WSEX confiscates $14,719 in casino winnings

[Climate]

WSEX confiscates $14,719 in casino winnings
WSEX (SBR rating C) cancels $14,719 in Pai Gow winnings. From December 13th to 15th a bettor played 564 hands of Pai Gow, winning $14,719. On December 26th his account was deactivated and WSEX confiscated all winnings. An investigation of the dispute showed that the player found a discernible pattern - WSEX's random number generator was not random. After identifying the pattern, the player bet $100 when he expected to win, and $1 when he expected to lose. When he bet $100 the player won 98.1% of his hands.

WSEX concluded that the player was cheating via statistical analysis, claiming that the odds of a player winning this percentage of bets were astronomical. WSEX offered no evidence that the player actually cheated, altered hand outcomes or otherwise did anything to interfere with the softwares operation. WSEX argues that the player's ability to predict hands justifies voiding winnings.

**************************************** ********************

Ok, what's wrong with this picture. First, I believe the player was not at fault here, and the casino should pay him and take whatever steps they want after that.

But, WTF?!!! Bet $100 when you win and $1 when you lose with a 98% win rate at $100???!!!
Dude!!!
Use some common sense!!!

That's what gets me about a lot of +EV players, and that is they have no common sense. Think your betting pattern might attract a little attention with a $14k win session??

How about an average of $75 when you win and $50 when you lose while constantly changing the amounts, but giving you a nice edge and staying under the radar, at least enough not to reveal as obviously you found an edge.

If anybody goes to a live casino and wins every time they bet $100, and lose every time they bet $1, what do they think will happen?

And to top it off, an internet casino has your money and can give it to you at their discretion.

This guy could increased his chances of getting paid exponentially if he had used some common sense. He may still get paid, but could have also possibly won a lot more if he had played his cards right, so to speak.

Great find, but horribly executed, IMO.

[Doug]

Yes, pretty obvious, but no difference when the book doesn't pay anyway, or takes months and years to pay.

[trixtrix]

the scary thought is that a book as big as wsex is using non-random number generator for their internet casino

[Dunderfisk]

He played 564 hands! Could he really discern a pattern after playing so few hands and also win. How could anyone miss that pattern. The programmer of this soft must have been really stupid. Or maybe it was the programmer that played!

And they should pay him. They had never given anything back if it was the opposite. Or maybe that was the intention the programmer had, he just mistakenly switched the > sign.

correct psuedo-code

If (bet <= 20) increase chance of winning
else if (bet > 20 and < 60) normal chance of winning
else decrease chance of winning

[tltaylor89]

That is probably how much WSEX has left in the bank

[trixtrix]

wsex as of 3 years ago would've paid the player and then fix software

if wsex as of today refuses to pay the player, it's a good indication imo of their current financial status, and i personally would not risk returning there as they're suffering from far more than just processor concerns

[katstale]

With a sample size that small, you have someone with insider info from the programmer. As others have pointed out, someone stupid with insider information.

[Peep]

Sucks to be WSEX.

And is sucks to play there as well.

[Dunder]

One suspects that a buddy told the player about the fault in the software. Betting the way he did was unwise, to put it mildly.

As a rule, I tend to side with the book when players take clear shots at them.

[blix177]

It is impossible for a number generator to be random. It always follows a set of formula no matter how complex that formula might be. My best guess is someone that have the sourcing for the random generator gave this dude the formula.

I don't get these people, why do they do it so blatantly, can't they play normally 90percent of the time and cheat 10 percent of the time. Then your EV would be +3-4% which would still be huge. But at least you wont give yourself up.

Just like the 2 that cheated on pokerstar and ultimatebet, they where like 113 win per 100 BB.

Another dude piss away a very high (total + single team total) correlated parlay gitch because he wanted like $200 bucks back for something semi related and imformed the book.

These people should not bitch about book stealing their money, rather they should kill themselves and save human race from their gene pool.

[Chuck Sims]

The player was an idiot. If he played under the radar, he may have been able to make a few dollars. Instead he thinks he found a gold mine and he will quit his job and be the new owner of WSEX.

SBR seems to think the player should be paid. This is ridiculous. If WSEX was advertising here at SBR I'm sure SBR would explain that like in Las Vegas or any other casino in the USA, if a machine malfunctions, whether by human error or not, the play is voided. This has been held up in the courts.

