[trixtrix]

I never claimed that I had A in English...

no, but you have exercised your right to critique others' mastery of english language, when you admit you're unqualified to do so, see where i'm going w/ this?

[ThaWoj]

again an unreasonable position, how do you know they have not confiscated money from other people who won in this vp game? b/c none of them registered a complaint w/ sbr?

although possible, one would have to reasonably assume that at least one another person would have filed a complaint. even more so after seeing this thread.

although its entirely possible that anyone who played that game and did have funds confiscated, may have no clue what SBR even is or know how to go about disputing to reach a resolution. some may have in fact even just assumed guilt and felt pursuing recourse would be unsuccessful.

[cory1111]

No matter how the situation goes, at least SBR gave him or her a fair chance to prove themselves unlike some other forums(RX) who like to make decisions based on the dollars or history with the sportbook(e.g. full casino logs, lets him or her post at forum.

[WVU]

I apologize to Bill Dozer and the SBR staff for wasting their time. They handled this about as well as could be expected. TheRX could learn a thing or 2 on how to go about solving a dispute.

[BigDaddy]

bot or no bot the guy deserves a % of his winnings

it did not take a bot to beat this game.

if tony thinks it did he can set the pay tables back to what they were and i'm sure he will find out it doesn't take one.

[HedgeHog]

Are you trying to start something???

If not than go spell check 15 pages of everyone else's posts....
Like I said English is my second language..
Like your retarded avatar says "We all make mistakes"

Retarded is a very vulgar term, just ask Lebron. I wouldn't even call you this, no matter how many times you misspell "Liar".

[JoeVig]

What if the bot rule was to discourage bonus whoring, or for issues such as bandwidth or server performance?
Is it fair for the house to try and protect their IT infrastructure?
How could 5Dimes write a bot rule that would be "fair"?

I certainly like to see a player get paid. I have bagged on Tony a fair number of times before for voiding wagers and collaring players all too easily. This is one time where I would say there is strong case for the house.

Void the winnings and refund any remaining deposit balance. And don't mess with Lord Tony again

[v1y]

i'm still confused as to what the ruling is based on bill dozer's post...

i'm guessing the player gets nothing.

[LegitBet]

where's that video WVU?

curious about it...is it obvious it was made post facto?
does he use a touch screen?

have we concluded those break times are no longer considered 'second hand' reporting and SBR states Joevig's post is accurate?

i sent this thread to a friend at Georgetown's Linguistic Dept.
His knee jerk reaction was rather strong that a high level of inconsistancies existed with the OP's "grammar, syntax and mis/usage of tenses. Additionally the professor found an unreasonably great similarilty with the OP's writing as if speaking. In other words those without a fluencey in a language will rarely have matching writing and verbal skills. (which is why comedic actors with phoney accents sound so silly, because they are speaking as if they were trying to write their words incorrectly).

WVU please take this honestly as just a question, do you stand to gain anything material or otherwise on the outcome of this?
your lobbying and vigor for the OP begs this question, and again no offense. video please?

[lt56]

Rules say no bots. Player uses bot and player gets nothing. Player deserves nothing. Surprised though that SBR would say the rule can be broken if it wasn't players advantage. Picking and choosing what rules can or can't be broken opens the door to opinions instead of decisions based on facts and rules. Glad 5Dimes won. Great site with most options of any sportsbook

[Boxing Champ]

no, but you have exercised your right to critique others' mastery of english language, when you admit you're unqualified to do so, see where i'm going w/ this?

First of all: I made one joke and left it alone...
Second...you made fun of me...i agreed..I laughed at my own mistake..LEAVE IT ALONE..No you keep on and on about the same thing.
Third: My misspelling and his "unknown collection of words" are two different things.

HedgeHog...you need to but out, cause this is between me and trix, we will handle our business ourselves, without your help...THANKS

[JoeVig]

i'm still confused as to what the ruling is based on bill dozer's post...

i'm guessing the player gets nothing.

I think Bill is looking for an equitable split, somewhere greater than zero and less than 14.5k.

Debate the bot rule as much as you will, but to pay the player at this point is to reward his behavior in the complaint process. He filed a complaint on the basis that he was not using a bot, and continued to insist as much until shown otherwise.

[clowncar]

Using a bot isn't cheating. It is against the rules. I could cite many rules that are simply unfair and unwarranted. The player should not be the one eating the costs of casino mistakes. You have the ability to place the game in your casino. You have all the power of what to offer. Don't blame the player for playing what you offer. It's silly.

And lets face another fact. The casino only looked at his play because he was winning. All bots that go on to lose they keep the money. I would also be interested to know when 5dimes first looked at the hand logs.. before or after they had confiscated the money?

Using a bot is not cheating to any reasonable objective person.... other than the basic concept of being against their rules. He got in more hours and more hands per hour most likely by using the bot but he did nothing to alter the game results themselves.

