Eliminating all random elements

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-06 19:27:14

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is the primary federal law that could potentially impact Cordial Minuet. Here's the section that defines its scope:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5362

A bet or wager means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

CM is not a contest of others, not a sporting event, and is not subject to chance. It was designed this way on purpose.

However, someone might argue that there is one random element left in CM: the layout of the board. Since it's a magic square, it is inherently fair, in that the average of each row and column is 18.5. However, as someone recently pointed out to me, the variance of each column differs. There could be situations where one player has predominantly high-variance columns while the other player has predominantly low-variance rows.

Finally, I've long been aware that there are certain rare tactical situations offered by certain boards (for example, boards where you can force a per-turn greedy player to lose even if they know what you are going to pick), but this is a tiny fraction of boards (something like 2%), and even those boards only guarantee a win against a certain fixed opponent strategy (there's always an opponent counter strategy).

Still, it seems prudent to eliminate any random element from CM that could conceivably benefit one player over the other, however slightly.

I don't want to eliminate the freshly-generated boards, however, because they add variety to the the game.

The solution is to simply present each board twice in a row, rotated 90 degrees the second time. Thus, whatever slight advantage you had on the board on turn 1, your opponent will have on turn 2. Turn 3 you will get a completely fresh board.

This will also add another avenue for expert play (players have long been asking for a chance to see the board from their opponent's perspective).

computermouth · 2015-01-06 20:23:41

When I first saw the game board, I immediately likened it to Sudoku. But I'd wondered why the number system wasn't more like that. With columns/rows numbered 1-6. Would that not also solve the issue?

Edit:
Plus then hitting triple 6's would be a guaranteed win or very rare tie

Last edited by computermouth (2015-01-06 20:27:01)

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-06 22:17:30

You mean:

6 5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1 6
4 3 2 1 6 5
3 2 1 6 5 4
2 1 6 5 4 3 
1 6 5 4 3 2

I considered something like this (or even thought about a 52x52 grid of cards for a non-random Poker), but it just seemed more dry than the magic square. There are no attractors to leverage decisions around.

Also, turn one, optimal play is to pick randomly (i.e., the game tree doesn't matter like it does on a magic square).

Might help to reason about the 4x4 version:

Compare it to the 4x4 magic square:

 9  6  3 16
 4 15 10  5
14  1  8 11
 7 12 13  2

One big difference is the variance, which is constant for each row and column in the sudoku (1.25), but non-constant for the rows and columns of the magic square.

I'm pretty sure that choosing randomly on turn 1 in the sudoku is optimal (and that the game tree doesn't matter), but I haven't thought it through.

I didn't think it through for the magic square either, but I ran simulations that showed picking randomly was not optimal (the game tree matters).

jere · 2015-01-06 22:30:48

It's probably irrational, but I really don't like that as a thing. Seems boring.

It doesn't completely eliminate the randomness either. If you get the optimal rotation on turn one, you've either got a better chance to beat your opponent or they know it's optimal and they just fold. You can leave that game right after the first round... unless somehow both antes are already set aside.

Is this mainly driven by the legal concern or what?

zed · 2015-01-07 01:37:28

So is rock-paper-scissors considered a "subject to chance" for the purposes of that law?

cullman · 2015-01-07 02:31:06

I agree with jere and Jason, in that I prefer the 1 to 36 vs 1 to 6.

computermouth · 2015-01-07 02:51:38

Mmm, upon explanation, I concur. But honestly, I'm also still not wrapping my head around the board rotation mechanics. Are we talking about rotating the board between bet1 and pick2? Or playing a board out, then playing the rotated board next round?

AnoHito · 2015-01-07 07:08:53

Having the numbers go only from 1 to 6 would mean you'd consistently have a 1 in 6 chance of knowing your number is the highest possible, which would probably just encourage players to fish for high numbers even more than they already are. But I don't think rotating the board is a good idea either, because it just seems like a lazy solution.