Otherwise, a slot player could win the casino by hitting jackpot after jackpot on a malfunctioning machine. Same with this Pai Gow player who found a flaw. If he kept playing and won $1,000,000 does the casino have to pay? The answer is no.

[tomcowley]

It's not a malfunction in the legal sense of the word- every outcome hits at the overall proper rate, and the machine would take its normal hold from a flat bettor. If the player could pattern watch and only jump on machines that he knew were about to jackpot, but overall jackpotted at the correct rate, he'd get paid.

[blix177]

Dude is stealing from other players as well. WSEX gets its money from player depositing and loses its money from people withdrawaling +overhead. Normally the deposit is greater than the withdrawals, but if someone cheats and win and withdrawals more than the deposits, WSEX goes under and everyone that had money in there suffers. So **** that... this guy shouldn't be paid. If he does get paid just his deposit back.

[relaaxx]

can't believe i think that wsex should not pay. i would always prefer to pull for the small guy. but, they were cheated out of the money. just too obvious. no doubt it was not won fairly.

[andywend]

Anyone who believes this guy should get paid needs to have their head examined.

If it was found that an online casino set up their software so that a player loses 98% of the hands they play in blackjack, pai gow or any other even money game, would these same people believe the casino should be allowed to keep the money?

The bettor in question who took advantage of an obvious flaw in WSEX's software belongs in jail and NOT the monies that he cheated them out of.

Remember its not too often that I agree with anything Chuck says.

[relaaxx]

(Remember its not too often that I agree with anything Chuck says.[/quote]

[tomcowley]

Man, it would really suck if somebody figured out how to better predict the outcomes of other events (without influencing them) and made good bets based on those predictions. What a cheater that guy would be.

[UV82]

let me see if I got this right...

lets assume that I play roulette at a casino and I notice that every 10th thorow of ball it fall on the number 18 and I wait for the 10th round and place $100 on 18 ... and I do 10 times and I withdraw... do I go to jail for that ?

hmmmm.... an interesting justice system... never thought of that.

[Yabatumba]

Anyone who believes this guy should get paid needs to have their head examined.

If it was found that an online casino set up their software so that a player loses 98% of the hands they play in blackjack, pai gow or any other even money game, would these same people believe the casino should be allowed to keep the money?

The bettor in question who took advantage of an obvious flaw in WSEX's software belongs in jail and NOT the monies that he cheated them out of.

Remember its not too often that I agree with anything Chuck says.

So It's all well for bettors to loses 98% of the time but not the other way around?

You're sick in the head.

[Justin7]

I don't know SBR's official take on it, but I think the player should be paid. If he can figure out how the cards will be dealt, that is no different than exploiting a weak dealer in Vegas that is showing the cards before they are dealt. The casino's remedy is to fix the dealer or kick out the player, but not take the money.

[blix177]

let me see if I got this right...

lets assume that I play roulette at a casino and I notice that every 10th thorow of ball it fall on the number 18 and I wait for the 10th round and place $100 on 18 ... and I do 10 times and I withdraw... do I go to jail for that ?

hmmmm.... an interesting justice system... never thought of that.

They will A. Try to not pay you, B. Take you to the backroom and ask you how you are doing it, C. Inform the cops that you are a cheater and take your winning. D. You will then have to take them to court. E. If you win they will pay you, but bar your from gambling there again.

And this is base on the U.S. casino.

Something offshore like this, think they going to bend over and let you hammer them?

[BillyCostigan]

Pay him. Online casinos are RIGGED. DGS is a RIGGED software. Why do you guys think 95% of the major sportsbooks use it? Why have sportsbooks that switched from it eventually returned to it? It's because it brings a HUGE profit.

Pay him. WSex is CHEATING all other players by not using a truly RANDOM generator. Isn't that the REAL problem?

[PayUpSukka]

if in fact the RNG was not random and was figured out, then shouldnt wsex pay all the players who lost?!?!?
think about it, its a conditional statement.
WSEX needs to get their act together....
then again, anyone who plays at an online casino has bigger nutz than me( and i have 2500 on charlott to win tonight @+400....)

