Video Poker Firmware Bug Yields Big Money, Federal Charges 312
JoeyRox writes "Over the course of playing $12 million worth of video poker, Las Vegas resident John Kane stumbled onto a firmware bug in IGT's 'Game King' machines that allowed him to cash out for 10x the amount of his winnings. John and his friends took advantage of the vulnerability to the tune of $429,945. John's friend was arrested by U.S. marshals and charged with violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but a federal magistrate ruled that the law doesn't apply and recommended dismissal. The case is currently being argued in a U.S. District Court."
Fraud is fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
If you knowingly trick a computer into giving you money that's not yours, it's not any different than tricking a person into the same. Open door fallacies are the worst.
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He got lucky. Gaming should reward luck.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of calling it a bug, I'd just call it an easter egg.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Video Poker [wikipedia.org] is very different from the game your friends play. There are no other individuals to play against, only a computer screen.
Despite this, a video poker player with skill will do far better than one without.
The pay table on the machine will tell you if it is a good machine to play in the first place (skill required to know what is "good"), and then once you do play, knowing what to keep for the draw involves a lot of skill, which varies based on the exact pay table. With this sort of correct play, some video poker machines pay back over 100% in the long run.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
With this sort of correct play, some video poker machines pay back over 100% in the long run.
Turns out, according to the article, if you find the correct way to play the machine to turn a profit, you get prosecuted.
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:4, Insightful)
The theory would rely on Video Poker being the *one* slot machine in the casino that uses random chance in shuffling.
Video poker isn't a slot machine, and the shuffling is purely random.
The skill comes in knowing what cards to keep on the "hard" hands, but other people have figured it out for you [wizardofodds.com], so you don't have to be as "smart", just have a good memory.
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Mainly because you're not playing against other players, you're playing against the house who defines the rules (the Gaming Commission is involved enough to make sure that there's a fair chance of winning, but "fair" does not imply "fair to the players").
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe in physics as the ruler of our universe, then everyone has the same odds, so even though randomness is a factor, it won't effect the outcome of a poker players career, though it may effect the outcome of a single game.
Re: (Score:2)
The real game in poker is not the cards dealt, that's pure luck. The game (and the skill) exists in betting strategies. Do you try to intimidate everyone else at the table, keep them guessing, hide or bluff your hand? Blackjack is a game where it's purely about the odds and your statement is true. Poker however has a very significant skill aspect to it. (whether you consider it a skill with any value is a different story)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, which happens to be a real problem in the baking industry. I asked for a dozen rolls and got 13. I sensed the baker was trying to make me inadvertently steal, so I threw the last one back at him and called him names. Learn to count.
Re: (Score:2)
If you tell a machine you want $20 and it gives you $40, you haven't committed an act of deception.
True.
(even if you do it repeatedly)
Theres "technically possible", and theres "fraud". Sometimes the two overlap.
Intentionally abusing a process in bad faith can be a crime, and should be a crime; society doesnt make rules based on whether something is "possible", just based on whether it should be allowed.
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
"Intentionally abusing a process in bad faith can be a crime,"
no.
"and should be a crime"
never. If this is the case the consumer becomes responsible for every possible mistake. That is a path I don't want to travel.
Do you want a bill for a product you got charged the wrong price for? Do you want to be responsible for any possible mistake a store/corporation might do?
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:4, Interesting)
wrong. The people who claimed it wouldn't make mistakes deceived the owner.
It's not a deception from the consumer by any definition.
Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda, and sleight of hand, as well as distraction, camouflage, or concealment.
They didn't propagated a belief, they didn't tell a half truth.
Did they omit anything from anyone? If someone asked them what they were doing and the didn't tell the truth to that person, then it' s a deception to that person.
No deception, no fraud. Too bad So sad.
Plus, its a horrible business move to go after these people. the PR is bad.
Far better saying yeah, the machine had a bug, it's fix. I guess those guy were lucky!
Now people will come in and spend hundreds looking for a machine with a bug.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no implicit contract involved here. There is no transaction. There are no goods or services being purchased that can be returned or be made good if there is a defect.
Nonsense. If you play the machine, you are entering into a contract with the owner which says you are prepared to gamble on the chance of winning some money.
