[Justin7]

Agree. Justin, you are definitely the brains of this operation, and your work in the Cory case was very impressive. Could you please clarify:

1. What did the player do to prejudice the book? It seems that the major cause of the winnings was the book's incompetence, rather than use of a bot.

2. The player put up real money and could have lost. By confiscating winnings, are you not allowing the book to freeroll the player? In my opinion you are rewarding the book's incompetence.

3. You say that, "In the case of a bot user, you are not a "normal person" -- you are probably more skilled. You are expected to know the rules." Do you really support different interpretations of rules for persons A, B and C?

This is just a contracts case. Under contract law, you just ask
1. did the parties have a contract (yes, as described by T&C)
2. did a party break it (yes, the player violated the rule against bots)
3. was that rule reasonable (yes, other books have it, and it limits a book's loss offering a +ev promo)

If one player violated the contract (as the player did, using a bot), what are the book's damages? In this case, it was the EV the player earned. This case is very different from EZ, because even EZ could show that a bot was used (which it failed to do), there was no loss of EV for the book.

re: 1. I agree. More today than when this first came out.
2. I agree there is a freeroll risk. I don't know of a good way to negate that under contract law.
3. Contract law looks at the relative expertise of the parties. If the writer is an expert, an identical contract can be enforced differently than if only the non-writer is an expert.