[clowncar]

I think Bill is looking for an equitable split, somewhere greater than zero and less than 14.5k.

Debate the bot rule as much as you will, but to pay the player at this point is to reward his behavior in the complaint process. He filed a complaint on the basis that he was not using a bot, and continued to insist as much until shown otherwise.

Yup. He lied.

[trixtrix]

i agree that if he lied to sbr regarding the factual basis of his case, then he does not deserve the entire amount, again based on the implied good-faith rule, if he misrepresented his facts then he is guilty of bad faith in negotiations w/ sbr.

[HedgeHog]

First of all: I made one joke and left it alone...
Second...you made fun of me...i agreed..I laughed at my own mistake..LEAVE IT ALONE..No you keep on and on about the same thing.
Third: My misspelling and his "unknown collection of words" are two different things.

HedgeHog...you need to but out, cause this is between me and trix, we will handle our business ourselves, without your help...THANKS

No problem, I just thought the R word was out of line. Oh and it should be "Between Trix and Me"--you collected your words wrong.

[LVHerbie]

5Dimes made obvious mistakes. 1) 5D had a game with a 12% return and 2) didn't catch it for an extended period of time. These mistakes are part of the circumstances that make up the position of the house and player.

Assuming the player is no longer arguing that he did not use a bot (which he can communicate different at any time), the question is what is the fair conclusion? Our initial reaction based on the typical bot scenario is the bot rule is not a catch-all since the player still puts his funds at risk against a house edge and that rule can't be used to catch a player only when they win. That was not the case here.

1) The player's funds were never at risk. Betting high volume only up to 25 cents at +112 means he could only win after a short time of clicking. The player was essentially getting an hourly paycheck. For every hour 5D had 12% return, he'd be gainfully employed. Had he taken advantage of this without needing to get more money than he could generate himself with bathroom breaks and sleep, he may still be playing right now and he would be taking a payout, albeit a smaller one.

2) Although 5D let him play over a long time, he did receive a payout from his bot venture. He is in the plus column.

The bot rule alone is not fair. For example, if the bot actually wagered for the player $100 on a 99% payout game, the book has a shot at the player's funds when he has no chance at the casino's. In this case, the bot rule is fair and applicable. The player had a chance at the house funds, while his were never at risk.

This would be true if the player had found something closer to a coin toss (say sports betting or blackjack) that offered this type of return but given that it was video poker he would have some pretty big swings... The variance is going to be even bigger then typical video poker given that this game only pays out on Royal Flushes and four deuces...

Although the huge 12% edge (hell of a game you designed there Tony) is going to help offset some of it when he hits he is still going to experience frequent swings of thousand of dollars... I let someone else smarter then me figure out the standard deviations based on the number of hands he got in before they booted him but I would be really surprised if there wasn't a least a small chance that he could had a losing month (say better then the "statistical impossibility" of Cory hitting three royals in x hands? ) after it was all said and done...

[clowncar]

It is more likely that he would have a small losing streak, fear the game is rigged and quit a loser. There is also the risk of a short term loss and then the casino pulling the game when they realize they have made a blunder before the long term math can kick in. At the amount invested per spin over the course of a month, I doubt he was really risking much money but that is with hindsight of knowing he was allowed to play that long.

[WVU]

where's that video WVU?

curious about it...is it obvious it was made post facto?
does he use a touch screen?

have we concluded those break times are no longer considered 'second hand' reporting and SBR states Joevig's post is accurate?

i sent this thread to a friend at Georgetown's Linguistic Dept.
His knee jerk reaction was rather strong that a high level of inconsistancies existed with the OP's "grammar, syntax and mis/usage of tenses. Additionally the professor found an unreasonably great similarilty with the OP's writing as if speaking. In other words those without a fluencey in a language will rarely have matching writing and verbal skills. (which is why comedic actors with phoney accents sound so silly, because they are speaking as if they were trying to write their words incorrectly).

WVU please take this honestly as just a question, do you stand to gain anything material or otherwise on the outcome of this?
your lobbying and vigor for the OP begs this question, and again no offense. video please?

I have the video which proves he can play as fast as he played. Yes, he has a touch screen computer. He was hesitant about giving me permission to post it so I won't unless he wants me to.

Just like in the Cory case, I had nothing to gain from this. I will continue to support the players in crazy bot allegations (EasyStreet). I beat the system for years purely because casinos and books run poorly constructed promotions. I kind of consider myself a freedom fighter for those who can beat the system within the T&Cs. It might be hard to believe I would go through this kind of effort for no personal gain, but that is just the kind of guy I am.

[clowncar]

Fighting for the rights of players is a long term win for all players, WVU. We should always put the burden of proof on the casino in these instances. In this case, 5dimes proved he was using a bot ( atleast in my opinion ). You have nothing to apologize for.

