[DontTailMe]

Again I tend to agree.

No-one can dispute it was +EV - but trying to nail down the exact +NNN is not possible.

Do you have comments re: the comparison between a slot and an NBA game and (due to the different nature of these events) that a comparison of what would be a "tolerable" edge to the bookmaker is not a meaningful comparison?

You added the last 3 paragraphs on edit, so of course I only answered the first part about the estimate.

Yes, the nature of a slot machine is very different from sports betting. Since no one knows the "true" probability of any sporting event (even the sharpest of sharps is simply estimating), no one can say with certainty whether you have a +EV scenario or not. All you can really say is that, over time, Player X tends to make +EV decisions and that is demonstrated by his/her aggregate results.

A casino game is very different. There are rules defined within the computer algorithm, and the expected value can be precisely calculated, if so desired. Slot machines are always supposed to be -EV by design, so any game which is +EV is arguably flawed.

[Ewan101]

You added the last 3 paragraphs on edit, so of course I only answered the first part about the estimate.

Yes, the nature of a slot machine is very different from sports betting. Since no one knows the "true" probability of any sporting event (even the sharpest of sharps is simply estimating), no one can say with certainty whether you have a +EV scenario or not. All you can really say is that, over time, Player X tends to make +EV decisions and that is demonstrated by his/her aggregate results.

A casino game is very different. There are rules defined within the computer algorithm, and the expected value can be precisely calculated, if so desired. Slot machines are always supposed to be -EV by design, so any game which is +EV is arguably flawed.

And do you agree that - strictly for the purposes of deciding if the "edge was too large" - that, for example, if a bookmaker's line is out on a sports market by a small amount (e.g. the offered odds were +125 when they should have been +120) and that therefore there is little question the player should be paid with no issue - but in the case of a slot if the slot is +105 then this is a completely different and non-comparable case?

[DontTailMe]

And do you agree that - strictly for the purposes of deciding if the "edge was too large" - that, for example, if a bookmaker's line is out on a sports market by a small amount (e.g. the offered odds were +125 when they should have been +120) and that therefore there is little question the player should be paid with no issue - but in the case of a slot if the slot is +105 then this is a completely different and non-comparable case?

Logically speaking, yeah, they really can't be viewed in the same way.

The first problem is that, in the NBA example, the reason why we expect the sportsbooks to give some leeway is because we are talking about odds, which are a marketplace. And there is always going to be a range of available prices in that marketplace. If we allow books to void bets based on a price difference of 5%, then we are giving them license to (unprovably) lie and essentially void any wager they want, giving them a severely unfair advantage. That conundrum doesn't exist here. Slots are supposed to be -EV, period. We all know that intuitively.

The second problem is that we aren't talking about a single bet, as in your NBA game example. We are talking about a system which can be used over and over again, so aggregate value (total $ profit) is only limited by spins. A slot with EV of +150% per spin and a slot with EV of only +0.01% per spin can both equate to millions of dollars if given enough time. I'm sure that a casino would go to court over both and argue that the player took advantage of a flaw. And unlike the NBA game, this flaw can be mathematically proven.

Should they pay some of these players out of goodwill or for PR purposes? That's a different, difficult question to answer.

[Ewan101]

Logically speaking, yeah, they really can't be viewed in the same way.

The first problem is that, in the NBA example, the reason why we expect the sportsbooks to give some leeway is because we are talking about odds, which are a marketplace. And there is always going to be a range of available prices in that marketplace. If we allow books to void bets based on a price difference of 5%, then we are giving them license to (unprovably) lie and essentially void any wager they want, giving them a severely unfair advantage. That conundrum doesn't exist here. Slots are supposed to be -EV, period. We all know that intuitively.

The second problem is that we aren't talking about a single bet, as in your NBA game example. We are talking about a system which can be used over and over again, so aggregate value (total $ profit) is only limited by spins. A slot with EV of +150% per spin and a slot with EV of only +0.01% per spin can both equate to millions of dollars if given enough time. I'm sure that a casino would go to court over both and argue that the player took advantage of a flaw. And unlike the NBA game, this flaw can be mathematically proven.

Should they pay some of these players out of goodwill or for PR purposes? That's a different, difficult question to answer.

I concur with this 100%

So it looks like we have our answer re: the players who exploited the "Take The" slots to the collective tune of 10 Million US Dollars.

The affected companies are going to fight this, they will rely on the published t&c, and the claimants are going to have a little bit of a fight on their hands.