Do you really think the owner can just fix the machine so that it never pays out?
Re: (Score:2)
Under UK law it is fraud if you are aware of the mistake but take no action to alert the bank to it and instead enrich yourself.
In a similar vein sometimes people make mistakes doing bank to bank transfers. They mistype the account number and it ends up in the wrong person's account. If the recipient can be shown to have known that it was a mistake (an unexpected $1,000,000 appears on their balance) but decides to spend it then they can be convicted of fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck your anglo-saxon religion. FUCK IT.
So in your wonderful religio-legal system, if I accidentally transfer my life savings to your account which is one digit different from my other savings account, that's fine and you can just keep it?
Well, fuck YOU, mate.
Programmer Error Or Programmer Intent? (Score:3)
Seriously. Maybe the programmer put in a "back door" so he could get a few dollars in winnings when he went to Vegas. How do we know otherwise? In which case this player was not committing fraud at all... the machine would have been doing exactly as it was intended to do by the programmer.
And there is probably no way to prove it either way. So let the guy go.
Re: (Score:3)
Other than it being a crime for the programmer to play on the games.
Re: (Score:3)
"No, it doesn't work that way. What matters is if the player is playing the game as intended by the owner of the game, not the programmer."
Nonsense. The owner of the game has very little say in the matter. They don't write the law.
I can write software to do damn near anything I want. That doesn't mean other people are obligated to do it that way. At most that would be a violation of terms of service, not the law.
"The player is committing a crime as soon as he intentionally takes advantage of the fact that the machine is not playing by the stated rules."
Again, nonsense. The player commits a crime when he violates the LAW. Since when do software companies write the law? If it worked the way you state, then software companies could, in effect, write their own laws by dictating the ru
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:4, Funny)
what am I a casino owner? video game machine expert? head of marketing? how should I know it's not some special promotion?
Don't make the consumer responsible for machine mistakes.
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
This happens all of the time with ATM's in the US. It never makes it to court.
When the bank loads an ATM cassette, they know exactly how much money is in it and what denomination of bills it contains. The serial number of the cassette is recorded by the person loading the ATM as well as by the ATM itself, by way of an RFID chip in the cassette. This links back to a database of ATM cassettes and their current load status and contents. The bank knows exactly, down to the serial numbers on the bills, what is in that cassette. Modern ATM's even automate the configuration from that database. The problem is that older ATM's don't.
When you go to an ATM and ask it for $40 (common "fast cash" amount these days), and the ATM has been configured for $20 bills, it dispenses two bills. If it's configured for $10 bills, it dispenses 4 bills. In older ATM's, the configuration is done manually. If a $20 cassette is loaded but the ATM is configured for a $10 cassette, it dispenses the wrong number of bills. That $40 you ask for is 4 bills, but the bills are $20 now, and you get $80.
When this happens, the bank will discover it as soon as they change the ATM cassette. Then they will find EVERY transaction that ATM performed on the previous cassette and contact the account-holders, notifying them that due to an incorrect ATM configuration, they were given more than they requested, and that the account has been rectified to reflect the correct ATM payout. For this transaction, any overdraft fees are waived (by law), and the transaction is applied to the day that the correct is made, not to the day the ATM paid out incorrectly (again, by law).
That's when most people drag their sorry butts back to the bank to make an emergency deposit of some no-longer ill-gotten gains to shore up their account balance.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the "free" items at a checkout usually say "take one" beca
Re: Fraud is fraud (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say this is a snack dispensing machine. You accidentally discover that if you bump the machine in a particular location, food drops without you putting any money in. You do this repeatedly. Has a crime occurred?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say this is a snack dispensing machine. You accidentally discover that if you bump the machine in a particular location, food drops without you putting any money in. You do this repeatedly. Has a crime occurred?
Conversely - I have put money into snack machines and had nothing come out. Has the machine defrauded me?
Apples and oranges (Score:3)
The UK scenario is people accessing a machine designed to give them their own money from their own bank accounts. Doubling the money as you remove it in no way resembles any intended purpose for the machine.
