-
Comment -
Exactly!!! PAY THE MAN HIS MONEY YOU!!!! +EV game he deserved to get beat so pay him!!!!! Any legit book would not even offer game with plus EV like that so that just goes to show you that they would never pay ANYONE if they got beat like they did!!!! AVOID 5dimes!!!!!Comment -
EZStreet (non-advertiser) does this and is blacklisted
5Dimes does this and gets their robbery approved, absolutely no reason that a bot should not be allowed to play an online casino game anyway, what a fuckin idiot Tony must be to offer a casino game without checking if its +EV or not.
Hey Tony I got a new game for your casino, you flip a coin and payout 2 to 1, itll be a huge hit in your casinoLast edited by bettilimbroke999; 05-14-11, 08:23 PM.Comment -
Hey jesuseatsnubs, how about going back on chat and apologize.
Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are now chatting with 'Ian'
Ian: Hello. How may I assist you today?
Dave: Hey you guys need to pay up the man in SBR FORUM requesting $14,500 + in payments which u guys made his account balance to 0 !
Dave: until then I will make sure you guys go bankrupt
Dave: and ur ratings to an F
Ian: If you have any question about your account we will gladly answer it
Dave: no **** you , I will call the costa Rican police and make sure you pay the guy
Dave: you books wont screw ANYONE AROUND
Dave: we are what makes u
Dave: without us you are ****** !
Chat session has been terminated by the site operator.Comment -
The statement; "Using a bot isn't cheating. It is against the rules."; shows why it's important 5Dimes wins. If someone breaks rules and wins, then they do not get paid regardless of anything and If someone follows rules and wins, then they do get paid regardless of anything. It's that simple. In my opinion; SBR should not interject anything else to the decision; yet SBR says part of their decision is that the player was up against a game that had a payout that favored the player. That should make no difference. A sportsbook and casino post rules and that's the only thing that should matter--if you follow the rules and win then you collect. If not you lose. Anything different and it becomes a decision based on feelings and opinions which is the worst way to decide any judgement. People like to interject how they feel about rules and what they think is right or wrong, but people's opinions are not facts or rules. The only thing that ever should matter is whether the rules are being followed. The original poster disappeared as soon as he realized a log of every second could be found. He disappeared because he knew he broke the rules and cheated.Comment -
an unreasonable and unfair rule cannot be expected to upheld no matter how reputable the book is, i am really surprised that so many posters don't understand that concept, what is so difficult to understand? if a rule says all players who profits for more than two saturdays will have their balances confiscated and their heads bashed in by a costa rican goon, you would expect that to be enforced?Comment -
I'd read that in rules, and factor that in to my decision whether to play at the book. If I did play there, I'd make sure to not play on Saturdays to limit my risk.
Look, none of us have any practical legal recourse with these places. They live and die on reputation. If players think 5Dimes is so much in the wrong, they will vote with their feet and Tony will feel it where it counts.Comment -
Not good enough. The rule has to be reasonable and the bot rule clearly is not, especially in this case. They could easily put a rule on their site saying that if you click on the parlay button they will put all of your money on a thirty team parlay that pays 1 to 1 when it wins. They could easily put a rule on their site that they can confiscate your money for any reason. They can make any rule they want and if you don't read the entirety of their rules prior to every action you could be screwed. Extreme examples? Sure they are but the point is that this rule is unreasonable and presents a major problem of casino freerolling players. He did not cheat. You can keep saying that all you want but he did nothing to alter the results of the game by using a bot. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. All he did was increase his rate of play and the amount of play he could fit in per day. Sort of like betting off numbers as the market changes, or betting ahead of injury moves etc etc in sports betting.
In your world, the casino can just write whatever rule they want, whenever they want and the player has no recourse or even the ethical high ground no matter how ridiculous the rule. I contend that you are wrong.Comment -
The only thing this player did that was patently wrong was lying to SBR/5dimes about the bot use, which he clearly did.Comment -
Ok, long-winded (because I write these cases up for another project, so duplicated a fair bit of the work), but here we go:Santo -
I'm just curious: If you were the decision-maker charged with how to deal with zab's funds, what would you do? I had started to write you a PM asking this earlier today but was distracted by something else and didn't remember it until now.
After re-reading this thread a few times, I have an idea of what I'd decide but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you don't mind sharing them publicly. I'm sure quite a few others would be interested to hear them also. If you'd rather not, I understand that as well.
