[robzilla]

This whole thing is quite hipocritical.

[durito]

They are not even remotely close you ******* moron.

[robzilla]

The only thing that is missing is the SBR's version of TheRx expert.

[HedgeHog]

Other than the fact they were both Casino disputes, I fail to see what they have in common. Bot vs No Bot and -Ev vs +++EV are key differences. Probably many more.

[pokerplayer22]

There is quite a difference in the two disputes...However, I do think that SBR did become a little rx-ish for siding with their sponsor when their sponsor made the error to begin with. Then Bill came here and said that there was nothing he could do or say to 5dimes to get the player even a partial payment. Well, if there is nothing that Bill can say to a book they sponsor, what is he here for. There should have been some sort of middle ground reached here and SBR failed to get this done.

[OSUCOWBOYS]

There is quite a difference in the two disputes...However, I do think that SBR did become a little rx-ish for siding with their sponsor when their sponsor made the error to begin with. Then Bill came here and said that there was nothing he could do or say to 5dimes to get the player even a partial payment. Well, if there is nothing that Bill can say to a book they sponsor, what is he here for. There should have been some sort of middle ground reached here and SBR failed to get this done.

Very good post.

[Bill Dozer]

There is quite a difference in the two disputes...However, I do think that SBR did become a little rx-ish for siding with their sponsor when their sponsor made the error to begin with. Then Bill came here and said that there was nothing he could do or say to 5dimes to get the player even a partial payment. Well, if there is nothing that Bill can say to a book they sponsor, what is he here for. There should have been some sort of middle ground reached here and SBR failed to get this done.

I never posted or said that. I said we had nothing to say or argue on the player's behalf.

When threads get to be 6 pages people stop reading from the beginning. It's a lot like that game where kids sit in a circle and whisper a sentence in the person's ear to the left of them. When it goes full circle it comes out mangled and completely different. Then people start new thread based on that.

There is nothing similar to corey's dispute. There are no absurd claims of confusing the casino generator or classified hand history evidence or mythical experts. It's similar in that they are both casino users. One of them gambled money.

[robzilla]

So we are blaming Tackleberry because, in your opinion his money was not at risk?

Shouldnt the blame be squarely focused on 5Dimes for operating a casino game that wasnt functioning properly? Should we have compassion for 5 Dimes loss?

If the rolls were reversed, and I operated a casino game, and Tony won 34K from me.... I guaren-damn-tee SBR would be advocating for Tony... and anything less than a substantial payout would be unexceptable.

[Bill Dozer]

Blame and fault has nothing to do with it. 5Dimes is blamed for their messups. You're mixing too things that were/are discussed in detail in the main threads. 1) The sportsbook's performance/mistakes and 2) The result and claim by the player

[Dark Horse]

I never posted or said that. I said we had nothing to say or argue on the player's behalf.

When threads get to be 6 pages people stop reading from the beginning. It's a lot like that game where kids sit in a circle and whisper a sentence in the person's ear to the left of them. When it goes full circle it comes out mangled and completely different. Then people start new thread based on that.

There is nothing similar to corey's dispute. There are no absurd claims of confusing the casino generator or classified hand history evidence or mythical experts. It's similar in that they are both casino users. One of them gambled money.

Another example of how extremely dumbed down this forum has become. You know it wasn't like this five years ago. Even a couple of years ago a shot taker was immediately identified. Not anymore. But SBR was there all the time during this process, and let it happen.

Now it's 5D's turn, in a few weeks this horde of pitchforks discovers another target. It's been like that for quite some time now. They don't care about analyzing the facts. It's about the attack. If you want to attract a more informed crowd, you need to clean up this forum. But if you think there is greater power in numbers, you got exactly what you asked for.

[robzilla]

Blame and fault has nothing to do with it. 5Dimes is blamed for their messups. You're mixing too things that were/are discussed in detail in the main threads. 1) The sportsbook's performance/mistakes and 2) The result and claim by the player

It is obvious that the result is not to the satifaction of the SBR masses.

The sportsbooks mistakes are really irrelivant in this situation.

What is the difference between a casino that operates working games and doesnt pay & a casino that operate faulty games and doesnt pay?

Personally, I believe not paying is not paying.... not matter what the circumstances are.

[cyberinvestor]

AMEN DarkHorse, AMEN!

In the "masses" crowd RobZilla there are some people who at least bring a position to the table. The masses for the most part look foolish as they just want the books blood. There is no fair process. If a player says a book owes him money there is a group that will immediately attack the book without any facts. Just look at the first posters in the Zabula thread who immediately attacked 5Dimes. Write the names down and then look at the initial posters in the Tackleberry thread and compare the names. It's funny.