The video poker machine is a situation where the machine is intended to supply an opportunity for the users to extract as much money from the machine as possible. While they are doing this they are supposed to try to accomplish this by spending the l
Re: (Score:2)
You blame the customer who throws a skeleton key (concrete brick) through the window and takes shit without paying ... and you're arguing that you don't do anything to the customer because he should have known the customer could throw a brick so its the vendor's fault.
The rules of the game are clear. Malfunction voids all games. That works BOTH directions. That means neither side whens in the case of an error in the machine. You agreed to that by playing.
Its not like these are rules for posted are not w
Re: (Score:2)
Do you blame the hacker who constructs the packet which causes the machine to operate in a way that it wasn't designed (deleting the database, giving higher level access than desired, etc?)
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not the right law to charge him under. Charge him under fraud or stealing, no problem. This is the anti-hacking law- they're charging him with hacking. I don't think this qualifies. It also is the difference between being tried in the federal court system (hacking is a federal crime) vs the state (which owns the laws for theft and fraud).
Either way he should be prosecuted, the question is why and where.
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a machine...he didn't sigh any EULA or agreements about how to use it.
The main use of this machine is you put money into it, you hit buttons, it sometimes pays out.
He found a combination of buttons that causes it to pay out a LOT.
I see no problem with what he did. He simply put money in and pushed buttons on machine set out in public for the purpose of people pushing buttons and sometimes getting money out of it.
Show where he violated the signed terms of use or NDA or other type contract on exactly HOW he was to use the machine, and maybe you have a case.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think the crux of it is that he knew the payout was a mistake. The machine said "you win $10" but spat out $100. He made it do that many, many times. It's not like discovering a way to win, it's like discovering a way to cheat.
I have a feeling I will be modded down because this runs contrary to Slashdot / Sheldon Cooper logic, but at least from a legal point of view there is a difference between winning a game of chance and enriching yourself as the result of a mistake you were aware of. And yes, in theor
Re: (Score:2)
If the machine were found to be faulty, the individual would have their provable losses returned to them, probably up to a few hundred dollars. The casinos in Vegas are smart enough to recognize that it would cost them more to go to court and would be more than happy to return their money (mon
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds just peachy - Except that the machines in question had the exact same tests done to them, and still contained a bug that no one had caught for who knows how long.
It counts as pure hubris to claim that bugs in the opposite direction (opposed to the player) don't exist and remain uncaught.
That said, the definition of "fraud" here has a lot of flexibility. I recall a case from my youth (when I worked for a competitor of IGT, for whatever credibility that gives me) where someone cracked our RNG algorithm on a "pick 3" type game. After they had won a few hundred grand, the jurisdiction asked us to look into it, and we changed the RNG, the player stopped winning game after game after game. No charges ever followed, because it shouldn't count as fraud if you figure out how to win the fucking game, even though an entire state government lost a noticeable amount of money.
Re: (Score:2)
The LAW is clear.
Malfunction voids the game. That goes both directions. They MUST refund any money they can. They MUST report it to the gaming board, and the board will decide how to handle the situation further ... like deal with a situation where its been happening for too long to possibly find and refund money to all players. In the end, the casino will NOT get to keep the money and MAY get fined/sanctioned.
Casino's don't just do whatever suits them in this aspect, gambling is a tightly regulated ind
Re: (Score:3)
Malfunction voids the game.
The machines were working exactly as they were programmed to work.
The casinos may not like the fact that they paid out more money than they "should", but they were not malfunctioning. If it was a single unit instead of units all over the US, I'd agree you definitely could call it a "malfunction", but with every unit acting that way, the line is a lot harder to draw.
That goes both directions.
Actually, it doesn't, as only the casino gets to decide if it was a "malfunction". I've never heard any story about a machine that was paying
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want to live in a world where someone who, without modifying a device, without taking an
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you are the asshole. Plus shortsighted and egotistical, so you are the complete tri-fuckta.
Yeah. lets make people completely responsible for software errors. That way when you are charged the wrong price, you can be billed the next time the store does their books.
Oh, sales tax calculated wrong? well you better be ready to pay the difference to the store.
Hey, last time you pumped gas, there was an error and we charged yo for one less gallon, pay up now!
On and on.
"You haven't made me sign a document stating that I won't kill you while you sleep"
and there it is; a completely incorrect absurd example that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You have no valid point, you lose.