Summary of zabula11 vs 5Dimes
The following is my opinion on the case, with the caveat that important details available to SBR are not public, namely:
1) The amount and dates of withdrawals paid to zabula11 by 5Dimes.
2) Whether such withdrawals were subject an audit similar to the one that led to this dispute.
Key points of case:
Zabula 11 claims unjust confiscation of $14,500 from playing a Deuces Wild variant which had a player edge in the region of 12%. 5Dimes claims the play was generated from bot play, which is prohibited by a rule on point stating:
"All Internet wagers must be placed through the user interface provided by 5Dimes Sportsbook & Casino on its Web pages.* Any Internet wagering through other means, including the use of a "robot" player, is strictly forbidden.* In the event that use of non-approved client software is detected, Management reserves the right to invalidate all such wagers retroactively, cancel the player's account, or take any other appropriate action."
5Dimes provided evidence giving (in my opinion) conclusive evidence of bot play, namely repeated breaks in play within milliseconds of each other. This data was made public. Zabula11 has not responded to this evidence. Just prior to the release of data, Zabula11 tried to redefine bot play. There is, in my opinion, no doubt he breached the rule. The question remains whether the rule is valid, and what remedy should be applied. It is worth noting the player approached the debate in bad faith / without clean hands. It is unclear, from the information in the public domain, whether 5Dimes did.
The bots rule
The first question to be addressed is whether the rule is enforceable, in part or in whole. This effectively comes down to whether the term is reasonable, whether it is forced upon the player in a contract of adhesion, and whether a court would find it reasonable and equitable. Should the rule be struck, there would be no rule on point, and the player must be paid.
5Dimes offers at least two games which are +EV for the player. Given this relatively unique situation, banning bots is, in my opinion, reasonable. By controlling the user agent they prevent professional play which is likely to be less profitable. Whilst it is possible to argue that it does not matter who the hands are played by, the reality is that a big winner from the recreational player base is likely to use the funds elsewhere, whilst a professional playing a large number of hands via bots would be likely to withdraw his profits.
It is important to note that this should not set precedent for the use of bots in other situations, namely playing into a -EV game, or especially for the placing of sports-book bets, both of which are situations where the decision would be more complicated. It is also important that this does not mean a book can include any rule in their terms and it be enforced, a good example being BeStake.com's "Gotcha" rule on "Show me the Money".
Funds at risk
LVHerbie has a compelling case that the players funds were at risk, with a reasonable chance of loss. This is unequivocally true. Without knowing how much the player has already been paid it is impossible to determine whether the player has received a reasonable rate of return.
Past Payout / Review
Importantly the player has already received a previous payout. The date and amount of this payout are important. Why? It seems 5Dimes, as is common in the industry, only review the record of a player (sports, casino or poker) upon withdrawal from the account. In this case, when the player requested his $14,500, 5Dimes reviewed his play and noted it was suspicious and showed hallmarks of 'bot' play. Facts in evidence suggest the player received a prior withdrawal. What audit of his account was conducted prior to that withdrawal? Was it a partial withdrawal, in which case 5Dimes knew they had a shot at the remainder/majority of his funds? These facts are not in evidence.
If 5 Dimes knew, or could reasonably know, that the player was using a bot to take advantage of a +EV game at this point (AND, by virtue of the remedy they are offering, they seem to admit knowing the game was +EV by March 1, at the latest), then it would appear from that point they were free-rolling the player. He could lose his funds through play, he could lose his funds through confiscation, but he would not be paid. This would be an unjust application of their rule.
The decision to allow the player to continue playing, if his play had been audited, should be interpreted as waiving that clause of the terms of service.
5Dimes Remedy
Refunding the players who lost since March 01 makes no sense, is little more than a publicity stunt, and should be disregarded in forming an opinion of the case. The players who were playing into this game were playing into a +EV situation, and were getting the best of it by 12% which is an extreme rarity in a casino. There is no need to refund these players.
Conclusion
I have no problem with the SBR decision. The rule being allowed to stand in this specific set of circumstances is reasonable. It would require different interpretation depending on the game being played, and the type of bets being placed.
The players funds were at risk. It is impossible to determine from the facts made public whether he has received a fair payout, if such a payout is due, and the fair payout would have to be determined by some independent party.
The only dispute I would have is regarding the prior payout, whether such payout included an audit of the players play (as would seem likely if it were for a reasonable sum), and why the player was allowed to continue playing past that date.