The PR / Goodwill argument - this has been addressed by previous posters to some extent. MyBookie are already in the hole re: bad PR - so paying 10m Million now does not seem like a good ROI for them

[HedgeHog]

I concur with this 100%

So it looks like we have our answer re: the players who exploited the "Take The" slots to the collective tune of 10 Million US Dollars.

The affected companies are going to fight this, they will rely on the published t&c, and the claimants are going to have a little bit of a fight on their hands.

The PR / Goodwill argument - this has been addressed by previous posters to some extent. MyBookie are already in the hole re: bad PR - so paying 10m Million now does not seem like a good ROI for them

I'm not as convinced as you are, but I respect your opinion. Without question, DTM made some excellent points. Most noteworthy is that comparing sports wagering to casino gambling isn't feasible. It's an apples vs oranges rabbit hole we probably shouldn't go down. I only brought it up because I'm primarily a sports bettor with little casino experience. I understand the one very well and the other not so much, so I go with what I know. That said, I would not be so quick to dismiss the casino players' cases. I don't view them as "exploiting" the game. They have a reasonable expectation to be paid if they played the game and won. Certainly there were some that played this game and lost despite the glitch, perhaps not realizing the advantage and quitting early on. Should they be reimbursed, or do we just let MB keep that and stiff the winners?

Either Bet Soft or My Bookie is responsible for the glitch that occurred, very likely the latter IMO. As such I think the onus is on the operator to prove its case, and MB has provided no answers to my knowledge. In the end, do I think the players should get 100% of their balances? No, but they may be entitled to more than just the payouts they received thus far. Further, MB should offer to reinstate their accounts as the fault is not with the players. Why anyone would still want to play there after this BS is beyond me, but they should at least have the option. Just my 2 cents.

[lonnie55]

IWhy anyone would still want to play there after this BS is beyond me

OP alone took home 84k from a +EV slot and who knows how much the other 60+ players were able to withdraw before MYB woke up. That's a strong reason to keep playing there, if you ask me. Yes, MYB is a shit book but that is no news. The bottom line of this case is that they are stupid enough to pay hundreds of k's to dozens of players on a flawed slot.

This case could even attract new players and angle shooters.

[DontTailMe]

I'm not as convinced as you are, but I respect your opinion. Without question, DTM made some excellent points. Most noteworthy is that comparing sports wagering to casino gambling isn't feasible. It's an apples vs oranges rabbit hole we probably shouldn't go down. I only brought it up because I'm primarily a sports bettor with little casino experience. I understand the one very well and the other not so much, so I go with what I know. That said, I would not be so quick to dismiss the casino players' cases. I don't view them as "exploiting" the game. They have a reasonable expectation to be paid if they played the game and won. Certainly there were some that played this game and lost despite the glitch, perhaps not realizing the advantage and quitting early on. Should they be reimbursed, or do we just let MB keep that and stiff the winners?

Either Bet Soft or My Bookie is responsible for the glitch that occurred, very likely the latter IMO. As such I think the onus is on the operator to prove its case, and MB has provided no answers to my knowledge. In the end, do I think the players should get 100% of their balances? No, but they may be entitled to more than just the payouts they received thus far. Further, MB should offer to reinstate their accounts as the fault is not with the players. Why anyone would still want to play there after this BS is beyond me, but they should at least have the option. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with most of your post, but wanted to call out the bolded. I'm not sure why this would matter. Your hypothetical players (most everyone who played these games) didn't know about the +EV glitch and therefore didn't exploit the casino. They played normally, and won/lost normally (mostly lost), just as expected. If anything, perhaps they unwittingly benefitted from the glitch a few times by coincidentally adjusting their bet sizes at just the right time without knowing the impacts and gained a micro % EV from the situation.

This isn't analogous to a sportsbook freeroll scenario IMO. But perhaps I misunderstand what you're trying to say here.

[DontTailMe]

The PR / Goodwill argument - this has been addressed by previous posters to some extent. MyBookie are already in the hole re: bad PR - so paying 10m Million now does not seem like a good ROI for them

Yes, I was talking about it from the perspective of a generic casino. But this is an unfortunate reality facing these players, I fear.

OP alone took home 84k from a +EV slot and who knows how much the other 60+ players were able to withdraw before MYB woke up. That's a strong reason to keep playing there, if you ask me. Yes, MYB is a shit book but that is no news. The bottom line of this case is that they are stupid enough to pay hundreds of k's to dozens of players on a flawed slot.