The thing is, I don't actually believe the randomness of the board is a problem as far as gambling laws are concerned. You could think of variances in the board layout as a handicap that fluctuates randomly (but still fairly). A fair game of skill is still a fair game of skill regardless of there being a handicap involved. As long as both players agree on the handicap, and both players still have the ability win based on their skill, it shouldn't matter what the handicap is. Having the handicap be random might be somewhat of a gray area, but as long as the handicap of any given player averages out the same as any other player, and as long as the handicap is never so bad that it guarantees a win for one player, I think you have a very legitimate argument that it should not be cause to classify Cordial Minuet as a game of chance. In fact, the ability to recognize how the properties of the board layout may affect the outcome of a game is one of the most skillful elements of Cordial Minuet.

Besides, let's face it, Cordial Minuet is in a gray area no matter what you do. It's a game that by the letter of the law should not be considered a gambling game, but still has many of the same elements that gambling games have. If Cordial Minuet becomes successful enough to attract the attention of the legal system, you would be amazed how they can creatively interpret the law to make cases that exist in a gray area go their way. You'd probably be fighting legal battles for at least a decade, even if you did eventually win.

Think of it this way. If the randomness of the board layout is the single factor that ends up determining if Cordial Minuet is a game of skill or not, you are probably still safe if you just wait until someone actually complains before doing something, which may never even happen. Because any change you could make to remove that randomness would probably make Cordial Minuet a worse game, so I think we're all better of if you can avoid the issue entirely. But personally I think it's very unlikely that this would be the one thing that would save you from a legal battle. If someone important decides they don't like Cordial Minuet, it's going to happen eventually...

joshwithguitar · 2015-01-07 07:46:34

As I can see it the problem is that players have already committed one coin before they see the board meaning that concerning that one coin the player could be in a better or worse situation depending on the chance layout of the board.

A simple solution:
If a player leaves the game before they commit to any decisions then both players get their coin back.

This way the player can always opt out if they believe a board is unfair. In practice I don't think many people will do this. But importantly, now the layout of the board is no longer a chance element as players get to see it before committing to a game.

AnoHito · 2015-01-07 07:57:25

But that would create the problem of players constantly leaving games in order to gain an advantage. The problem of players leaving games early is already bad enough. Giving them such a huge incentive to do so would just make things 100 times worse.

.. · 2015-01-07 12:06:11

computermouth wrote:

When I first saw the game board, I immediately likened it to Sudoku. But I'd wondered why the number system wasn't more like that. With columns/rows numbered 1-6.

That's called a Latin square.

This isn't a serious suggestion, but just an amusing variant of CM: neither player would have an advantage if you played two simultaneous games with one board a rotated version of the other.

I don't think that playing each board twice in a row would be boring; it would probably be more interesting, allowing you to more deeply analyse a board and your opponent's perspective. It could even speed up play.

joshwithguitar · 2015-01-07 13:05:04

AnoHito wrote:

But that would create the problem of players constantly leaving games in order to gain an advantage. The problem of players leaving games early is already bad enough. Giving them such a huge incentive to do so would just make things 100 times worse.

I'm not sure that one coin is a huge incentive to leave early given that the advantage given to one side by a board will be on average quite low, if there is one at all.

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-07 16:58:39

computermouth, board would stay the same throughout the round (picking, betting, reveal). Then for the next round, it would be the same board rotated 90 degrees. After that, a fresh board would be generated for the third round. That board would be rotated 90 degrees for round four. Repeat.

Jere, if I didn't tell you I was doing it, no one would ever notice it. Recognizing a grid of numbers rotated is really hard.

I agree that it's not a perfect solution, because the advantage is given to one player before the other. Of course, who gets the advantage first is randomly chosen. If one player can notice this and use it to win one coin and leave, they can only do this 50% of the time.

Given my experience in front of a judge, the power disparity of the people involved means very little relative to the persuasiveness of the arguments on display. If an expert witness was called to point out that there is some non-trivial randomness lurking in Cordial Minuet because of the inherent asymmetry of the board, I would want to have some "I already thought of that and fixed it" answer handy.

I need to be careful here because of the letter of the UIGEA law. "Subject to chance" is what currently makes intra-state online poker illegal in the US, even though many courts have ruled that poker is a game of skill according to the predominance test. Backgammon has likewise been ruled a game of skill, and is legally played for money in public in many states, but is still subject to chance in the face of the UIGEA law.