[cyberinvestor]

again an unreasonable position, how do you know they have not confiscated money from other people who won in this vp game? b/c none of them registered a complaint w/ sbr?

How is it unreasonable? You have to realize other people won at the game. True we may not hear from them all if 5Dimes didn't pay but at least ONE would have made it to SBR. Nobody has come up. So i'll make the leap and say 5Dimes paid others who played the +EV game and did not use a bot.

[clowncar]

SBR is obviously a great spot but I think you guys are kidding yourselves if you think a majority of online gamblers know what SBR is or can do to help them.

[clowncar]

Anyway, good discussion. Decision is rendered and it seems reasonable. For those who contended early on it was bot play, you were proven correct. I needed to see the proof first.

Good luck to all of you and may you win your next bet.

I'm out.

[Dark Horse]

Using a bot isn't cheating. It is against the rules. I could cite many rules that are simply unfair and unwarranted. The player should not be the one eating the costs of casino mistakes. You have the ability to place the game in your casino. You have all the power of what to offer. Don't blame the player for playing what you offer. It's silly.

And lets face another fact. The casino only looked at his play because he was winning. All bots that go on to lose they keep the money. I would also be interested to know when 5dimes first looked at the hand logs.. before or after they had confiscated the money?

Using a bot is not cheating to any reasonable objective person.... other than the basic concept of being against their rules. He got in more hours and more hands per hour most likely by using the bot but he did nothing to alter the game results themselves.

'Vegas rules apply'.

I would love to have a T-shirt saying that. As a statement towards life in general.

It's true on the sportsbook side, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be true on the casino side. Casino security is kind of big in Vegas.

[WVU]

as far as needing a bot to win at the game that was offered is ludicrous. It is all one big cycle. whether one person busts out on his 200 deposit after 2000 hands or not the casino was going to take a bath in the long run. Using bots do not change the win %age. The strategy is so simple that even a very novice player would have been playing at a 11-12% advantage.

[WVU]

Also royal flushes were going to happen about every 25,000 hands at this game. So if one guy busts out it doesnt change the fact that the royals will still hit every 25k hands in the long run

[cyberinvestor]

Using a bot isn't cheating. It is against the rules. I could cite many rules that are simply unfair and unwarranted. The player should not be the one eating the costs of casino mistakes. You have the ability to place the game in your casino. You have all the power of what to offer. Don't blame the player for playing what you offer. It's silly. And lets face another fact. The casino only looked at his play because he was winning. All bots that go on to lose they keep the money. I would also be interested to know when 5dimes first looked at the hand logs.. before or after they had confiscated the money? Using a bot is not cheating to any reasonable objective person.... other than the basic concept of being against their rules. He got in more hours and more hands per hour most likely by using the bot but he did nothing to alter the game results themselves.

I am sorry but that is a silly position because had this guy played without a bot, I am sure SBR and I myself would agree that he 100% deserves to be paid. However he did use a bot and Tony has a rule about no bots. End of story. Let's stop discussing moral and ethics or this silly discussion about how if he had a bot and lost then 5Dimes would give him is money back. That is a foolish argument. If Tony had a rule that said no Hispanics are allowed to bet soccer at 5Dimes that is his right to make that rule. He said no bots. The guy used a bot. If you use a bot at 5Dimes then any winnings will be voided. If no winnings, then there is nothing to void! So yes, Tony gets a freeroll but you know these rules coming in!

Some of you guys are acting like it is such a shock that a casino would check out a player who was winning. They don't bother with losing players nor do they care how they are losing. 5Dimes is not the exception but the rule. Every gaming establishment in business only checks out winning players. It happens ALL THE TIME in Vegas. Ever play blackjack and the pitboss comes over during a hot streak for a few players and checks the cards and wears the red glasses? Ever play craps and when the table is hot the boxman checks the dice? I was once at a table where someone hit the royal at Caribbean Stud. They took an hour to go through the cards, video, etc. to ensure no cheating or "breaking the rules" in playing the game. They wouldn't care one bit in any of those examples if the win rate was within the accepted parameters. None of this happens when play is normal and people are winning and losing in a normal range. Once a person gets hot you will see the suits at the casino start to slip over and watch the game. You could lose $100,000 cheating and nobody will care, win $1 cheating and they will nail you. I think Zabula would have gotten away with it had he played fewer hands and had a better bot. He just went way too hard at the game. I sympathize but the answer is pretty clear.

[BET THE HOOK]

I think Tony needs to pay the player and show him the door. If they were gonna cry "bot play" they should have caught it long long ago. Tont doesnt care about the cash at all. He just wants everybody to see that what he says goes on all occassions.

