See the case cited below the ratio of which reads :
“In this 2017 case, a gambler who had used edge-sorting (a type of card counting) to win at baccarat in a casino said he was not cheating but deploying ‘a perfectly legitimate advantage.’ The Court held that he had, in fact, cheated, and that the casino could withhold his winnings, even …
See the case cited below the ratio of which reads :
“In this 2017 case, a gambler who had used edge-sorting (a type of card counting) to win at baccarat in a casino said he was not cheating but deploying ‘a perfectly legitimate advantage.’ The Court held that he had, in fact, cheated, and that the casino could withhold his winnings, even though he did not consider his acts to be dishonest. In that case, the ‘essentials’ of cheating were held to “normally involve a deliberate (and not an accidental) act designed to gain an advantage in the play which is objectively improper, given the nature, parameters and rules (formal or informal) of the game under examination” (para 47).”
Objectively speaking all the examples I gave involved someone with inside knowledge (as opposed to an educated guess) which gave them an unfair advantage whether it’s a shareholder who knows that the company concerned is about to post poor profits, a race goer who knows that the main opposition horse has been nobbled, or the politico who knows before everyone else the date that the PM is going to fix for the election. In each case they are objectively dishonest. Hope that helps.
See the case cited below the ratio of which reads :
“In this 2017 case, a gambler who had used edge-sorting (a type of card counting) to win at baccarat in a casino said he was not cheating but deploying ‘a perfectly legitimate advantage.’ The Court held that he had, in fact, cheated, and that the casino could withhold his winnings, even though he did not consider his acts to be dishonest. In that case, the ‘essentials’ of cheating were held to “normally involve a deliberate (and not an accidental) act designed to gain an advantage in the play which is objectively improper, given the nature, parameters and rules (formal or informal) of the game under examination” (para 47).”
Objectively speaking all the examples I gave involved someone with inside knowledge (as opposed to an educated guess) which gave them an unfair advantage whether it’s a shareholder who knows that the company concerned is about to post poor profits, a race goer who knows that the main opposition horse has been nobbled, or the politico who knows before everyone else the date that the PM is going to fix for the election. In each case they are objectively dishonest. Hope that helps.