Best tested for bugs and fllaws (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Technically you're probably right, however I know that Casinos in Vegas do actually keep photographs and blacklists - if someone is in their books as being a "cheater" (to include card counting), the Casino is well within it's right to escort them from the premises.
Well, that alone makes me side with the guy - if you advertise a game with some rules and then enforce a "but we'll only admit losers to the game" policy, you're already rigging it. Even if it were immoral per se for the guy to walk away with the money, I think that in the grand scheme of things, it would be only a tiny upwards adjustment of bad karma for the gaming industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought having buggy game machine fw's was a federal offence?
now, do you think he should have been able to keep the money from the first time he pressed the buttons? perhaps the second too, how could he know wtf is really going inside the machine?
at the very least the computer fraud act shouldn't apply to a device that's supposed to just be a device and from his viewpoint it had no difference if it was a mechanical gambling machine or a computer.
bear in mind that in order to get ANY money out of a video p
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I've ever played those damn machines, they take all my money. I've managed a win here or there, but never came out on top, and whatever budget I set for myself was exhausted in short order. We're told that's how they're supposed to work; that the odds are in the houses favor; that walking away with more money than you start with is supposed to be a rare thing. These two guys pull that off, and they walk away with around $500k or so (each?), and they're the ones getting arrested? WTF?!? The casino
Correct, the casino is the offender here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you go up to a an elderly customer who's suffering from Alzheimer's and ask them to pay their bill several times, that's fraud. The user knew their actions weren't acceptable. I knew when I posted I'd get a million people giving me the damn open door fallacy. I even tried to head it off in my comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would consider it theft by taking
How is it theft to take what the machine is handing you**, but it's not theft when the machine gladly takes your money?
I realize there's the whole "intent" thing, and knowing it's more than you're supposed to get, but you're dealing with a machine that, conversely, lacks that ability to understand in the other direction. If I accidentally push the $10 button instead of the $1 button, it'll gladly take my $10 and there's not shit that can be done about it. If it accidentally gives me 10x's the money it's sup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you go shopping and the cashier messes up and fails to properly scan one of your products and you notice but stay silent is that theft? You are walking out of the store with products that you know you haven't paid for so IMO yes. And I don't see this as significantly different just because it is a machine that is being taken advantage of rather than a person. Computer fraud and hacking? Don't be ridiculous. But I feel he could and should be charged with plain and simple theft. Incidentally, growing
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. For example if I am playing poker and have a lousy hand, but bid high to trick the other players into folding, then that's fraud too. If I use that trick to make money then I'm stealing from the house.
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fraud is fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article.
He's exploiting the interaction between two different software modules to his advantage. While from a technical perspective he didn't write any assembly to exploit a buffer overflow, he instead used his fingers and eyes to write a mental program which moved his fingers in order to exploit an initialization bug in the software. The software was not clearing out memory it reused for like purposes between two different games, by exploiting this, he was able to increase his winnings by 10x.
He really is using a software exploit and 'hacking' the software. He just isn't using your typical UI to enter and run the hack but he really is exploiting a software bug like metasploit would, or any other attack vector.
This isn't your typical hacking applied to some object that just happens to have a processor. He is hacking the software, and more so, a specific version of the software with specific features enabled. This is no different than an attack targeted at Chrome or Safari, it just seems that way because the UI isn't a terminal window.
Re: (Score:3)
he instead used his fingers and eyes to write a mental program which moved his fingers in order to exploit an initialization bug in the software
And if I use my fingers and eyes to write a mental program that allows me to beat the house at blackjack(e.g. card counting), is that hacking too? No, it's strategy.
He really is using a software exploit and 'hacking' the software.
Bullshit. He's playing the game as it is implemented. He found a strategy that allowed him to win more than the casino intended. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I use that trick to make money then I'm stealing from the house.
Generally poker is played against other players, you could try bluffing in video poker if you wanted, I just doubt it will have an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Bluffing is a known aspect of the game of poker. Its actually part of the game. Everyone playing poker in a casino is fully aware of 'the bluff'.
