EasyStreet casino winner accused of using robot software

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by C.S.

I don't have an opinion one way or another... but pokerplayer, do you really think that if cory1111 found a glitch in the software that DGS would own up to it? I am sure that every software provider would say "It is impossible to cheat our software". When the truth is they really have no idea until it happens.

Ive thought about that but i know that prob 75% of books use this same software and to my knowledge no one has ever figured out a way to cheat it. Some lucky players win once in a while and most lose playing on it. EZ is the only place to refulse to pay the winners.

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 03:55 PM

And the other thing on my mind...Where has Marvin suddenly disappeared to?? He came on here talking about my history with crooked Powers but he magically managed to skate around the subject at hand....the 46k dispute. All he said was an official statement was forthcoming....That was 5 days ago...Hmm

**thisisit** · 03-21-11, 04:50 PM

This is a very interesting story. Online casinos are the bane of the offshore bettor! You want to play a casino game, but if you win to much they will find a reason to try to cheat you out of it.

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by thisisit

This is a very interesting story. Online casinos are the bane of the offshore bettor! You want to play a casino game, but if you win to much they will find a reason to try to cheat you out of it.

Most books dont...I won 14k at betjam about 4 years ago and cashed it out without the slightest problem. The shit books are the ones who cry and whine and stiff the player

**FourLengthsClear** · 03-21-11, 06:40 PM

Interesting thread.
Given that the bot (if there was one) does nothing to change the house edge, I can see no justification for confiscating funds.

I assume that the book/casino will not be refunding any losses incurred by other players it observed using bots.

**Hareeba!** · 03-21-11, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by FourLengthsClear

Interesting thread.
Given that the bot (if there was one) does nothing to change the house edge, I can see no justification for confiscating funds.

I assume that the book/casino will not be refunding any losses incurred by other players it observed using bots.

I would disagree that using a bot correctly programmed to make the best plays doesn't reduce the house's expected edge.

Certainly it wouldn't decrease the mathematical edge but humans make errors and the house would expect to gain in excess of the mathematical edge on that count.

However I agree they shouldn't use that as a no-pay excuse.

The problem is that their rules ban the use of bots. But why?
Surely if they have confidence in their software the use of bots will only increase their hold and thus their bottom line even conceding that they aren't playing against an error prone human?

**TexansFan** · 03-21-11, 06:53 PM

Bottom line is they can't prove the use of a bot. They can assume or believe whatever they like, but they can't prove anything.

They should pay him his money or they're a bunch of crooks.

**Hareeba!** · 03-21-11, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by TexansFan

Bottom line is they can't prove the use of a bot. They can assume or believe whatever they like, but they can't prove anything.

They should pay him his money or they're a bunch of crooks.

If a player was making bets for 12 hours straight without a pause and entering his play at precisely the same time interval throughout I'd say there's a pretty good argument to say the case is proven ?

**SportsMozart** · 03-21-11, 07:14 PM

This guy will not get paid and we have the first red flag of "no pay" on ES sportsbook. Something tells me that this case might be just the start of a long chain of similar events . Time will show.

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by SportsMozart

This guy will not get paid and we have the first red flag of "no pay" on ES sportsbook. Something tells me that this case might be just the start of a long chain of similar events . Time will show.

But then the funny thing is that pretty soon you'll have the shills come back in here and claim that "EZ has 0 payout complaints".

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

I would disagree that using a bot correctly programmed to make the best plays doesn't reduce the house's expected edge.

Certainly it wouldn't decrease the mathematical edge but humans make errors and the house would expect to gain in excess of the mathematical edge on that count.

However I agree they shouldn't use that as a no-pay excuse.

The problem is that their rules ban the use of bots. But why?
Surely if they have confidence in their software the use of bots will only increase their hold and thus their bottom line even conceding that they aren't playing against an error prone human?

Using a Bot would decrease the house edge but it would NOT sway the edge from the house to the player. The house would still have the edge, more hands would be played per minute and per hour...thus the house will make more money in the long run. It amazes me that when one guy does happen to get lucky and win, EZ decides to stiff. What they should have done is pay the guy without any problems and posted up on their site or here "Congrats to our 46k winner who got paid with no hassle" It can be you too so deposit with us". There's just 2 problems with that. 1. Powers doesnt pay big winners. 2. Powers doesnt have 46k to pay all at once.

**sharpcat** · 03-21-11, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by pokerplayer22

But then the funny thing is that pretty soon you'll have the shills come back in here and claim that "EZ has 0 payout complaints".

Just stop!!!!!!!! You are not the most reputable person yourself.

Originally posted by Justin7

Nearly all the best made from the 3 accounts were made 1. from pokerplayer22's IP address, or 2. from pokerplayer22 calling into the sportsbook.