[cyberinvestor]

I think Tony needs to pay the player and show him the door. If they were gonna cry "bot play" they should have caught it long long ago. Tont doesnt care about the cash at all. He just wants everybody to see that what he says goes on all occassions.

Everyone hates Tony and 5Dimes. Nobody is saying bet there. However Tony DOES get to freeroll bot players. If they are losing he doesn't have to say anything and he gets to sit back and wait for them to win and close the account. It is in the rules, deal with it. Yes life isn't fair but don't get pissed as though he made this up after the fact. It is right in the rules.

If someone is counting cards in Vegas and losing the casino will sit back and watch. As soon as they start profiting from counting, good bye. They are out the door. While not "cheating" the casino doesn't give them a fair shake to get their money back.

[clowncar]

Which is also terrible behavior though, cyber ( treating card counters as cheaters i mean ).

That is fine. Justin7 and SBR have made plenty of rulings stating how ridiculous a given rule is and how it is patently unfair. In my opinion the bot rule is the same. It is unfair and silly and is just a mechanism that casinos use to cover their own asses when they screw up.

But you will figure it out soon enough if you actually start beating casinos consistently ( I am not saying you don't now ). They will treat you like crap and refuse your action. In some towns, you will find there is nowhere left to play. And the reason is simply that you are beating them at their own game while they get to make the rules.

Your defense of this type of rule and behavior ( bots and card counting ) is puzzling to me.

[trixtrix]

the allegation of cheating is ridiculous and silly, as well as the illogical argument that the player cannot lose in the short term over say a 100k hand sample, when you approach a large number like a billion hands i would be more inclined to agree w/ the statement.

if the allegations are true, then the player is only guilty of two violations:

1.) violating a fair/reasonable rule on point: the restriction of bot use on a +ev game

2.) not negotiating w/ sbr in good faith

[trixtrix]

If someone is counting cards in Vegas and losing the casino will sit back and watch. As soon as they start profiting from counting, good bye. They are out the door. While not "cheating" the casino doesn't give them a fair shake to get their money back.

and the winning card-counters are ALLOWED LEGALLY to keep their winnings. something that is not being done here, so again an irrelevant example.

[KGambler]

You're inside of Tony's mind? with the statement you made telling everyone in this thread what he 'really meant'

So

How sharp is he?

You just have to use some common sense and deductive reasoning to reach the same conclusion. To believe that he meant the game was rigged, you would have to make some really dumb assumptions.

[cyberinvestor]

and the winning card-counters are ALLOWED LEGALLY to keep their winnings. something that is not being done here, so again an irrelevant example.

The point of the example is that if someone is counting cards and losing the casino will let them play all day long. However if they are counting and winning they will be out the door. And that point was to address the multiple "if someone uses a bot and loses the casino won't stop them." comments. To illustrate that a policy of break the rules or do something frowned upon and lose, no problem. Do it and win and we will show your ass to the door. It's not fair but every casino will do it.

In this case if someone uses a bot and loses the casino will let them play. If they win and use a bot, see ya! So while one is not cheating and the other walks a line, the premise is still the same. People should not be shocked that casino gambling isn't fair. If gambling were fair then Billy Walter could walk into a sportsbook and bet whatever he wants since the same book will take $10,000,000 on a game from a proven loser. Unfortunately he would be lucky if he could bet $500 whereas I could walk in and bet $50,000 and get less scrutiny. Stuff happens all the time.

Bot players could be compared to counters in that there is no guarantee they will win (just puts the edge on their side in +EV games so they can play many hands and eventually they should come out ahead). So if one is not cheating why consider the other? Just like Tony has a right to say no bots, casinos do not have to service card counters.

I agree 100% with clowncar that it is disgusting that casinos will take losers all day long but as soon as someone wins they will kick them to the curb or look for a way not to pay. The key is not giving them an easy reason. It sucks but is the nature of the beast and no getting around it. If someone gets an edge in sports betting, the book will limit them to $1. If someone gets an edge at cards or craps, they will be asked to leave. At the end of the day it is a despicable practice but it is the nature of the beast. You can either not gamble or try to find a system to use your edge and not get noticed. Zabula failed in this way.

[Boxing Champ]

I have a question..This VP game that he played..It's not a physical machine,it's computer program. when he took his breaks for couple of hours, someone elseplayed that game right.It's not like this big huge machine was standing at his house and he didn't let anyone play it. So while he was sleeping someone might have won a flush or deuces right? Am I understanding this correctrly. I guess that's why he used bot so that he could go through 25,000 hands to get his flush as soon as possible, because otherwise it would take him alot longer and the possibility that some one else wins that flush is a lot higher. I think that's why Tony said that u can't win without a bot..Am I right? or wrong???

It's not like this game is only assigned to him. if 5 players play this game at the same time..the count goes up...counting hands from all 5 people...therefore 1 of 5 people can win the flush... RIGHT????