The Art of Exploiting vs the Bad Habit of Scamming

[iTradeChips]

In the case of the software glitches, it really depends on the intention of the user if he wants to take advantage of it or report it to the website or casino software developer. But I really don't think that it is a scam because the user did not use any deceptive action to gain the trust of someone so he can get their money. Some would call the glitch a bug which then blames the developer for having the bug in the first place. I don't see the software issues as a scam but rather software issues that is being, wait for it...EXPLOITED by the users.

[1715334883]

1715334883

[1715334883]

1715334883

[deisik]

However, if they are themselves scammers (e.g. refuse to pay out jackpots or anything to that effect), then cheating on them can be morally justified (as I see it)

Yep, something I had in my mind for discussion too at a later point. Like does scamming a scammer make you a scammer yourself ? From the general answers so far in this thread, I would assume that most users would be ok with doing it and you are no scammer per se, more like a modern Robin Hood maybe. But then again, a lot of users showed high moral standards (which is good) and even scamming a scammer is not easy to square with your conscience. You either have it kind of in your DNA or not imo and feel bad for doing it yourself, no matter the circumstances. Technically it will be hard anyway, since they are pro with scamming most of the times and you are not

I see your point

You basically say that to scam a scammer still requires you to be a scammer deep down inside ("to have it in your DNA") even if it can be justified on some moral high ground. However, if it is a good thing in its own right and serves a good end, you might try to reframe it. For example, disobeying an unlawful order:

Not only should an unlawful order not be obeyed, obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders

The trick "I was only following orders" doesn't work out in most cases. And we can draw some parallels here, i.e. not scamming a scammer when you are able to pull it off can be thought of as being involved in the scam. If you look at it from this angle, your conscience should remain clean and intact

[semobo]

In the case of the software glitches, it really depends on the intention of the user if he wants to take advantage of it or report it to the website or casino software developer. But I really don't think that it is a scam because the user did not use any deceptive action to gain the trust of someone so he can get their money. Some would call the glitch a bug which then blames the developer for having the bug in the first place. I don't see the software issues as a scam but rather software issues that is being, wait for it...EXPLOITED by the users.

Its not okay to take advantage of the glitches if its violates their laws and most of the gambling ToS says they have rights to hold the rewards if it happens mistakenly so the player will complain here it as scam if they didn't paid as regular rewards.When the site failed to detect the issue before the money gets withdrew then the site can't claim it as scam done from the player side.

[deisik]

But I really don't think that it is a scam because the user did not use any deceptive action to gain the trust of someone so he can get their money. Some would call the glitch a bug which then blames the developer for having the bug in the first place. I don't see the software issues as a scam but rather software issues that is being, wait for it...EXPLOITED by the users

It is not scamming in the strict sense

But the terminology used is still mostly a matter of convention. You could call it, for example, cheating. In this manner, the person who found a bug and took advantage of it toward his monetary gain could justify his actions by appealing to the very advantage of the casino itself over the players, that is to say, the house edge. He could think something like "they have an advantage over us anyway, and by rigging the odds in my favor, I just set the things straight as they should be". Is it a legit excuse for milking a casino?

[tyKiwanuka]

He could think something like "they have an advantage over us anyway, and by rigging the odds in my favor, I just set the things straight as they should be". Is it a legit excuse for milking a casino?

House edge is fine imo and no excuse. The casinos have some costs and they are running a service that you actively choose to use, so they should get paid. What I dont like is, when they have super high house edge only because they are incapable of running their business properly or are simply greedy. Offline slots in pubs here often only have a payout of 60% - 70% and this is just rip-off imo, although there are higher running costs compared to an online casino. But they have big lobby, because their big profits also means big taxes and thus the state protects them kind of (and the state always struggles to get taxes from online casinos).

[deisik]

He could think something like "they have an advantage over us anyway, and by rigging the odds in my favor, I just set the things straight as they should be". Is it a legit excuse for milking a casino?

House edge is fine imo and no excuse. The casinos have some costs and they are running a service that you actively choose to use, so they should get paid. What I dont like is, when they have super high house edge only because they are incapable of running their business properly or are simply greedy. Offline slots in pubs here often only have a payout of 60% - 70% and this is just rip-off imo, although there are higher running costs compared to an online casino

That's definitely a rip-off

With that said, though, how can we be so sure that a 1% house edge is not a rip-off? We just feel that's kinda normal (read, small), but do we really know that for certain, as in justified true belief (the classical definition of knowledge), with emphasis on true? Has it never occurred to you why exactly the house edge is so small? Would it really be enough to cover the costs if it were only for the house edge and nothing else? If most profits actually come from the casino's bankroll as discussed in this thread (with which you must be familiar), then even a 1% house edge might be a rip-off, after all. And then things may start to look differently (to a cheater, at least)

[tyKiwanuka]

With that said, though, how can we be so sure that a 1% house edge is not a rip-off? We just feel that's kinda normal (read, small), but do we really know that for certain, as in justified true belief (the classical definition of knowledge), with emphasis on true? Has it never occurred to you why exactly the house edge is so small? Would it really be enough to cover the costs if it were only for the house edge and nothing else? If most profits actually come from the casino's bankroll as discussed in this thread (with which you must be familiar), then even a 1% house edge might be a rip-off, after all. And then things may start to look differently (to a cheater, at least)

In general I think a 1% house edge is fine, unless we know the turnover a certain casino has, because 1% can be huge or tiny profit. Since no casino will publish their turnover, I would then assume that it's not a rip-off, until I get those numbers. So to answer your question: Do we know for sure that it's not a rip-off ? No.

The house edge is so small, because casino will always win longterm - risk-free. Could it be even lower ? Probably, but without numbers hard to judge. I have no idea what it costs to run an online casino and what turnover you can generate. The sheer number of casinos popping up suggests they are making good money though; in a market that never seems to get saturated.

With this higher bankroll thing (link doesn't work btw), I already told you that it's too far from reality for me. Yes, you have your street games example, but everyone is free to have a higher bankroll than the house and you can't call people rip-off artists just for that.

[deisik]

With this higher bankroll thing (link doesn't work btw), I already told you that it's too far from reality for me. Yes, you have your street games example, but everyone is free to have a higher bankroll than the house and you can't call people rip-off artists just for that

Well, it's not about me, actually. I was just thinking like a cheater would (probably) think, following his possible train of reasoning. The truth is, it is not so much about being true or false in an objective sense but rather more about sounding plausible. Put differently, a would-be cheater is not so much concerned about finding the truth as about looking for an excuse that would justify his actions in a way that is acceptable to him personally

In a wider context, this is how our minds work internally. We may indeed look for objective evidence coupled with strict logical reasoning (aka formal proof), but whether we accept the conclusions we arrive at or decline them is essentially the same set of processes that guide a cheater in his pursuit of self-justification

The link should work now