This case could even attract new players and angle shooters.

Hahahaha. Good point!

It's been said many times before in this thread, but it really is incredible that they didn't catch this sooner. This is a shit book which absolutely HATES seeing money leave it's coffers.

[HedgeHog]

I agree with most of your post, but wanted to call out the bolded. I'm not sure why this would matter. Your hypothetical players (most everyone who played these games) didn't know about the +EV glitch and therefore didn't exploit the casino. They played normally, and won/lost normally (mostly lost), just as expected. If anything, perhaps they unwittingly benefitted from the glitch a few times by coincidentally adjusting their bet sizes at just the right time without knowing the impacts and gained a micro % EV from the situation.

This isn't analogous to a sportsbook freeroll scenario IMO. But perhaps I misunderstand what you're trying to say here.

Basically you're saying that the players that lost were supposed to, so all is good and MB gets to keep their losses. But the players that won and shouldn't have in your opinion need to forfeit their balances? Sounds like a great deal for the Book. Seems inconsistent to me, but I'm just a naive sports bettor trying to understand the complexities of casino gambling. I get the math and know an advantage was present for the casino players, but I don't know how big it was --neither do you by your own admission. You seem content that any advantage in the favor of the player, no matter how small, is reason enough for confiscation. Afterall, the game is supposed to be -EV, so how could the player possibly be ahead? It's tantamount to the Book tossing a coin and saying "Heads I win and Tails you lose".

[DontTailMe]

Basically you're saying that the players that lost were supposed to, so all is good and MB gets to keep their losses. But the players that won and shouldn't have in your opinion need to forfeit their balances? Sounds like a great deal for the Book. Seems inconsistent to me, but I'm just a naive sports bettor trying to understand the complexities of casino gambling. I get the math and know an advantage was present for the casino players, but I don't know how big it was --neither do you by your own admission. You seem content that any advantage in the favor of the player, no matter how small, is reason enough for confiscation. Afterall, the game is supposed to be -EV, so how could the player possibly be ahead? It's tantamount to the Book tossing a coin and saying "Heads I win and Tails you lose".

Hold on. I'm sincerely asking you under what theory the players who lost should have to be paid back. I brought up sportsbook free roll scenarios in my last post because I assumed you were trying to draw some analogy to that (which doesn't exist here IMO). In a free roll situation, the book unfairly benefits from keeping player losses while not having to pay out player winnings. That's NOT what is happening here.

Some of your hypothetical players will have lost and some will have won. And as long as they didn't exploit the game flaw, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is certainly not "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Let's say a casino catches a blackjack player cheating with an electronic device and they confiscate his winnings. All I'm saying is that that should have absolutely zero impact on the winnings/losses of the other players at the table who played the game fairly. NOTE: Let's not get hung up on me comparing this to a card cheat. My purpose isn't to say that the transgressions are of equal magnitude, but merely to illustrate how Player A has nothing to do with Players XYZ.

[Spencerho]

Hi Optional,

Havent heard back from you for the past couple weeks in regards to any updates regarding the case; was wondering if it was possible for you to give us an update here on this forum. Also, Betsoft/MyBookie have been ignoring our requests to get their ADR information for weeks, and as players it is our exclusive right to obtain this information, would it be possible for you to help us obtain this information? It would be great if we could get some type of information, the players affected right now have been left in the dark for awhile now.

The OP may really be as naive as he is claiming.

He sounds like he has been playing the game for a very long time. If the casino did not stop you, and kept paying you, for 10 months, I think many readers here would convince themselves it must be fine.

Hindsight and math helps makes it very obvious there was some sort of issue going on but in the heat of the moment many gamblers would keep convincing themselves it was fine.


But really, does it matter?

If the operator made a bad setting (still not confirmed) I think it is still on the operator to make good on the outcome. In some way. Some way better than treating players like they are cheats at the very least.


And for the threads info. There is approaching 60 players identified as benefitting from the issue. I dont know the total outstanding balance but something between 5 and 10 million $ would not surprise me.

[Barrakuda]

There is a reason most defense attorneys don't advise their clients to testify.

[Barrakuda]

Call it what you want but these books can make adjustments to this BS casino software they are using.

Tampering implies wrongdoing, let's just say they can manage or "adjust" settings.

Did they? I have no idea but let's not pretend you need a team of elite hackers to manage casino software.

It's not one size fit all kind of deal.

There is no "setting" that allows the casino to lose money. Hence, the software had a bug. It's really not that hard to understand.