True, as a professional gambler, he wants to find every legitimate edge.
But if you go to them repeatedly with a sophisticated attack and take them for $22m, you have to know they're going to sue you. That's part of what they consider their legitimate edge.
If I was at a poker table and there was someone who could read the backs of the cards I would probably think they were cheating me.
Suppose I'm taking steps to hide my cards, but you take overt acts to see them, like a mirror or something?
At some point a sequence of actions to defeat the protections becomes an act of fraud.
Just because a lock on my door is not unpickable doesn't give everyone a license to steal everything I own.
It's a gray area...once you're asking a specifically chosen dealer to do things and conceal them from the pit boss...come back and repeat it for $20m...at some point it crosses the line from taking advantage of a mistake to orchestrating a scheme to deceive and defraud.
http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/sport/2014-05-13/phil-ive...
It's kind of a gray area.
True, as a professional gambler, he wants to find every legitimate edge.
But if you go to them repeatedly with a sophisticated attack and take them for $22m, you have to know they're going to sue you. That's part of what they consider their legitimate edge.
If I was at a poker table and there was someone who could read the backs of the cards I would probably think they were cheating me.