Anyway, I'm not worried about Cordial Minuet in California or any other state. My main concern in designing it was the federal UIGEA.

Regarding rock-paper-scissors and the definition of chance, I can't find a specific legal precedent here. However, many laws dealing with the subject discuss "physical devices" that are used to select a winner at random. In fact, many of the laws specifically outlaw these devices directly.

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-07 17:15:37

Oh, one more thing. The UIGEA only makes things federally illegal if they are also illegal in some of the states where the internet activity is taking place.

The term "unlawful Internet gambling" means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

However, it only applies, as noted above, to games that are "subject to chance." Thus, as long as a game doesn't fall within the narrow definition of the UIGEA, it doesn't matter whether some state law makes it illegal---the UIGEA does not apply.

Thus, though I'm pretty sure Cordial Minuet is legal as a game of skill in almost every state, there are a lot of states, and their laws and court decisions are changing all the time. Also, I sit here in California where I'm certain that Cordial Minuet is legal as a game of skill, and I'm insulated from the reach of other states and their changing laws.

But for the UIGEA to apply, all it takes is one state to rule that Cordial Minuet is illegal. Thus, I need to make sure Cordial Minuet is simply outside the scope of the UIGEA in the first place.

AnoHito · 2015-01-07 17:58:47

To play a bit of devil's advocate, even if you do change the game so that every board layout is played from both perspectives, would that really make a difference? A lawyer could still argue that Cordial Minuet has an element of chance that affects the outcome if they could find a way to prove that the first player to get a board layout has an advantage over the second player. Which I think they could in at least some of the cases, because if the first player to get a layout wins a significant number of chips from the other player, they will have leverage when playing the next round with the board layout rotated that the other player didn't get to have when they were playing the board from their original perspective. Lawyers are tricky like that.

But actually, if I were a lawyer, I would focus on Cordial Minuet's betting as the primary element of chance. Because betting involves valuing your current position at the point when you have to bet, and most of the time you don't know for certain how the strength of your position compares to that of the other player, you could argue that you are placing a wager based on an element that is controlled by chance. Because of the shared uncertainty both players have regarding how their column picks affect the score they will get, neither player is truly in control of the outcome of picking. And therefore, it would be fair in a sense to say, that there is an element of randomness in the score you get, even though the score was technically generated by a decision shared by both players. Can you honestly claim that there is no element of luck in the score you get when it is influenced by elements neither player controls completely? And what happens if one of the players uses a random number generator to pick their columns? Surely that would have to count as an element of chance, right? Even if you as the designer can't control how columns are picked, the mere fact that they can be picked randomly could be interpreted as an element of chance.

I just think it is naive to assume changing how board layouts are given to players will really make that much difference from a legal perspective. It probably wouldn't hurt to to try and remove as much chance from the game as possible, but in the end there are elements of chance in Cordial Minuet that can't be changed. I think in a real court case, Cordial Minuet would have to fight an uphill battle no matter what you do. Especially if the prosecutor bothers to read the forum records, which refer to playing Cordial Minuet as "gambling" all over the place. That just plain doesn't look good. I hate to say this, but if you are not prepared to fight a legal battle regarding how Cordial Minuet should be classified, maybe you shouldn't be doing this in the first place...

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-07 18:43:56

Oh, I'm prepared to fight a legal battle.

I just need to make sure my position is as strong as possible.

Yes, Cordial Minuet is gambling, but it's not ILLEGAL gambling. There's a difference. You can gamble over a chess game or over the stock market, and it's not illegal.

You could pick your moves in chess randomly, and if you do, there is a small chance that you could beat a grand master that way. But the ability to play randomly, which you can do in any game, has no bearing on the inherent randomness of the game.

I chose simultaneous decisions and hidden information precisely because there are no legal precedents here. Will a court determine that simultaneous decisions make a game subject to chance? I don't know. It certainly feels different than a random number generator, in that you can get good at that part of the game. You can't get good at the getting-good-cards part of Poker.

A beginning player faces a double-hit against an expert in this game: they need to learn how to pick, and they need to learn how to bet. In Poker, the expert only trumps them on the betting part.