What this guy did was took advantage of a software bug that caused UNINTENDED AND UNEXPECTED interactions between two DIFFERENT games that ran on the same machine. Its like if you played WoW for hours to get a loot box to drop ... then switched over to GTA V, and placed a super high bet in a gambling game in GTA V ... knowing that by doing so, you could switc
Re: (Score:2)
If you knowingly trick a computer into giving you money that's not yours,
...It's called gambling.
He put money in a machine that was put there to pay out money at times. He got a payout at times. That the payout was not what was intended, he didn't "hack" the machine by changing it.
If you charge him with hacking, then you have to charge me with hacking the one time my chips were stuck in a vending machine and I shook it and out popped my chips (and a candy bar). And if I hadn't taken the candy for my trouble, the next person would have committed theft of my fraud, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Everything about Casinos and Video Poker is fraud. Yet it's completely legal for them to operate facilities that pump oxygen into the air to keep you awake longer, provide you with free drinks so you'll make poor decisions, design slot machines to be as loud as possible when dropping coins/tokens to give the false impression of larger winnings. They are in the very business of defrauding people. Gambling IS fraud. Good for these guys to be on the winning side for once.
Re: (Score:3)
If you knowingly trick a computer into giving you money that's not yours, it's not any different than tricking a person into the same. Open door fallacies are the worst.
That would depend on what the law actually says. And I mean the exact wording. In the case of a gambling machine, you throw in money, you press buttons, and the machine may or may not spit out money, which you then keep. That's how it works. If the machine spits it out, it is yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say I was in favor of that stupid law? No. I didn't. What I said is that fraud is what has taken place here.
Re: (Score:2)
Programmed != clearly intended design.
Bugs should be fixed, yes, but that doesn't excuse exploiting them.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, in Vegas gaming machine makers are required to write code that doesn't overtly cheat the gambler. As in, if the jackpot reaches astronomical size, the machine doesn't change the odds UNLESS that is the game, and everyone knows it. Which for video slots is not the game. the odds are supposed to stay the
same.
Haven't there been some court cases over whether software bugs could be used to recover unexpected winnings, after the gaming commission certified that the software was fair?
Oh. This [techdirt.com], and an exa
Re: (Score:2)
Try tricking the person cross the table from you into giving you more chips than are in the pot.
If you can, that's a skill. If not, well, that's your problem.
Abuse of civil matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah..
when you're doing anything involves a computer, then every dispute suddenly becomes a federal offence. not really that well thought out.
Re: (Score:2)
When it involves $400k ... it tends to become something that the feds get involved in, even if its just to ask the local cops what help they might need as its big enough to warrants the experience of higher level investigators.
Re: (Score:2)
After RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see this as being a criminal act, but given the way that it was carried out, I think the casino has every right to demand 9/10 of his winnings back.
You win a game at the $1 level, exploit a bug to change your cash level to $10 before accepting the payout, and then accept your payout. Well, you didn't actually make the bet at the $10 level, so you shouldn't expect your winnings to be multiplied by 10, but that's what's happening here. I'd argue that he's still entitled to the original 1x amount and let the casino ban him if they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see this as being a criminal act, but given the way that it was carried out, I think the casino has every right to demand 9/10 of his winnings back.
As far as I understand it, he already gave them more money than he ever won (a megabuck?).
Re: (Score:2)
Our legal system and law enforcement system has enough to deal with without imprisoning people over financial disputes.
Re: (Score:2)
The casino will probably dispute that.
Most machines around here are tagged "Malfunction voids all pays and plays" - if they can demonstrate that this is, in fact, a malfunction, then they may reasonably claim the payout value (but not any deposited credit in the machine).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, by your definition, all software is functioning perfectly at all times, since whatever instructions they have are de facto right?
Uh oh. Bluescreen and all of my credits are gone. Sorry, not a malfunction. The software did as it was programmed to do, and sometimes that includes crashes.
It would sometimes give him 10x more money than it should, because the software "wasn't malfunctioning."
Absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
We have a phrase for that, "works as coded", and it is a sarcastic phrase that we make fun of mercilessly. The fact that the rules were clearly printed on the machine as to how it was supposed to behave, and it was clearly behaving differently than that (and in a way that was obviously not intended behavior) makes it a malfunction. It was a software malfunction rather than hardware, but clearly still a malfunction.
