Gambling in 2100?

[Anthony]

Incidentally, none of this stuff needs to wait for 2100. Casinos are banning Google Glass for example (programming playing card recognition into a modern smartphone is at most a medium difficulty challenge, it's easier than text recognition. Programming card counting for blackjack or poker is probably easy. Programming enough motion capture to usefully predict roulette is probably comparable to the playing card recognition). The main thing THS tech adds to all this is making the cameras and computers easier to hide.

[Keiko]

In more shady casinos it might not be the security you have to worry about but what sort of accidents might be arranged for suspiciously big winners. That could be a big deterrent to the less adventurous cheaters.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Keiko

In more shady casinos it might not be the security you have to worry about but what sort of accidents might be arranged for suspiciously big winners. That could be a big deterrent to the less adventurous cheaters.

The ubiquitous sensors make it very, very hard to do deniable payback that still looks enough like payback to be a deterrent, not to mention the difficulty of preventing the cheater's residual self-documentation from throwing suspicion on the shady casino.

I think casinos will concentrate on detecting worn and implanted tech, and ensuring that all exploit-capable functions are off, and stay off. This would take some extended time for scanning and analysis, so they may spin it into a complimentary show and drink before you are admitted to the the areas with exploitable games. This way you relax and enjoy showroids while your gear is interrogated and goes on standby, like we'd all like cell phones to do before a movie.

[Flyndaran]

It will always be far more profitable to "steal" from people legally and with forethought than illegally with force in any stable functioning society.
Or
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob millions.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I think casinos will concentrate on detecting worn and implanted tech, and ensuring that all exploit-capable functions are off, and stay off.

I suspect they'll concentrate on making their games resistant to that tech. Plenty of casino games have no viable exploits.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I suspect they'll concentrate on making their games resistant to that tech. Plenty of casino games have no viable exploits.

But then you lose out on the large section of card-playing fans, for instance., and you still have to look out for people's gear in case they are pulling some other scam to get the pile of money.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

But then you lose out on the large section of card-playing fans, for instance.

You lose out on the blackjack fans, and even that can be dealt with by adjusting the house edge. Poker is a different problem, because you don't play against the house in the first case, and it's likely that different rooms have different rules on electronics, because as long as everyone is following the same rules, it doesn't matter what those rules are.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

You lose out on the blackjack fans, and even that can be dealt with by adjusting the house edge.

They'd lose me, about the only thing that interests me about the game is the fact that I can win it. The basic strategy is just algorithms.

[gjc8]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

They'd lose me, about the only thing that interests me about the game is the fact that I can win it. The basic strategy is just algorithms.

If the only way you're interested is if you're winning, I don't think they want you as a customer.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by gjc8

If the only way you're interested is if you're winning, I don't think they want you as a customer.

No, they want plenty of people who _think_ they can win at blackjack. They just don't want ones who can apply their minds to a practical way of doing it.

While we're at it, last night's CSI had them checking a blackjack table for signs of cheating. The arrangements appeared to be a mechanical shuffler and an 8 deck stack (416 cards at a time). Anybody have any idea what that does to the difficulty of card-counting?