SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
EasyStreetSports decision
EasyStreetSports Steals $46,000 from Casino Player
On March 13, 2011, a player wrote SBR complaining that EasyStreetsports would not pay him his casino winnings. SBR contacted the sportsbook, which accused the player of using a “bot” to play the game “Jacks or Better” in its casino. The accusation was made after the player won three Royal Flushes over several play sessions, and requested a payout.
The sportsbook had this rule in place:
Artificial Intelligence - Robots:
You are not allowed to use any software program which, in our opinion, is endowed with artificial intelligence ("AI Software") in connection with your use of the Service. We constantly review the use of the Service in order to detect the use of AI Software and in the event that we deem it has been used we reserve the right to take any action we see fit, including immediately blocking access to the Service to the offending user, terminating such user's account and seizing all monies held in such account.
EasyStreetSports stated that the player played with perfect strategy, and at a rate of just under 18 hands per minute for about five hours. SBR requested the player’s hand log to verify this. The sportsbook agreed to provide this, but it was never given. The sportsbook stated that the player hit three Royal Flushes at an average of one per 2900 hands, and did not take a pause after winning any of those Royals. The sportsbook argued that the player’s speed of play, and his failure to pause after his winning hands was clear proof that the player was using a “bot” program to play all his hands. The player confirmed that he did not pause immediately on two of the three royals, but said he paused on one of them. The sportsbook argued that because the player cheated by using a bot, all of his winnings were void. There was no claim that the player manipulated his software; the player’s history was submitted to DGS (the casino game programmer) which found no abnormalities.
The sportsbook argued that the player used a “bot”, violated their rule against A.I. robots, and therefore would not be paid. The general rule is that if a player wins, the sportsbook owes the player his entire balance. If the sportsbook is confiscating a player balance, the sportsbook must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is entitled to the player’s funds. If it fails to do so, it is obligated to pay the player.
There was No Rule Violation
If all the facts claimed by EasyStreetSports are accepted as true, it has still failed to prove that the player violated its rules. A sportsbook has the ability to implement rules that are enforceable on players. Because it writes the rules, the rules must be written clearly so that there is no confusion or disagreement as to what the rules mean. A sportsbook user agreement, including a prohibition on “A.I. Robots” is nothing more than a contract. If the terms are not clear, the player gets the benefit of any doubts. EasyStreetSports can only take a player’s balance when the player clearly broke their rules, and taking the player’s balance is fair.
EasyStreetSports’ rule against “Artificial Intelligence Robots” does not clearly prohibit a player from using a basic strategy robot to play in its casino. If you review the definition of “intelligence” from the Merriam-Webster dictionary (available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence), it defines intelligence as (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria. At worst, the sportsbook’s rule does not ban a robot without an “A.I.” which does not learn from its environment. At best, the rule is unclear as to what is banned, creating a gray area in the agreement. In either case, EasyStreetSports’ restrictions are construed narrowly against the sportsbook, which wrote them. As the “Artificial Intelligence Robots” restriction is not clear, it does not ban robot play.
EasyStreet Failed to Prove its Defense, Regardless of Rule Interpretation
Even if the rule clearly prohibited a bot from playing the game, EasyStreetsports has not proven that this occurred. The sportsbook stated that it had circumstantial evidence that the player used a bot. This included the player’s speed, accuracy, and lack of pauses after winning. However, it never produced game logs. Even if the logs could substantiate EasyStreetSports’ claims (and the player admits that he could play fast and accurately), this is not clear and convincing evidence that a bot was used.
Resolution
SBR recommended that EasyStreetSports pay the player in full. After this recommendation, the sportsbook asked for additional time to respond in order to conduct additional tests. SBR agreed. No extra tests were conducted, but EasyStreetSports’ legal department issued this statement to SBR (the player’s name was included in the statement, and has been changed to “Player” below):
EZ Street Sports has concluded our investigation of the following player complaint (Player)
---
Our rules are clearly posted on our website regarding our policy of the use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI Software") Robots:
You are not allowed to use any software program which, in our opinion, is endowed with artificial intelligence ("AI Software") in connection with your use of the Service. We constantly review the use of the service in order to detect the use of AI Software and in the event that we deem it has been used we reserve the right to take any action we see fit, including immediately blocking access to the service to the offending user, terminating such user's account and seizing all monies held in such account.