I don't know where or when commonsense left many of the people on these forums but some of the positions or posts are beyond laughable. Then for those of us who disagree, we get the "you are stupid, your posts non-sense, etc." To which I said, stop attacking me and take one of my posts and attack what I said. I am still waiting since the Zabula case for someone to do that. Instead you get the "I don't have time" or some other weak and pathetic excuse like "you wouldn't understand if I told you" fortunately there are people on the forums that can read through the BS posts and those types of BS answers.

STOP TRYING TO RUN A SCAM. Bet like a man and play under the normal and accepted rules. You want to take the book's money. Do it fair and square. You want 5Dimes blood, go nail them for $10,000 on the Mavs or Thunder tonight. Try and beat them on a massive parlay. Do it that way and I will be right there fighting with you if you don't get paid.

[robzilla]

AMEN DarkHorse, AMEN! In the "masses" crowd RobZilla there are some people who at least bring a position to the table. The masses however as a whole look foolish as they just want the books blood. There is no fair process. If a player says a book owes him money there is a group that will immediately attack the book without any facts. I don't know where or when commonsense left many of the people on these forums but some of the positions or posts are beyond laughable. Then for those of us who disagree, we get the "you are stupid, your posts non-sense, etc." To which I said, stop attacking me and take one of my posts and attack what I said. I am still waiting since the Zabula case for someone to do that. Instead you get the "I don't have time" or some other weak and pathetic excuse like "you wouldn't understand if I told you" fortunately there are people on the forums that can read through the BS posts and those types of BS answers. STOP TRYING TO RUN A SCAM. Bet like a man and play under the normal and accepted rules. You want to take the book's money. Do it fair and square.

Well I think this jumping all over the book comes from the same attitude that books take towards thier players. How often would a book cancel a bet if u made an error.... id say never. So, why when the book makes an error should there be mercy?

[pokerplayer22]

Blame and fault has nothing to do with it. 5Dimes is blamed for their messups. You're mixing too things that were/are discussed in detail in the main threads. 1) The sportsbook's performance/mistakes and 2) The result and claim by the player

But what you are saying Bill is that 5dimes doesnt deserve any penalty for screwing up their own games. Im not saying the guy should have been paid 32k or even half. In my mind he prob should have got somewhere between 1-5k. You believe that 5dimes makes a pretty large mistake and just gets a free walk and you didnt do anything to try to prevent that. Imo thats just not right.

[pokerplayer22]

Well I think this jumping all over the book comes from the same attitude that books take towards thier players. How often would a book cancel a bet if u made an error.... id say never. So, why when the book makes an error should there be mercy?

its funny you bring that up. About 2 years ago with 5dimes, I tried to play like a $200 wager on the Cinn Reds. When i entered my password, it told me that they line changed. I clicked "accept change" and put my wager through. I then looked at my pending bets page and saw that both my bets went thru (one with the old line and one with the new line). I immediately called up and wanted one of them cancelled (didnt care which one). When they wouldnt cancel one, i went on live chat and got transfereed to Tony and he started yelling about a card layed is a card played. This was 30 minutes before the game was scheduled to start. I ended up being stuck with both bets and they actually won.

The point being is that when a player makes an error (not sure i even made one there), Tony had the attitude of "screw you". Now he makes an error and gets a clean walk. Its a total double standard and SBR knows it but as long as the checks keep clearing, there will be nothing done.

[cyberinvestor]

Well I think this jumping all over the book comes from the same attitude that books take towards thier players. How often would a book cancel a bet if u made an error.... id say never. So, why when the book makes an error should there be mercy?

A reasonable error is one thing. An obvious mistake out of the normal realm is another.

A book should pay if you bet the line tonight at Mavericks -2 even though everywhere else the line is 5 at best. If the line however was Dallas +9, well that is an obvious error.

If you bet at a poker game and win without a bot and the error is a paytable that pays 115%, the book should pay as that error. An error of 390% is another thing.

I would say that if Zabula did not use a bot but exploited the game he won at then he should have been paid and I think 5Dimes would have paid since they would have no "bot" case.

It is up to the player to check with the book before he puts in a bet if something doesn't smell right. If I wanted the Mavs tonight and my book had it at a PK when the rest of the world has it at -5, I would ask support. If they confirm, I would request an email copy of the chat log and place my bet. If you try to sneak the wager in on the Mavs PK and the wager is canceled, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Sometimes for pointing out this error the books will fix the error but give you the bad line for pointing it out to them. Why not try that then wonder if you will get paid if you win.

