You're entitled to that opinion. But cheating at a game of chance does not meet the legal definition of fraud set out in the US Federal statutes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47). Even if it did, the fact that online poker was banned in the US probably would make any prosecution impossible, not to mention the complications of international law arising from jurisidiction of Canada and Costa Rica in this case.

The state of Nevada has laws that make cheating in a casino a felony, I believe the only state that does.

[md2000]

The question is - how did he get to see others' cards?

Remember hacking or unathorized use of computer systems is a crime. Violating the terms of use of a computer system may also be illegal "hacking". at the very least, he likely volated the terms of use for participating in the game. Doing this to get money is also illegal - obtaining money by fraud.

I'm not sure I follow the thread. It seems copperwindow is ignoring chance. Yes, you can structure a sequence of cards so that even knowing the other side's cards, you still can't win. BUT... if the cards are dealt randomly to A and B, then half the time A will be better off, and half the time B will be. If A knows which time, then odds are very strong that he folds when he sees he can't win and he bets big when he sees he can. A knows if he has a winning hand. B doesn't, and perhaps will bet big thinking he can win. If you consistently lose small and win big, then you will come out ahead.

Yes, there's an element of luck. B might just draw 3 cards to give himself a flush or a straight or full house. Odds are though, if you have a pair or triple to start and he doesn't, or even can compare high cards you will win. A know when this is the case. B doesn't. A can bet smartly.

[copperwindow]

You're entitled to that opinion. But cheating at a game of chance does not meet the legal definition of fraud set out in the US Federal statutes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47). Even if it did, the fact that online poker was banned in the US probably would make any prosecution impossible, not to mention the complications of international law arising from jurisidiction of Canada and Costa Rica in this case.

The state of Nevada has laws that make cheating in a casino a felony, I believe the only state that does.

not to mention that that's only in the US. If these crimes happened in cyberspace, who would prosecute, and it is fraud a crime there?

[ExcitedIdiot]

You're entitled to that opinion. But cheating at a game of chance does not meet the legal definition of fraud set out in the US Federal statutes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47).

So, how can police bust three card monte scams? That's just cheating at a game of chance.

[anson2995]

So, how can police bust three card monte scams? That's just cheating at a game of chance.

Because it's not a game of chance. It's just a con.

Aside from that, unlicensed gambling is illegal.