All that said, my intention was to design a game with absolutely no random elements at all. The original game was played repeatedly, forever, on a single magic square.

I decided that, to add texture and variety, I should have each round played on a new magic square. This texture and variety was supposed to come from a new, equal-opportunity starting state that both players could study. I thought that the properties of the magic square guaranteed this equal opportunity. The texture and variety was not supposed to come from an advantage, however slight, bestowed upon one player.

Still, in a simultaneous decision game, it is unclear how a player would exploit such an advantage without also opening themselves up to being counter-exploited.

AnoHito · 2015-01-07 18:51:17

jasonrohrer wrote:

Still, in a simultaneous decision game, it is unclear how a player would exploit such an advantage without also opening themselves up to being counter-exploited.

The main advantage for having a layout with higher variance would be that you would on average have better information about whether you had won or lost at the end of a picking round than the other player. In terms of the actual picking you can't really exploit a board layout until the second round, and even then only if the other player picks columns that leave them open to exploitation. So there may not actually be a real advantage there one way or the other.

jere · 2015-01-07 18:55:55

I agree with you that I wouldn't notice if not told. I actually came close to posting that sentiment, but can't say 100%. There are certain details I pay attention to that might clue me off. Anyway, I'll never know now.

That "boring" response was just a gut reaction. If your goal is to make the legal case as tight as possible, I think you should go for it.

I still think the optimal design would be taking both antes up front. That well and truly removes any hint of randomness for good.

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-07 19:30:28

jere wrote:

I still think the optimal design would be taking both antes up front. That well and truly removes any hint of randomness for good.

Can you explain what you mean here?

jere · 2015-01-08 00:23:51

Sure. First, I'm going under the assumption that certain board variations are inherently advantageous (the whole point of this thread).

If that's the case, then the person that gets the advantageous rotation has an advantage. They'll also get to see the 90 degree rotation, but only if they stick around for it. Instead they could use the advantageous rotation to their advantage by using it to maximize their profit or simply force a fold and then leave.

The solution is to set aside the first and second round antes ahead of time. That way if you get the disadvantageous rotation, you can simply fold. The other player is obligated to either play out the second round or sacrifice the second round ante if they leave in the first OR second round.

Now, no one can claim they got the bad luck of the rotation order favoring their opponent. With this in place, I don't see any hint of randomness at all.

cullman · 2015-01-08 01:07:38

AnoHito wrote:

But actually, if I were a lawyer, I would focus on Cordial Minuet's betting as the primary element of chance. Because betting involves valuing your current position at the point when you have to bet, and most of the time you don't know for certain how the strength of your position compares to that of the other player, you could argue that you are placing a wager based on an element that is controlled by chance. Because of the shared uncertainty both players have regarding how their column picks affect the score they will get, neither player is truly in control of the outcome of picking. And therefore, it would be fair in a sense to say, that there is an element of randomness in the score you get, even though the score was technically generated by a decision shared by both players. Can you honestly claim that there is no element of luck in the score you get when it is influenced by elements neither player controls completely? And what happens if one of the players uses a random number generator to pick their columns? Surely that would have to count as an element of chance, right? Even if you as the designer can't control how columns are picked, the mere fact that they can be picked randomly could be interpreted as an element of chance.

I completely disagree with this. I could write a program that makes random but legal chess moves for me, and play chess using that program. That doesn't add an element of chance to the game of chess, just to the way I am playing it.

To me the test is this, when I was first starting out I won ZERO games against a good player, that to me says that it is a game of skill. In fact, in my first 20 games I don't think I even won a round of the game - surely if luck was a big factor I would have won one even by accident. As a beginning poker player I won many sit and go tournaments just purely based on the strength of my cards.

AnoHito · 2015-01-08 11:18:01

cullman wrote:

I completely disagree with this. I could write a program that makes random but legal chess moves for me, and play chess using that program. That doesn't add an element of chance to the game of chess, just to the way I am playing it.