[bigbank]

hard to believe anyone thinks he shouldn't get paid. The player found a pattern and exploited it. How is that cheating? WSEX should have tested their software a bit better I would say.

[trixtrix]

i'm really surprised that there are posters here who believes that WSEX should not have to pay in this case.

assuming that the player in question had no direct influence on wsex casino software, he is no more guilty than a bj card counter who has a higher bet size when the count is positive b/c he's expecting to win more, and has a lower bet size when the count is negative b/c he's expecting to lose more.

additionally, this opens a whole slew of dangerous precedents for casino to void winnings on. 99% of gamblers play some sort of a system in a casino, be it flat betting, random increase/decrease units, martingale, grand martingale, anti martingale, fibonacci etc etc.. what's stopping a casino to say wait by you using martingale (or maybe cypher system) we see you have 10 straight sessions of wins w/ no losses, thus you must be cheating and we are going to take our money back..

[relaaxx]

i think there is a lot more to it than he figured out some pattern. or is exploiting a weakness. i think he is a thief. and should not be rewarded for being one.

[Thremp]

With a sample size that small, you have someone with insider info from the programmer. As others have pointed out, someone stupid with insider information.

Obv.

I don't know SBR's official take on it, but I think the player should be paid. If he can figure out how the cards will be dealt, that is no different than exploiting a weak dealer in Vegas that is showing the cards before they are dealt. The casino's remedy is to fix the dealer or kick out the player, but not take the money.

This reeks of inside work to me. Only someone truly incompetent would manage to get caught while pwning the RNG. Your analogy is poorly constructed as machines in Vegas having winnings voided when malfunctioned or, as is likely in this case, are the victim of a crime.

[BET THE HOOK]

I don't know SBR's official take on it, but I think the player should be paid. If he can figure out how the cards will be dealt, that is no different than exploiting a weak dealer in Vegas that is showing the cards before they are dealt. The casino's remedy is to fix the dealer or kick out the player, but not take the money.

I absolutely think the player should get paid. This is no different that capping a game and he found the weak link and took advantage of it.

[20Four7]

This again shows you why you should not play on the on line casinos......

[Thremp]

I absolutely think the player should get paid. This is no different that capping a game and he found the weak link and took advantage of it.

Except SB verbiage specifically revokes many of these sort of "errors". Is a crackable RNG a broken game? Maybe. That is a debatable point.

Though I'd love to see the logic some of you use to conclude that this wasn't an inside job.

[juuso]

I would be surprised if it wasn't an inside job.

[andywend]

I'm quite surprised by Justin's opinion that this guy should be paid and I strongly disagree with him.

I'm one of the first ones to chime in and call a book crooked when they confisicate winnings like BetEd does all the time.

Assuming the facts were reported correctly about the guy alternating his bets from $100 on all his winners to $1 on his losers, he shouldn't be paid due to sheer greed and stupidity.

To all of you who think this thief should get paid, how about if he won $1,000,000 or $10,000,000?

He found an obvious flaw in the programming and tried to take advantage of it to the absolute maximum and was taking an obvious shot at WSEX.

There are far too many examples of books taking shots at players (like the book that accepted all those correlated parlays, waited for the results and then voided the winnings after the games were finished) and we all agree these books are wrong and should pay the players.

When the reverse happens where a player is taking an obvious shot at a book (in this case, the player in question knew with almost absolute certainty when he was going to win or lose so its even more obvious here), the player should NOT be rewarded either.

If this guy wasn't so damn greedy, he could have milked this programming flaw and made a nice steady income. Instead, through his betting patterns, he made it 100% obvious to WSEX that he was cheating.

He should NOT be paid and WSEX should ban him permanently.

[BarkingToad]

[IMG]http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bI.FIWxLSR0A_xKjzbkF/SIG=11v7p27ki/EXP=1265464069/**http%3a//www.pokerstarsblog.com/teddy-kgb.jpg[/IMG]

Pay the man his money.

[mrmarket]

This is almost as bad as ipoker skins banning players for being winners. They should definitely pay this guy this money if there was no cheating involved (as the onus on them is to make sure their RNG is functioning correctly). Bet i agree with the other posters the guy was an idiot for his bet sizing.

[siabdo23]

the guy should be paid regardless of what you guys think