[sharpcat]

I guess when SBR drug theRX through the mud they never suspected that they would run into so many disputes with one of their sponsors just 2 months later.

What is the deal with the new $9k dispute? player shows that his bet screen states that his winnings were voided due to the wrong payout being applied, yet this game only had a player advantage of about 12%. 12% is not much Tony can not site the wrong payout being applied here as reason to stiff this player, this is just ridiculous.

[HedgeHog]

The newswire should be updated to reflect THREE casino disputes lodged against 5D.

[Dark Horse]

Well I think this jumping all over the book comes from the same attitude that books take towards thier players. How often would a book cancel a bet if u made an error.... id say never. So, why when the book makes an error should there be mercy?

There are books that will cancel bets at a player's request, before the game with unchanged odds. The other option is to eat the juice and get out. The player is in control of what he does. In real time. The book, in general, has a slower response time. For instance, they may find it cheaper to review the action when a payout is requested, instead of watching all action live, as Vegas attempts to.

Yes, there are casino disputes against 5D. Doesn't worry me. Why not? Because I have not seen one sincere person in the role of the accuser. They're trying to cheat the book. If you drop your wallet, I can try to pick it up and run. That's what they're doing. And they blame the book for dropping the wallet. I'm 100% certain that you would have a greater appreciation for me if I told you you dropped your wallet. These shot takers, instead, are waiting for the book to make a mistake, and then they pounce on it. They're no better than thieves. But all that gets lost, because a whole lot of losers at books can't believe that a book is entitled to make mistakes. Just like everybody else. Why would you want to take advantage of someone making an obvious mistake? I'm not talking about sainthood. Just about basic human behavior. You know, a step up from animals. And then they're accusing Tony of being no good... lol

Edit - there is reason for concern about the 5D casino. But that issue, to me the main issue, has taken a backseat in the present climate. They need to fix it, and right away.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Dark Horse

What do you think of players who make Correlated Parlay's when it is against the rules of the book.

Shot takers?

Because SBR doesn't seem to think so (and rightly so in my opinion).

[Dark Horse]

I'm not sure that books have written rules against CP's (they would have to define each scenario, and give players too many good ideas). Most of the software, these days, doesn't allow them. Unfortunately. Definitely not shot taking. No cheating involved.

[Slainte]

A reasonable error is one thing. An obvious mistake out of the normal realm is another.


If you bet at a poker game and win without a bot and the error is a paytable that pays 115%, the book should pay as that error. An error of 390% is another thing.

Where is the borderline between reasonable and obvious 116 %, 150%, 155.5643 %, 200 %? How do you know the difference, common sense or you have some sort of video poker error percentage table?

[cyberinvestor]

Where is the borderline between reasonable and obvious 116 %, 150%, 155.5643 %, 200 %? How do you know the difference, common sense or you have some sort of video poker error percentage table?

Commonsense.....poker games have been billed up to 20% player edge in a variety of scenarios, namely promotions. So, up to 20% it is tough to cite error since you could argue instances where 20% was legit. Between 20%-50% you enter a realm that could be argued either way and would depend a lot on the situation itself. Above 50% player edge is obvious error since you are getting into printing money territory and no casino would purposely do that for any players.

[Justin7]

If there is a 100% correlation (i.e. Betting Dallas -3 with Dallas ML -150, or Tiger over Lehman with Tiger win the Mastesr), a book can void one of the plays.

Otherwise, if a book doesn't want CPs, it shouldn't offer them.

[yokspot]

If you bet at a poker game and win without a bot and the error is a paytable that pays 115%, the book should pay as that error. An error of 390% is another thing.

I would say that if Zabula did not use a bot but exploited the game he won at then he should have been paid and I think 5Dimes would have paid since they would have no "bot" case.

The 'bot player was clearly unaware of the rule - he would never put that kind of effort into a no-win situation. There was no malice. But there was no pay, because it was 'bot play. Not even a reasonable offer.

The 2nd case, again there was no pay. But because we couldn't pull a 'bot clause on him, we find something else. He did nothing wrong, but we need an out. What shall we settle on? In the end we plump for "shot taker", he wasn't "gambling" because the return was so good.

Oh come on, don't treat people like idiots. Player ****** up ('bot) = player pays. Casino ****** up (paytable) = player pays.

SBR is the ONLY forum I'm aware of that allows free discussion of its decisions. The RX, Casinomeister etc, do not. That is obviously very good. I also had assistance, and payment received as a consequence, from Bill on one occasion for $400 (and was blown off by Justin, FTR).

But let's not paint this as something it isn't. EZ was not a sponsor, and 5Dimes is. This is clearly relevant.