True, but the question is, if you know the moves the other player is using are not their own, but rather moves generated randomly by a computer, is it legal by the letter of the law to bet money on the outcome? That is a tricky question that I'm not sure has ever really been answered.

cullman · 2015-01-08 16:00:25

AnoHito wrote:

cullman wrote:
I completely disagree with this. I could write a program that makes random but legal chess moves for me, and play chess using that program. That doesn't add an element of chance to the game of chess, just to the way I am playing it.
True, but the question is, if you know the moves the other player is using are not their own, but rather moves generated randomly by a computer, is it legal by the letter of the law to bet money on the outcome? That is a tricky question that I'm not sure has ever really been answered.

I am certain that whether or not a game is a game of skill or chance is defined by the rules of the game rather than instances of its play. Your example could be applied to other existing real money skill games that have not had legal issues.

One alternative idea, though, I'm not sure I would like this in practice is you could give both sides a veto button to allow them to skip a given matrix of numbers before column selection and betting. If neither player presses the veto button, then it could be said that both sides agree it's a balanced board. In reality, I can't think of many boards I would get that I would veto.

Last edited by cullman (2015-01-08 16:09:52)

AnoHito · 2015-01-08 16:16:13

cullman wrote:

I am certain that whether or not a game is a game of skill or chance is defined by the rules of the game rather than instances of its play. Your example could be applied to other existing real money skill games that have not had legal issues.

I'm not sure, I think it doesn't come up a lot because in most skill based games playing randomly wouldn't be effective, so no one would ever play randomly on purpose. In a game like Cordial Minuet where random play can be effective, though not necessarily more effective than deliberate play, it may actually cause legal issues. Say you were to start a website where you could Rock Paper Scissors for money against a computer programmed to play randomly. Rock Paper Scissors is technically classified as a skill based game, but in this case the implementation is practically the same as a website that let you bet on a coin flip for money. But a website where you bet on a coin flip would almost certainly be classified as a game of chance, so shouldn't the Rock Paper Scissors site be classified the same way?

Last edited by AnoHito (2015-01-08 16:17:20)

cullman · 2015-01-08 16:26:28

AnoHito wrote:

cullman wrote:
I am certain that whether or not a game is a game of skill or chance is defined by the rules of the game rather than instances of its play. Your example could be applied to other existing real money skill games that have not had legal issues.

I'm not sure, I think it doesn't come up a lot because in most skill based games playing randomly wouldn't be effective, so no one would ever play randomly on purpose. In a game like Cordial Minuet where random play can be effective, though not necessarily more effective than deliberate play, it may actually cause legal issues. Say you were to start a website where you could Rock Paper Scissors for money against a computer programmed to play randomly. Rock Paper Scissors is technically classified as a skill based game, but in this case the implementation is practically the same as a website that let you bet on a coin flip for money. But a website where you bet on a coin flip would almost certainly be classified as a game of chance, so shouldn't the Rock Paper Scissors site be classified the same way?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Your example is not the equivalent of CM as the implementation of the game has a random play, and the person implementing the game and it's rules has made it a game of chance. I will try to explain my side one more time. If what you said was true, I could make playing fantasy football for money illegal just by writing a single bot that drafts and plays a fantasy football team completely randomly.

CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

#1 2015-01-06 19:27:14

Eliminating all random elements

#2 2015-01-06 20:23:41

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#3 2015-01-06 22:17:30

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#4 2015-01-06 22:30:48

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#5 2015-01-07 01:37:28

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#6 2015-01-07 02:31:06

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#7 2015-01-07 02:51:38

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#8 2015-01-07 07:08:53

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#9 2015-01-07 07:46:34

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#10 2015-01-07 07:57:25

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#11 2015-01-07 12:06:11

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#12 2015-01-07 13:05:04

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#13 2015-01-07 16:58:39

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#14 2015-01-07 17:15:37

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#15 2015-01-07 17:58:47

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#16 2015-01-07 18:43:56

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#17 2015-01-07 18:51:17

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#18 2015-01-07 18:55:55

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#19 2015-01-07 19:30:28

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#20 2015-01-08 00:23:51

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#21 2015-01-08 01:07:38

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#22 2015-01-08 11:18:01

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#23 2015-01-08 16:00:25

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#24 2015-01-08 16:16:13

Re: Eliminating all random elements

#25 2015-01-08 16:26:28

Re: Eliminating all random elements

Board footer