While it's certainly not a 100% thing, I thought the sportsbook was reasonable in concluding that Pokerplayer22 was controlling the 3 accounts to "bonus hustle" - each account received a sign-up bonus, plus a referral bonus to the main account (which turned $40 into $1200). If you accept that premise, Sportbet handled this dispute fairly.

Originally posted by Justin7

You attempted to defraud Sportsbet. You closed out your account except for the referral bonus, and attempted to open your fourth account. At that point, a clerk identified you.

Sportbet is not crooked. Sportbet has no outstanding no-pay complaints. I wasted hours of my life investigating your dispute. You contradicted yourself during the investigation (did they play from work? Or during your poker parties 3 times a week at your house, where they placed all their internet bets). You lied to OSGA, making up things that SBR never said. You lied to me when I asked you about it. You lied to Sportbet when you identified yourself on telephone as various different people. You continuously misrepresent the facts of this dispute.

You're obviously free to post what you wish, but as I warned you privately, I'll continue correcting your factual misstatements.

Originally posted by EZMARVIN

pokerplayer22 vs Alex Powers

Let me see if I can shed some light on the vendetta that has fuels pokerplayer22's attack on EZ Street even though it has nothing to do with this case.

Big Jim Rivers who used to work at Jazz, not EZ Street and happens to be a friend of Powers, was at the time a salesperson at Jazz.

Alex walked in one morning and Jim seemed a bit nervous.

Alex asked Jim what was bothering him, he said "Boss I screwed up, I put a bonus in a guys account last night before I left, as the guy promised me that he was going to make a deposit of $100, but he lied to me, he played the bonus and hit a parlay and never made the deposit”.

Powers told Jim that it was not a problem and he would handle it.

Powers personally called pokerplayer22 and congratulated him on the parlay and told him no problem his play would stand all he had to do is simply make the $100 deposit as promised and do a simple 3 time rollover and he could take it a payout and that his account was going to be suspended until he did, to which he agreed.

Later that evening after Powers had left for the day, pokerplayer22, somehow conned another employee into opening his account stating that Powers said it was ok and hits another small parlay which put his balance at $1190.

Once again, Powers called him and told pokerplayer22, "you did it again, however like I told you before you still need to make the initial $100 deposit and do the simple rollover before you can take a payout." His response was that the salespeople screwed up again and that he had Jazz by the balls, he also added that he was not going to make any deposit and he had to be paid not to go the forums.

Powers at Jazz then said he would not be extorted by pokerplayer22 and was standing firm by his decision and that all pokerplayer22 needed to do make the deposit of $100 and simply do the 3 x rollover and he could get all his funds.

Fast forward pokerplayer22 contacted the forums and they got involved, ALL parties agreed that a $500 settlement without the deposit was fair; pokerplayer22 was paid in one hour via ** and everyone thought the incident would be left behind.

As soon as pokerplayer22 picked up the funds his rants started and he has been entertaining everyone ever since December 18, 2008 with his nonsense, after he stiffed Jazz for $500 without ever making a single deposit. This information can be verified by Harvey at Jazz as they are all very familiar with the story and even use it in their sales trainings as one of the examples on common scams.

More importantly from what I can see SBR has not made any decision on this matter and states that the player is not co-operating.

EasyStreet tells SBR that a player who won $46,000, by hitting three royal flushes in 12 hours, is under investigation. The player has been locked out of his account during the investigation. | EasyStreet statement to player

The EasyStreet player has not been totally cooperative with SBR thus far, choosing not to disclose details in writing regarding games played. SBR is nonetheless following up on the complaint.

Below is a statement from EasyStreet management sent to the player:

EasyStreet to player: "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."

EasyStreet tells SBR that they expect their audit of the casino play to be complete soon. SBR will update this report as additional facts become available.

Stop bumping this stupid thread your only motivation here is to take a shot at Alex Powers because he did not pay you your full winning balance after you conned a CS rep to give you a $100 bonus before depositing and than you refused to make the deposit after running your balance up with parlays.

Go do some multi account bonus whoring or try to con some service rep into giving you freeplays and do not bump this fukken thread again until we have an official decision from SBR and EZSTREET.

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 08:21 PM

Dude...dont waste your time reading the threads if it bothers you that much. I know thats a tough concept for you

**michael777** · 03-21-11, 08:40 PM

one of the worst books on the planet

**sharpcat** · 03-21-11, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by pokerplayer22

Dude...dont waste your time reading the threads if it bothers you that much. I know thats a tough concept for you

This thread is a waste of everyones time because the only info that you and Cory1111 keep trying to cram into peoples heads are opinions from 2 disgruntled players who have a personal vendetta against Alex Powers and EZSTREET.

Once again you are trying to use the chat forum to extort the book by bumping these threads and filling the heads of the naive with your opinions when we all (including yourself) have yet to hear the true facts.