IF the play had been reviewed, and 5Dimes allowed him to continue playing, the term should be struck, and the player paid. Otherwise, the player should receive nothing or the result of an independent parties 'fair payout' judgment.Comment -
well written ... and I agree that the now-known prior withdrawal being paid DOES change things.
if 'God' approved a withdrawal before, it seriously smells like a freeroll attempt to see if the house would win back the pile via varianceComment -
Impressive, Santo.
Much clearer than the short write-up by SBR in this case.Comment -
Very nice job Santo!
Santo, my opinion here all along, after the player was found guilty was that even though many disagreed with the rule I said the rule still stood in this and in any case. You agree in this case but stated in other cases it might not be the same answer. I agree with this position in part but it opens some questions I was curious of your take.
In our previous discussion about legal basis and precedent you used the Linden Labs case. Linden Labs, if memory serves me correct, was ruled against for their "take it or leave it contract" because they provided a unique product that Bragg could not get somewhere else (the SecondLife game). In this case 5Dimes is not a unique product. There are many other sportsbook/casinos offshore that someone could wager at whereas there is only one place someone can play "SecondLife". As such I don't think the court would be so easy to cut up any 5Dimes rules since they would say just go and play elsewhere if you don't like the rules. 5Dimes is not the only sportsbook/casino offshore. With Linden Labs the court could not tell Bragg to play "SecondLife" elsewhere since the only place to play is LL. Which thereby made some of Linden Labs rules within the "take it or leave it contract" unenforceable.
Someone used the above example "if a rule says all players who profits for more than two saturdays will have their balances confiscated." I deleted the rest of his rule about the CR goon. In my opinion that rule should stand but nobody should bet there. People have a choice. My argument is that if you come to my home casino and I offer blackjack but you are only allowed to hit one blackjack per shuffle and you still play at my casino, isn't that your choice and acceptance of the rule? You could play blackjack elsewhere so you are not tied to my "take it or leave it" contract on the game as I do not have sole rights to the game. Which would mean my rules stand.
In principle I see 100% where you are coming from on the application of the rules pending the situation. In practice I am curious as to your take on the rules using the above. If you do reply, thanks for taking the time. Very impressive post, excellent job!Today is the tomorrow we worried about yesterday.Comment -
Very, very impressive summary Santo.....Comment -
There is only one place to play Second Life, but there are other virtual worlds elsewhere (Eve Online, World of Warcraft, Blue Mars etc).
There is only one place to play the Deuces Wild variant 5 Dimes offered, but there are other games to gamble on elsewhere (Blackjack, JoB video poker, Roulette etc).
Similarly, with sports offerings the lines/options available at 5Dimes may not be available elsewhere, so I would say it's the same as the SL case; you could get something similar elsewhere, but not the same...
Your Blackjack example is somewhat more borderline as far as a contract of adhesion goes, but (and my law is rusty) I don't think that is the only way a term can be ruled unconscionable, and if your term isn't very well advertised (i.e. hidden in the small print), then I might try to defeat it on differing from the norm so misleading players, but that would require more research. If you had it in blazing letters before anyone plays then yes it would stand.Comment -
Nice summery there, these people that think he can use a bot, and nothing happen to them are crazy. If the man would have simply played for5to10 hrs a day on his own he would have had a nice paycheck for a long time he decided to try to cheat the system by using a bot, it is as simple as that. He found a game that gave him an advantage, and he wanted more of an advantage. You reap what you sow.
Comment -
Thank you for taking the time to post your opinion, Santo. I really appreciate it
Last edited by shari91; 05-15-11, 09:05 AM.Comment -
impressive santo. are you an attorney?Comment -
Nice writeup Santo - Whats important to note is the player clearly was aware of the bot rule. He acted like he didnt know what a bot was when accused by 5Dimes, so he was obviously hiding the fact he used one. He then came on SBR with his stupid broken English posting lie after lie. He then submitted a fraudelent claim. When caught he quickly disappeared. He could have played the game without the bot, but made a conscious decision to set one up. He probably figured he may not be able to play enough hands manually to truely experience the positive EV of the game and he would not make enough money to warrant sitting at his computer all day. This is of course speculation, but why else would he choose to break the rules. He made a calculated decision to knowingly break the rules figured it would not be detected, it was.Comment -
This makes sense to me, but would someone please educate me? In these types of games, was the +12% edge able to be determined, beforehand, or did the player have to risk his money over many reps to figure it out. I honestly don't know since I never play these games, so excuse my ignorance.Comment -
You can tell from the payout tables that the game is positive EV, but what you do not know with any online game is if the game will truly deliver the random cards necassary to deliver the positive EV.Comment -
Nice opinion, Santo.
