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.
This is exactly my point.
[QUOTE=xema]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
**copperwindow **why is it so damned important to you as to whether the alleged crime was stealing or fraud?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hey, cheating’s a skill. 
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 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.
What **BigT **said. Fraud is a crime.
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. 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.
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.
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?