Mitra Poker

 admin

Poker 5-Card Draw ( Due 23 Mar 2012 )

  1. Mira Poker
  2. Mitra Poker Game

In this programming assignment you will simulate a regular Pokergame otherwise known as the 5-Card Draw. Regular Poker is playedwith a standard deck of 52 cards. Cards are ranked from high tolow in the following order: Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7,6, 5, 4, 3, 2. The value of an Ace is higher than a King which ishigher than a Queen and so on. There are four suits - Spades, Hearts, Clubs, and Diamonds. The suits are of equal value.

  1. Bermain markas poker online uang asli saat ini sudah tidak asing lagi di Indonesia. Para penggemar pengadu nasib kini bisa menemukan mitra taruhan judi online terpercaya di internet. Namun lain halnya jika bermain pada agen markas poker terpercaya, di sini anda akan mendapatk layanan terbaik diantara agen judi yang ada.
  2. Your game on online poker gambling games. So every time you play, lose and win your game, of course, will get TurnOver. BECOME AN EXAMPLE OF TURNOVER FROM ONLINE POKER: If there is a poker agent who sets TurnOver 3 times, this means that your deposit will be played or rotated 3 times the amount of your deposit.
  3. Mitra Resmi Agen Slot Online Terpercaya. Thereelace.com – Game judi poker online 21NAGA bisa anda mainkan dengan mudah tanpa perlu melakukan suatu pembelajaran dalam jangka waktu lama.

OEM Manufacturer of EXEN VIBRATORS - High Frequency Surface Finish Poker/ Needle Vibrator offered by Mitra Enterprises, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Dari dahulu sampai sekarang ini permainan judi sudah menempel erat pada masyarakat Indonesia dari anak muda sampai kelompok dewasa. Bermacam permainan judi di Indonesia memang banyak sekali serta.

Rules of the Game

Each player is dealt five cards. The player with the highest valuedhand wins. The best to worst hands are ranked in the following order:

  1. Royal Flush
  2. Straight Flush
  3. Four of a Kind
  4. Full House
  5. Flush
  6. Straight
  7. Three of a Kind
  8. Two Pair
  9. One Pair
  10. High Card

Royal Flush: A Royal Flush is made of 10, Jack, Queen, King, and Ace all of thesame of suit.The probability of getting a royal flush is so low that ties arenot broken.

Straight Flush: A straight flush is made of 5 cards innumerical sequence but of the same suit.If there are two straight flushes, then which ever hand has the highestcard value wins. In the above example, Hand 2 wins.

Four of a Kind: In four of a kind, the hand must have fourcards of the same numerical rank, e.g. four aces or four queens.In the event of a tie the hand that has highest ranking four of a kindcards wins. In the above example, Hand 2 wins.

Full House: For a full house, three of the cards must have thesame numerical rank and the the two remaining cards must also have the samenumerical rank but obviously different rank than the other three.If there are two full houses, then the hand that has the higher rankingcards for the three of a kind wins. In the above example, Hand 2wins.

Flush: In a flush there are 5 cards all of the same suit.The numerical order does not matter.In the event of two flushes, the one with the highest ranking cardwins. In the above example, Hand 1 wins.

Straight: In a straight hand, the 5 cards are in numericalorder but are not all of the same suit.When there are two stright hands, then the one with the highest rankingcard wins. In the above example, Hand 2 wins.

Poker

Three of a Kind: In three of a kind hand, there are 3 cardsof the same rank and the other two are unrelated.When there are two three of a kind hands, the hand with the highestranking three of a kind card wins. In the above example, Hand 2wins.

Two Pair: In a two pair hand there are two cards of amatching rank, another two cards of a different matching rank, and a fifth random card.When there are two hands that are two pair the hand having the highestpair wins. If the highest pair in both hands are of the same rank, thenthe highest second pair wins. If the two hands have two identical pairs,then the hand with the highest ranking fifth card wins. In the example,above, Hand 2 wins.

One Pair: In a one pair hand there are two cards of the samerank and the other three cards are unrelated.In the event of a tie, then the hand with highest pair wins. If the twopairs are the same, then highest side card wins, and if necessary, thesecond highest side card, and finally the third highest side care can beused to break the tie. In the above example, Hand 1 wins.

High Card: If none of the hands in a game qualified under thecategories listed above then the hand having the highest ranking card wins.To break a tie, the second-highest, third-highest, fourth-highest, and thesmallest card can be used in order. In the above example, Hand 1wins.

Poker Game Simulation

You will modify the classes that you created for the Blackjack assignment. The overall structure of the program will be as follows:

Use the Card class given below instead of the one in the book. Thenotation for the cards will be more compact.