[cyberinvestor]

The 'bot player was clearly unaware of the rule - he would never put that kind of effort into a no-win situation. There was no malice. But there was no pay, because it was 'bot play. Not even a reasonable offer. The 2nd case, again there was no pay. But because we couldn't pull a 'bot clause on him, we find something else. He did nothing wrong, but we need an out. What shall we settle on? In the end we plump for "shot taker", he wasn't "gambling" because the return was so good. Oh come on, don't treat people like idiots. Player ****** up ('bot) = player pays. Casino ****** up (paytable) = player pays. SBR is the ONLY forum I'm aware of that allows free discussion of its decisions. The RX, Casinomeister etc, do not. That is obviously very good. I also had assistance, and payment received as a consequence, from Bill on one occasion for $400 (and was blown off by Justin, FTR). But let's not paint this as something it isn't. EZ was not a sponsor, and 5Dimes is. This is clearly relevant.

Not sure what you are arguing against my post as you copy my post but seem to enter another topic.

I am unaware that it is against the law for me to shoot a gun off in my neighborhood. Should the cops come, I plan to tell them that. I should be good right? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nobody can say they didn't know it was illegal to use a bot. Even if you didn't read the rules which is the player's fault, there is no other casino in the world that will let you use an electronic device at any game.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If you don't take the time to read the rules, tough. Not to mention he did know about the rule because he willingly LIED when he posted his complaint.

[WVU]

If there is a 100% correlation (i.e. Betting Dallas -3 with Dallas ML -150, or Tiger over Lehman with Tiger win the Mastesr), a book can void one of the plays.

Otherwise, if a book doesn't want CPs, it shouldn't offer them.

You need to define the correlation in terms of %. Saying it is a 100% correlation is not accurate.

[wrongturn]

If there is a 100% correlation (i.e. Betting Dallas -3 with Dallas ML -150, or Tiger over Lehman with Tiger win the Mastesr), a book can void one of the plays.

Otherwise, if a book doesn't want CPs, it shouldn't offer them.

So if a book clearly has a rule against CP, but makes a mistake in software that allows players to parlay OSU -42 with over 45. You think the book still should pay?

[durito]

So if a book clearly has a rule against CP, but makes a mistake in software that allows players to parlay OSU -42 with over 45. You think the book still should pay?

Yes.

They have to learn what correlated means. Would you let them cancel a -7 parlayed with over 42?

[wrongturn]

Yes.

They have to learn what correlated means. Would you let them cancel a -7 parlayed with over 42?

They know what correlated means, they just made a gross error during software upgrade. That is what I mean, similar to the error they made in casino. I have no problem with ruling either for or against. Just have a hard time to understand the consistency.

[robzilla]

At the very least it should be stated that SBR takes bribes which protect certain books against judgements.

[Justin7]

So if a book clearly has a rule against CP, but makes a mistake in software that allows players to parlay OSU -42 with over 45. You think the book still should pay?

Does the book define "correlated"? If not, this bet has action. If the book says "Any college football game with less than a 2:1 total:spread ratio is correlated, and their software screwed up, I'd say the book could cancel that wager as long as they canceled all wagers that were clear.

The problem with CPs (as Durito identified) is that there are all sorts of correlations that may exist, but offer a player no equity. If a CP is not clearly defined, a book can void whatever it feels like. If a book wants a "pass" on a correlated parlay, it needs to define exactly what plays will be voided. And if you go through that much trouble, you might as well fix your software.

[Justin7]

You need to define the correlation in terms of %. Saying it is a 100% correlation is not accurate.

If A wins, then B wins 100% of the time. Under those circumstances, it is reasonable to void the B leg.

[yokspot]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If you don't take the time to read the rules, tough. Not to mention he did know about the rule because he willingly LIED when he posted his complaint.

Right. Some kind of a small settlement, on the basis of a reasonable daily play rate (six hours as opposed to 20?) would have been a good gesture. But 5Dimes / SBR could always take a hard line and claim right.

On the second case, no rules were broken. So he was a "shot-taker".

If you were a book, what would you say?

"Look, you can either mediate this one for or against us. Go against, and we pull the deal. You don't want this, and neither do we. So let's be sensible, shall we?"

That's why Tony could state with 100% confidence that there would be no arbitration. Because the book holds all the cards.

[WVU]

If A wins, then B wins 100% of the time. Under those circumstances, it is reasonable to void the B leg.

I know, but I was referring to more on the lines of what durito is aying where it is correlated but not 100% like team a -45 and the over 52. Books need to get together and agree on what is accceptable correlation and what is not. 20% correlated? 10%? 40%?