You have been guilty of scamming books in the past and Cory1111 has reportedly been banned from many books for fraudulent behavior.

I have no stance in this complaint if the book is found to owe the player and do not pay than yes they are a sh*t book, but they have every reason to investigate this before paying due to the suspicious nature of his winnings and his fraudulent background.

**sharpcat** · 03-21-11, 08:49 PM

..............

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by sharpcat

This thread is a waste of everyones time because the only info that you and Cory1111 keep trying to cram into peoples heads are opinions from 2 disgruntled players who have a personal vendetta against Alex Powers and EZSTREET.

Once again you are trying to use the chat forum to extort the book by bumping these threads and filling the heads of the naive with your opinions when we all (including yourself) have yet to hear the true facts.

You have been guilty of scamming books in the past and Cory1111 has reportedly been banned from many books for fraudulent behavior.

I have no stance in this complaint if the book is found to owe the player and do not pay than yes they are a sh*t book, but they have every reason to investigate this before paying due to the suspicious nature of his winnings and his fraudulent background.

FYI...Justin did look at the facts and ruled that the book needs to pay the player.

And stop wasting your time reading this thread if it bothers you that much

**sharpcat** · 03-21-11, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by pokerplayer22

FYI...Justin did look at the facts and ruled that the book needs to pay the player.

And stop wasting your time reading this thread if it bothers you that much

That is a completely fabricated statement Justin7 never said that he ruled that the book needed to pay.

This was the last we heard from Justin7 on the matter just 2 days ago which indicates that it is still under review.

Originally posted by Justin7

I will always consider new facts as they develop. But, the longer the delay, the less willing I am to continue weighing. I've only had this dispute since March 15th, so I can't really call foul on EZ for asking for a little more time, especially given the amount at stake.

**Justin7** · 03-21-11, 09:42 PM

I was told that EZStreetsports had a rule against bots, and no one disputed it. I read its site, and found only this rule:

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.

I don't think rule does not disallows a bot that plays Video Poker with perfect strategy. A bot that follows a fixed strategy does not use artificial intelligence; it simply follows a fixed set of unchanging instructions. AI requires that a bot learn and change. If it played, and improved its strategy on experience, that might be considered AI... But I don't think the claimed player conduct violated this rule, even if you accept EZStreet's unproven hypothesis.

That said, there are other possible defenses I could see EZ bringing into play, but this has not happened. I spoke to them this evening, and I was told to expect their response by Wednesday.

**Justin7** · 03-21-11, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by sharpcat

That is a completely fabricated statement Justin7 never said that he ruled that the book needed to pay.

This was the last we heard from Justin7 on the matter just 2 days ago which indicates that it is still under review.

To clarify, I did recommend that EZ pay the player based on the facts I had. EZ asked for additional time, and I agreed. If they present additional facts that I can verify which justify their position, my final recommendation could be different.

**mikeyg** · 03-21-11, 10:10 PM

Alex Powers is a scammer and he is affiliated with this book. That means this book will scam you as well just like all other books that asshole Powers has been affiliated with. It may not be for a year or maybe two, but don't forget everyone thought Jazz was a great operation at one point.

**mikeyg** · 03-21-11, 10:11 PM

Besides.... Why would anyone want to chance it? Play at a book that you can FULLY trust. This one may or may not pay you. Why bother?

**king** · 03-21-11, 10:11 PM

A little off topic, but I understand some people are using bots at casino's online and they don't win but the casino still takes their money. I have seen some clips online of people using bots and getting no where with it. Casino's are not banning them but allowing them to play and lose and take their money.

It seems like a win-win situation for a casino if you have a bot and lose keep on playing and lose but if you win with your bot no pay day for you according to the rules they state no bot. I personally don't see how a bot can help. I wouldn't trust it also as it could play stupid while I am away.

One more thing is if a casino is a real RNG then why would they worry about a bot. RNG to me should mean random numbers or shuffle is going on. Not you win some I win a little more by doing a percentage.

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by mikeyg

Besides.... Why would anyone want to chance it? Play at a book that you can FULLY trust. This one may or may not pay you. Why bother?

Exactly

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

To clarify, I did recommend that EZ pay the player based on the facts I had. EZ asked for additional time, and I agreed. If they present additional facts that I can verify which justify their position, my final recommendation could be different.

Thats what i told sharpcat but for some reason he didnt know how to read. Oh well

**Doug** · 03-21-11, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by king

A little off topic, but I understand some people are using bots at casino's online and they don't win but the casino still takes their money. I have seen some clips online of people using bots and getting no where with it. Casino's are not banning them but allowing them to play and lose and take their money.

It seems like a win-win situation for a casino if you have a bot and lose keep on playing and lose but if you win with your bot no pay day for you according to the rules they state no bot. I personally don't see how a bot can help. I wouldn't trust it also as it could play stupid while I am away.