In the function main() you will be prompting the user to enter thenumber of hands to play. Make sure that that number is between 2 and6 inclusive. In the class Poker you will create that many hands froma single of deck of cards. Here is a suggested outline of the Pokerclass:

Most of the programming will be concentrated on writing the above functions.Now, these functions will return a 0 if the hand does not fulfil thatparticular condition. For example, if the hand is not four of a kind thefunction isFour() will return 0. Otherwise it will return a numbergreater than 0 that can used to order the hands and even break a tieaccording to the rules given above. There is a scheme that is suggestedbelow that you may or may not use.

Assignment of Points to a Hand: This scheme assumes that youwill systematically check if a hand meets the requirements from a RoyalFlush to a High Card. Once a hand has met a certain criteria,say Straight Flush then you will not check if it meets the criterialower down the ranking scale.

Here are the points (h) alloted for a hand:

Mitra Poker
  • Royal Flush: 10
  • Straight Flush: 9
  • Four of a Kind: 8
  • Full House: 7
  • Flush: 6
  • Straight: 5
  • Three of a Kind: 4
  • Two Pair: 3
  • One Pair: 2
  • High Card: 1
The total points is calculated as follows:where c1, c2, c3, c4, and c5 are the ranks of the cards in the hand, wherec1 is the highest ranking card and c5 is the lowest ranking card. Thereare some variations to this rule that are mentioned below:
Four of a Kind
c1, c2, c3, and c4 are the ranks of the four of a kind cards and c5is the side card.
Full House
c1, c2, and c3 are the ranks of the three cards having the same rankand c4 and c5 are the ranks of the two remaining cards having the samerank.
Three of a Kind
c1, c2, and c3 are the ranks of the three cards of the same rankand c4 and c5 are the ranks of the remaining cards where c4 has higherrank than c5.
Two Pair
c1 and c2 are the ranks of the first and higher ranking pair. c3and c4 are the ranks of the second and lower ranking pair. c5 is therank of the remaining side card.
One Pair
c1 and c2 are the ranks of the pair of cards having the same rank.c3, c4, and c5 are the ranks of the side cards from highest to lowestrank.

The file that you will be turning in will be called Poker.py. The file will have a header of the following form:

Your output session will look as follows:

Use the turnin program to submit your Poker.py file. The TAs should receiveyour work by 11 PM on Friday, 23 March 2012. We will be looking for cleanlogic and good documentation. There will be substantial penalties if you donot adhere to the guidelines.

  • You must submit the .py file.
  • Your .py file should have the header with the proper documentation.
  • You should be submitting your .py file through the web based turnin program. We will not accept files e-mailed to us.
  • Your code must compile and run before submission.
  • Here is the Grading Criteria.
Mitra poker games
United States v. Kane
CourtUnited States District Court for the District of Nevada
Full case nameUnited States of America v. John Kane and Andre Nestor
DecidedNovember 2013
Citation(s)11-mj-00001 [1]
Holding
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss charges under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) should be granted

United States v. Kane, No 11-mj-00001 (D. Nev. filed Jan. 19, 2011), is a court case where a software bug in a video poker machine was exploited to win several hundred thousand dollars. Central to the case was whether a video poker machine constituted a protected computer and whether the exploitation of a software bug constituted exceeding authorized access under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Ultimately, the Court ruled that the government’s argument failed to sufficiently meet the “exceeding authorized access” requirement of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) moving to approve the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.[1][2]

This case is noteworthy because it followed the precedent established by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc), with the magistrate calling the government’s argument directly analogous to the government’s argument in Nosal, further asserting that the CFAA does not regulate the way individuals use the information they are otherwise authorized to access.[3]

Background[edit]

In early April 2009, John Kane discovered a software bug in a video poker game which, following a “complex combination of game changes, bill insertions and cash outs”, would allow him to access previous winning hands and trigger a jackpot.[4] Following this discovery, Kane then contacted Andre Nestor who flew out to meet Kane and joined him in exploiting this bug for profit. The two continued this for nearly five months, from April 2009 to September 2009.[5]

Suspicions were raised on July 3, 2009, when Kane won five jackpots, each with 820-1 odds, in under an hour at the Silverton Casino Lodge. Following this, two engineers from Nevada’s Gaming Control Board were called in to inspect the machine for foul play. Here, having analyzed the machine’s logic tray and EEPROM, the engineers discovered the previously unknown firmware bug which Kane had been exploiting to win the jackpot payouts.[5] Subsequently, both Kane and Nestor were later arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA on allegations that they exceeded authorized access to a protected computer in furtherance of fraud.[4]

Court findings[edit]

Following their Indictment, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, moving the Court to dismiss the charges alleging violations under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4), arguing that “even accepting all of the Government’s factual allegations as true, the Government has failed to state a cognizable offense under the law.”[2] The Court sided with this Motion to Dismiss, concluding that the Defendants had not violated Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4), for a video poker game does not constitute a protected computer under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B) nor did their actions exceed authorized access under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6).[2]

Protected computer[edit]

Computer[edit]

Addressing the Defendants claim that video poker machines are not “protected computers”, the Court first defined a computer to having the meaning given by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1) (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), which states a computer is an:

“electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high-speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device” [1]

Kane, in his reply, argued that due to their lack of keyboards, network connection, and ability to read or accept new information, video poker machines should thereby be excluded from this provision,[2] highlighting 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1) which continued to state that:

“such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device.” [1]

However, whilst the Court acknowledged the exceptions listed in this provision, the Court argued that video poker machines are not “sufficiently similar” to an automated typewriter or typesetter or a portable hand held calculator to qualify for exclusion.[2] Consequently, the Court held that the video poker machines perform functions that directly align it with what constitutes a computer under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1).

