Casinos are very strictly regulated and must post the exact rules and probability of winning for all their games. If the casino lies about the rules of the game or your chances of winning, then yes it is absolutely their fault and they will be held liable.

I'm pretty sure if I followed the Superbowl ads to crypto.com, I would fail to see these warnings.

Yes, for everyone deeply connected online, who has been following crypto for the last several years, of course we've talked about plenty of warnings many times. But the current marketing campaigns are not aimed at such people.

And yes you could be right it’s just my bubble. But it’s still sad that so many people fall for get rich quick scheme.

Clearly not. There's a pretty clear pattern where many (most?) cryptocurrency enthusiasts avert their eyes from anything except the most transient and limited downsides and are can be quite hostile to anyone who's bearish on cryptocurrency. It's got a strong "power of positive thinking" vibe.

Saying you can't believe people didn't know is just showing lack of empathy in how others form trust. Many of those people form trust by looking at a screen and seeing a nice website with nice logins and nice charts. They look at things with dollar signs and say, "that's a good number there". Others dig in and are curious about how things work. Some laugh when people complain about how much power proof-of-work takes and believe it is the eniventible conclusion to why we don't see aliens out there.

Don't be the wurst person. Be the best! See that all humans need our help from an understanding technology perspective. Know that software can be implemented to take away their choices, or give them more choices than they had before.

Are you suggesting that every Casino publishes an AI derived win rate for poker by law?

I still wouldn't call it perfect play because as soon as someone adopts a fixed strategy, the meta game shifts and it is no longer optimal.

If anything, the assumption is equal play, not perfect play

The meta idea is what I first thought. It’s hard to evaluate though. The ai does not adapt, but continues to beat pros, who are welcome to try and adapt.

I’m curious if there are some zany cheese strats against this kind of AI that work reliably but the answer may be no. The only really practical tool you have that could work is a crazy bluff, but I doubt that’s sustainable.

It doesn’t really matter if perfect play is considered though. Games should be rated assuming equal competence. It’s not misleading if in fact your turn out to be a worse player in a game of skill.

My point is that if the casinos have to post odds, the only odds on a poker table are flat (any deviations from 0 coming from skill differences) minus any rake (with maybe some slight variation if the button doesn't go down an even number of times).

The fact that we cannot define perfect play is irrelevant.

But there's always that separate question of whether it's a moral failing to set out to do what they did in the first place.

And then you dig a little deeper and you can ask, even if we grant for the sake of argument that it's a moral failing, is it the state's responsibility to do anything about that?

And then you can dig even deeper, maybe ease off on the deontological ethics a bit, and instead ask, "What's worse for society in the long run: this behavior, or whatever enforcement mechanisms it would take to curb it?" I'd argue that that's a much more edifying way to frame the question.

My morals don't personally draw that line but it's common enough that you can't dismiss it as preposterous.

Amen to this. Too many people in this thread are shouting from the mountain tops that they hate freedom.

If you can't handle climbing a mountain, you shouldn't do it. It's really this simple. If somebody takes on risk and gets hurt it is their own fault.

Since “customers losing money” is the entire business model and what casinos work to optimize, yes, obviously.