[Santo]

Santo -

I'm just curious: If you were the decision-maker charged with how to deal with zab's funds, what would you do? I had started to write you a PM asking this earlier today but was distracted by something else and didn't remember it until now.

After re-reading this thread a few times, I have an idea of what I'd decide but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you don't mind sharing them publicly. I'm sure quite a few others would be interested to hear them also. If you'd rather not, I understand that as well.

Ok, long-winded (because I write these cases up for another project, so duplicated a fair bit of the work), but here we go:

Summary of zabula11 vs 5Dimes

The following is my opinion on the case, with the caveat that important details available to SBR are not public, namely:

1) The amount and dates of withdrawals paid to zabula11 by 5Dimes.
2) Whether such withdrawals were subject an audit similar to the one that led to this dispute.

Key points of case:

Zabula 11 claims unjust confiscation of $14,500 from playing a Deuces Wild variant which had a player edge in the region of 12%. 5Dimes claims the play was generated from bot play, which is prohibited by a rule on point stating:

"All Internet wagers must be placed through the user interface provided by 5Dimes Sportsbook & Casino on its Web pages.* Any Internet wagering through other means, including the use of a "robot" player, is strictly forbidden.* In the event that use of non-approved client software is detected, Management reserves the right to invalidate all such wagers retroactively, cancel the player's account, or take any other appropriate action."

5Dimes provided evidence giving (in my opinion) conclusive evidence of bot play, namely repeated breaks in play within milliseconds of each other. This data was made public. Zabula11 has not responded to this evidence. Just prior to the release of data, Zabula11 tried to redefine bot play. There is, in my opinion, no doubt he breached the rule. The question remains whether the rule is valid, and what remedy should be applied. It is worth noting the player approached the debate in bad faith / without clean hands. It is unclear, from the information in the public domain, whether 5Dimes did.

The bots rule

The first question to be addressed is whether the rule is enforceable, in part or in whole. This effectively comes down to whether the term is reasonable, whether it is forced upon the player in a contract of adhesion, and whether a court would find it reasonable and equitable. Should the rule be struck, there would be no rule on point, and the player must be paid.

5Dimes offers at least two games which are +EV for the player. Given this relatively unique situation, banning bots is, in my opinion, reasonable. By controlling the user agent they prevent professional play which is likely to be less profitable. Whilst it is possible to argue that it does not matter who the hands are played by, the reality is that a big winner from the recreational player base is likely to use the funds elsewhere, whilst a professional playing a large number of hands via bots would be likely to withdraw his profits.

It is important to note that this should not set precedent for the use of bots in other situations, namely playing into a -EV game, or especially for the placing of sports-book bets, both of which are situations where the decision would be more complicated. It is also important that this does not mean a book can include any rule in their terms and it be enforced, a good example being BeStake.com's "Gotcha" rule on "Show me the Money".

Funds at risk

LVHerbie has a compelling case that the players funds were at risk, with a reasonable chance of loss. This is unequivocally true. Without knowing how much the player has already been paid it is impossible to determine whether the player has received a reasonable rate of return.

Past Payout / Review

Importantly the player has already received a previous payout. The date and amount of this payout are important. Why? It seems 5Dimes, as is common in the industry, only review the record of a player (sports, casino or poker) upon withdrawal from the account. In this case, when the player requested his $14,500, 5Dimes reviewed his play and noted it was suspicious and showed hallmarks of 'bot' play. Facts in evidence suggest the player received a prior withdrawal. What audit of his account was conducted prior to that withdrawal? Was it a partial withdrawal, in which case 5Dimes knew they had a shot at the remainder/majority of his funds? These facts are not in evidence.

If 5 Dimes knew, or could reasonably know, that the player was using a bot to take advantage of a +EV game at this point (AND, by virtue of the remedy they are offering, they seem to admit knowing the game was +EV by March 1, at the latest), then it would appear from that point they were free-rolling the player. He could lose his funds through play, he could lose his funds through confiscation, but he would not be paid. This would be an unjust application of their rule.

The decision to allow the player to continue playing, if his play had been audited, should be interpreted as waiving that clause of the terms of service.

5Dimes Remedy

Refunding the players who lost since March 01 makes no sense, is little more than a publicity stunt, and should be disregarded in forming an opinion of the case. The players who were playing into this game were playing into a +EV situation, and were getting the best of it by 12% which is an extreme rarity in a casino. There is no need to refund these players.

Conclusion

I have no problem with the SBR decision. The rule being allowed to stand in this specific set of circumstances is reasonable. It would require different interpretation depending on the game being played, and the type of bets being placed.

The players funds were at risk. It is impossible to determine from the facts made public whether he has received a fair payout, if such a payout is due, and the fair payout would have to be determined by some independent party.

The only dispute I would have is regarding the prior payout, whether such payout included an audit of the players play (as would seem likely if it were for a reasonable sum), and why the player was allowed to continue playing past that date.

IF the play had been reviewed, and 5Dimes allowed him to continue playing, the term should be struck, and the player paid. Otherwise, the player should receive nothing or the result of an independent parties 'fair payout' judgment.