Protected computer[edit]

Having concluded that video poker machines are computers, the Court then sought to address the Defendants claim that such machines are not “protected computers”.

Row of video poker machines inside Harrah's New Orleans similar to the ones used by Kane.

To do this, the Court called upon 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B), which defined a protected computer as:

“[a computer] which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States”[1]

Mira Poker

The arguments were as follows:[2]

  1. The Defendants, citing National City bank, N.A. v. Prime lending, Inc., argued that because the video poker machines lacked the ability to connect to the internet, they are not protected computers. However, the Government, citing U.S. v. Mitra, 405 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2005), reasoned that while internet connectivity is sufficient in establishing a computer as a protected computer, it is not required.[6]
  2. Addressing this, Kane noted how critical to the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Mitra was the issue of having operated in a medium of interstate commerce that was within a federally regulated domain. Thus, he argued, Mitra is not applicable to this case, for video poker machines are not subject to federal regulation. [6] The Government refuted this claim, arguing that the Gambling Devices Act of 1962 (15 U.S.C. § 1171-78) subjugated these devices to federal regulation, therefore they operate within the same regulated domain.[7]
  3. The Government argued that, due to the video poker machines “attracting customers from all over the country to Las Vegas” to play them, they thereby affect interstate commerce.

In its ruling, the Court held the following:[2]

  1. The Court sided with the Government in that internet access is not the only way to constitute a computer as a protected computer.
  2. The Court sided with the Defendant for, unlike the radio system in Mitra, a video poker machine has no such capability to transmit, receive, or otherwise communicate information across state lines.
    1. Additionally, the Court rejected the Government’s Gambling Devices Act applicability argument, declaring it invalid as this act functioned to merely regulated the shipping and transportation of these devices.[7] Thus, “the machines themselves do not function within those channels as anything more than cargo”.
  3. The Court held that the Government’s argument of affecting interstate commerce through the attraction of customers fails for two reasons:
    1. This proposed effect only holds in the aggregate, as the Government cannot show an individual video poker machine to have such an effect on interstate commerce.
    2. The basis of this argument derives from having “divorce[d] the function of the device, i.e. logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, from its supposed effects in interstate commerce.”[1]

Emphasizing the need for a more “tangential relationship to interstate commerce”, the Court concluded that the video poker machines failed to constitute protected computers as doing so would “result in an unacceptably broad application of the term”.[2]

Exceeds authorized access[edit]

Access[edit]

To address the Defendant’s claim of not having exceeded authorized access the Court first held that the Defendants, due to them having physically 'interacted with the video poker machines in the manner for which they were designed'[2], had accessed the video poker machine.

Exceeds authorized access[edit]

Mitra Poker Game

Subsequently, the Court defined the term exceeds authorized access using 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6) which defines the term as:

“[accessing] a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled so to obtain or alter”.[1]

With the Defendants actions allowing them to obtain previously played hands, the Government argued that they had subsequently “obtain[ed] or altered information” that they were not authorized to access, thereby exceeding their authorized access.[2]

However, with the Government having conceded that the Defendants were authorized to play video poker, the Court disagreed with the Government’s claim, as it effectively sought to criminalize the way the Defendants played the game.

Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court ruled that the “CFAA does not regulate the way individuals use the information which they are otherwise authorized to access”[2] as such an application of CFAA would “transform whole categories of otherwise innocuous behavior into federal crimes simply because a computer was involved”.[3] Resultantly, the Court held that the Defendants did not exceed their authorized access.

Ruling[edit]

Having affirmed that the video poker machines failed to constitute protected computers and that the Defendants actions failed to constitute exceeding authorized access, the Court concluded that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss charges under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) should be granted.[2]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ abcdef'18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers'. Legal Information Institute.
  2. ^ abcdefghijkl'United States v Kane - Oct. 2012 Magistrate Report'. Scribd.
  3. ^ ab'United States v. Nosal (Nosal II)'. Harvard Law Review.
  4. ^ ab'No Expansion of CFAA Liability for Monetary Exploit of Software Bug'. New Media and Technology Law Blog.
  5. ^ abPoulsen, Kevin. 'Use a Software Bug to Win Video Poker? That's a Federal Hacking Case'. Wired.
  6. ^'UNITED STATES v. MITRA United States Seventh Circuit Case and Opinions'. Findlaw.
  7. ^ ab'Gambling Device Registration'. The United States Department of Justice.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Kane&oldid=992859420'