Going to jail for it? That'd be a bit of an overreaction. But he should definitely have to giv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see this as being a criminal act, but given the way that it was carried out, I think the casino has every right to demand 9/10 of his winnings back.
Under the law, the have no such right. Players are not responsible for malfunctioning gaming machines. Indeed, the casino can not even force you away from such a machine if it is accepting wagers and paying according to the published schedule. Walk away from it though, even if only for a moment, and it's game over, literally. This actually happened to a friend of mine years ago, during a visit to Reno. He'd stumbled onto a slot that was "stuck on win". They wanted very badly to have him get up so that they
Re: (Score:2)
Under the law, the have no such right. Players are not responsible for malfunctioning gaming machines.
Oh yes they are. Both parties are responsible for reporting and appropriately dealing with KNOWN issues. Both sides are granted legal immunity for UNKNOWN issues, but they BOTH require ALL plays AND pays to become void. Everyone goes back to their 'pre-play' state financially. What you're claiming is legal is exactly when it becomes fraud, when they continue taking advantage of the game they KNOW is not working properly.
Indeed, the casino can not even force you away from such a machine if it is accepting wagers and paying according to the published schedule.
Because by definition, that would not be malfunctioning. If it followed the publish
Can't cheat an honest man (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of the machines (from the player perspective) is to stick in money, push buttons, and make it dispense more money (vouchers) than you put in.
The house edge comes from the fact that pushing the buttons correctly in all situations is difficult.
This guy did it right. If the house wants to fix the "bug" that allowed him to take out more money than they thought he should, that's their right.
Prosecution on this one... very grey area.
But I'll forward the how-to on to my video poker friends, just in case they find a machine with those firmware revisions, so that they'll be sure not to expose themselves to prosecution in this manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With video poker, the house edge is built in to the device. The edge is that the payout schedule beats the odds of getting the hand.
In this case, the machine was defective, which generally voids all plays (this is usually written on the machines.)
The defect was that a player could trick the machine into thinking more money had been wagered than actually had been. This means that the payout schedule could be higher than the odds of getting the hand.
The guy shouldn't be charged with a crime, but the casino a
No idea how he stumbled upon that (Score:5, Informative)
Then he’d immediately switch to a different game variation, like straight “Draw Poker.” He’d play Draw Poker until he scored a win of any amount at all. The point of this play was to get the machine to offer a “double-up”, which lets the player put his winnings up to simple high-card-wins draw. Through whatever twist of code caused the bug, the appearance of the double-up invitation was critical. Machines that didn’t have the option enabled were immune.
At that point Kane would put more cash, or a voucher, into the machine, then exit the Draw Poker game and switch the denomination to the game maximum — $10 in the Silverton game.
Now when Kane returned to Triple Double Bonus Poker, he’d find his previous $820 win was still showing. He could press the cash-out button from this screen, and the machine would re-award the jackpot. Better yet, it would re-calculate the win at the new denomination level, giving him a hand-payout of $8,200.
Many software bugs are found that way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I always wonder how people run across crazy sequences of button presses that trigger bugs while on live hardware. This reminds me of the various iPhone lock-screen bypasses.
no sympathy for the casino (Score:4, Informative)
As long as he didn't do anything but push the standard control buttons, I think he's entitled to whatever he can get.
If the casino thinks they're paying out too much, they can sue the maker of the video poker machine.
Versus humans (Score:2)
If it had been a human dealer that repeatedly made mistakes, would it have been fraud?
The odds are generally "rigged" in the house's favor. Casinos that that anything that threatens their "entitlement" to be cheating.
Re: (Score:3)
The odds aren't "rigged" in any game where a human is in control. The house is always going to win due to statistics. A dealer would quickly be caught if he/she "rigged" the game in a persons favor.
The guy in question just figured out a method of pushing existing buttons that "rigged" the game in his favor.
The game maker is at fault, not the person who figured out how to take advantage of it. They let the bug into the system. No hacking was involved, just pressing the buttons that were available.
A count
New Monopoly Chance Card (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to have a very bad day when I get back to work tomorrow.
Not if IGT has published a correction and it's been properly applied already.
Affected firmware levels are listed in the exhibit attached to the motion to dismiss linked in TFA.