One more thing is if a casino is a real RNG then why would they worry about a bot. RNG to me should mean random numbers or shuffle is going on. Not you win some I win a little more by doing a percentage.

It's because SLEAZY STREET gave the player a bonus making the game +EV. The bot just was used to play the needed hands so Cory didn't have to bother with it. Well the unlikely three royals hit....and the SHIT book doesn't want to pay. Cory could have lost his stake in this kind of game very easily. $25 a hand and a hand every few seconds. SLEAZY shouldn't offer the bonus, if they cant pay 20k royals.

**pokerplayer22** · 03-21-11, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Doug

It's because SLEAZY STREET gave the player a bonus making the game +EV. The bot just was used to play the needed hands so Cory didn't have to bother with it. Well the unlikely three royals hit....and the SHIT book doesn't want to pay. Cory could have lost his stake in this kind of game very easily. $25 a hand and a hand every few seconds. SLEAZY shouldn't offer the bonus, if they cant pay 20k royals.

LOL @ Sleazy Street

**TexansFan** · 03-22-11, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

If a player was making bets for 12 hours straight without a pause and entering his play at precisely the same time interval throughout I'd say there's a pretty good argument to say the case is proven ?

How is that proof? That's not proof at all, it's just an assumption by them. If they could prove it they would have done so by now. The guy was just unfortunate to hit three RF's so quickly and build up his balance to the amount it is.

Do you really believe if he lost all of that money anything would have been said?

**Hareeba!** · 03-22-11, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by TexansFan

How is that proof? That's not proof at all, it's just an assumption by them. If they could prove it they would have done so by now. The guy was just unfortunate to hit three RF's so quickly and build up his balance to the amount it is.

Do you really believe if he lost all of that money anything would have been said?

I didn't say that. In fact I said the opposite that he should be paid. And that it shouldn't matter if he did use a bot.

However, what I am saying though (and not necessarily related to this case at all) is that it would be stretching the imagination somewhat to believe that 12 hrs consecutive playing, responding instantly with perfect strategy to each hand without any break can be achieved manually.

**SportsMozart** · 03-22-11, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by pokerplayer22

But then the funny thing is that pretty soon you'll have the shills come back in here and claim that "EZ has 0 payout complaints".

I never stood up for anybody who has not earned it. I do notice good things when they take place. I never forget any bad things. That's how it should be. I don't hate them like you do. I am just sad that book that started out right has taken a slippery sloap. Like the president from Texas who had the highest IQ ever once said- "Fool me once and shame on you, fool me twice and I just can not be fooled anymore"

**BET THE HOOK** · 03-22-11, 03:04 AM

Wow what a mess they've made. Just pay up.

**HedgeHog** · 03-22-11, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

To clarify, I did recommend that EZ pay the player based on the facts I had. EZ asked for additional time, and I agreed. If they present additional facts that I can verify which justify their position, my final recommendation could be different.

I think it's only fair to allow them some time to see if a glitch occurred in their software, especially considering 3 royal flushes happened in a relatively short period. I know the complainant played many hands per minute, but this still seems incredibly "lucky". What do you think the true odds of this happening are?

**Justin7** · 03-22-11, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by HedgeHog

I think it's only fair to allow them some time to see if a glitch occurred in their software, especially considering 3 royal flushes happened in a relatively short period. I know the complainant played many hands per minute, but this still seems incredibly "lucky". What do you think the true odds of this happening are?

We discussed that briefly. EZ said that he hit a royal about every 2900 hands. His expectation is about 1 in 35k ('m doing this on the fly, since this wasn't the focus of EZ's defense).

If 1. his expectation was about 0.25 royals, and 2. the number of Royals follows a Poisson distribution in the roughly 9k hands he played, the odds of him getting more than 2.5 Royals are about 1 in 500.

**HedgeHog** · 03-22-11, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

We discussed that briefly. EZ said that he hit a royal about every 2900 hands. His expectation is about 1 in 35k ('m doing this on the fly, since this wasn't the focus of EZ's defense).

If 1. his expectation was about 0.25 royals, and 2. the number of Royals follows a Poisson distribution in the roughly 9k hands he played, the odds of him getting more than 2.5 Royals are about 1 in 500.

I missed the earlier discussion, so thank you for clarifying the issue for me. I'm not a casino player, so 1 in 500 is similar to hitting a 9-team sports parlay--just to put it all in perspective. Rare, but definitely possible.

**pokerplayer22** · 03-22-11, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by HedgeHog

I think it's only fair to allow them some time to see if a glitch occurred in their software, especially considering 3 royal flushes happened in a relatively short period. I know the complainant played many hands per minute, but this still seems incredibly "lucky". What do you think the true odds of this happening are?

I dont know of the exact time frame but havent they been "investigating" this for over 3 weeks? Justin, do you know the date on which this casino play occurred?