(Player) did indeed use artificial intelligence ("AI Software") Robot in violation of the above rule.
In our investigation we have also uncovered that (Player) had also perpetrated fraud in over 22 other online gaming companies with over 34 various accounts over the last three years. This fraud included but was not limited to fraudulent charge-backs as well as software manipulation.
In our attempt to resolve this dispute (Player) said that he would come to Costa Rica and duplicate the sessions in question. When we not only agreed to this offer but also offered to fly (Player) to Costa Rica and pay ALL of his expenses including hotel. He DECLINED. (Player) was than given the opportunity to pass a simple polygraph test and he would be paid in full. He again DECLINED. Obviously as concluded (Player) used Artificial Intelligence – ("AI Software") Robot and either offer if accepted by (Player) would expose the truth of his fraudulent activities.
---
EasystreetSports’ response was a shotgun tactic: fire several shots, and see if something hits. Its response offered nothing new that was relevant, and simply repeated its earlier unsupported accusations.
Post Resolution
There was much discussion about the player’s history both before and after the statement. The player admits he has charged back deposits at other sportsbooks. This history would be very relevant if EasyStreetSports were accusing the player of intending to ********** if he lost. However, the sportsbook admitted that this was not a possibility. The player had numerous successful cash deposits with EasyStreetSports from January 15, 2011 to February 20, 2011. The most recent deposit was via ** that had already been collected. As EasyStreetSports was not at risk of ********** from this player, the player’s ********** history does not provide a reason for the sportsbook to keep the player’s winnings.
There were some additional discussions after this point. While the player had no obligation to do so, the player and SBR made a proposal that would verify that the player was not using a bot. The following suggestion was made:
1. EasyStreetSports would provide game logs (which it had already offered to do, but never did). The logs would be reviewed to confirm the player’s speed, accuracy, and EasyStreetSports’ other allegations.
2. The player would present himself at either SBR offices in Costa Rica, or at the DGS offices. He would play at a similar pace and duration as shown in the player logs.
3. Prior to the player session, EasyStreetSports would put the disputed winnings in escrow with a third party, such as Bookmaker.com. If the player duplicated his speed and accuracy, the funds would be released to the player.
EasyStreetsports rejected the proposal. Its proposal was similar, with two changes. It demanded that the player to submit to a polygraph test, and it wanted the money kept in escrow with another gambling forum with which it advertises, instead of a neutral third party.
SBR recommended that the player reject this proposal, and the player did. Itwas bad enough that a sportsbook demanded that a player fly to Costa Rica to prove his innocence, when the sportsbook has failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing. It would set a very bad precedent if a sportsbook could demand that any player submit to a polygraph test before receiving a payout.
Polygraph testing is a very unproven science. The 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer noted that “There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable.” This test is especially dangerous when conducted on an innocent person. A “false positive” occurs when the test reports a truthful person as being deceptive. While there is no clear consensus as to how often this happens, there are some estimates. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft estimated the false-positive rate of polygraphs at 15%. The ieee Spectrum (a technology journal) noted that the overall false positive rate might be as high as 30%. These rates can increase or decrease, based on how the tester conducts the test, and what threshold is used to measure truthfulness.
EasyStreetSports conditioned payment to the player on him first “passing” a polygraph test on his play. If the player is did nothing wrong, he still faces a substantial chance of failing the test and not getting paid. EasyStreetSports’ demand of this term is unreasonable, especially in light of its total failure to offer any evidence of player wrongdoing. If this were allowed, all sportsbooks would demand polygraph tests from all big winners, and expect to save 1/3rd to 1/6th of their larger payouts when innocent players fail.
As a side note, EasyStreetSports made many accusations against the player. Most of these were not investigated, because they had no bearing on the case. Regardless of the player’s history, he did nothing wrong in this dispute, and is owed his $46,000 stolen from him. When SBR still recommended paying the player after the sportsbook’s statement, the sportsbook stated that it never agreed to SBR mediation. It also requested that we no longer communicate with them.
Conclusion
The player fairly won $46,000 from the sportsbook. EasyStreetSports refused to pay the player, and failed to offer any credible evidence that the player broke their rules. As EasyStreetSports has no right to the money it kept, its conduct constitutes theft.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by mtneer1212