I reached the same conclusion as Bill, but with slightly different reasoning. I didn't think it mattered whether the player's funds were at risk. My analysis was similar to yours...
1. Did the book conclusively show a bot was used? Yes
2. Did this violate the book's rules? Yes
3. Was the rule reasonable? Yes
The more complex issue you raise is: Did 5Dimes waive the rule by waiting so long to enforce it? This comes down to: did they enforce it as soon as they discovered the bot (or with reasonable care, should have discovered it)? You could argue that point either way. If 5dimes knew the player was using a bot, and let it continue, they would owe the full balance. I don't think that happened here though. It is normal for sportsbooks to review accounts on withdrawal, or when there is a big win. One could argue it is unreasonable to wait this long, but this is the standard for almost every sportsbook. I don't think 5dimes action in this dispute waived the rule.
I think the right decision was reached, but the facts in the dispute negatively portray 5dimes' management. Books that offer windfall promotions like this (either with bonuses, ridiculous sports offerings such as CPs, or ridiculous +EV games) face higher risks of going belly up. In particular, +EV casino games are dangerous, because if you build it, bots will come regardless of your rules. Armies of bots may come, and ones that are better run and virtually undetectable. What would happen if 100 accounts beat 5Dimes out of 10k each in the course of a month, and the bot operation were smoothly run? This is a risk 5dimes took that better mathematics on the management side would have avoided.Comment -
Santo love the cliff notes, not having read the 20 pages your opinion/summary was helpful.
One question, how was the players money at risk? I know the +EV comes from the large jackpots which are rare, but a bot playing making small wagers is going to hit them eventually. I could find LV hervies post but 20 pages...too long for my ADD
Anyway thanks for the post, helps those of us not willing to read through 20 pages
Comment -
Bot = no money.. simple as thatComment -
No problem with conclusion that the rule is reasonable in this specific set of circumstances (+EV games). But when you also saying it opens the door for books to free roll players and okay in -EV games (99.99% of online games), then it just casts doubt on whether the rule is actually reasonable in broader sense. Great analysis from Santo and Justin7, but I assume they are good arguments from lawyers, not necessary the ruling from a judge or jury.Comment -
Thanks to all for the kind words. Not an attorney, but my work involves a fair bit of law as it pertains to the internet.
Agree it is standard not to check the account until there is a withdrawal. The problem is that Bill commented that the player had already received one payout from his bot play, which would suggest a withdrawal between March 1 and now. Unfortunately I guess we can't be sure exactly how close his play was looked at before that withdrawal, but the size/timing of the withdrawal should give a hint.
Yokspot: A bot playing a -EV game with a bonus expecting a +EV result I would also consider subject to a no bot rule. I was more trying to say it shouldn't apply to situations where somebody has a script to place sports wagers, or if somebody strangely ran a bot on a -EV game substantially past the bonus rollover mark.Comment -
Books should simply have a rule saying you can't play x number of hands per day per game. It is clear and reasonable. And it is better because it works against smart bots too.Comment -
I still think the player should be paid.
Also, it is not as simple as bot=no payout. The equity and fairness of bot play is nebulous at best. BDozer has alluded to this as well. Books/casinos know the bots are out there, love the hi frequency, and welcome them as long as a)the game is -EV, and b)no payout is requested.
On the other hand, I am very impressed that 5dimes decided to refund wagers lost on this game going back to a reasonable time period. I hope that they follow thru.
This is very similar to a "bad line " situation IMO, which has been abused to the extent of riskless betting opportunities for many books.
It is not a perfect world.
Good job 5Dimes.
Good job SBR.Comment -
Trix; in my opinion you are 100% wrong. A company sets up a site and lays out the rules. If you like the rules and trust the site you play there. If you don't like the rules then you don't join the site and you don't play there. It's that simple.
Using your example; if a site say players who profit for more than Saturdays don't get paid; then the solution is very simple. You don't play there.
If a site says you can't use a robot and you want to use a robot; then you don't play thereComment -
The rule doesn't have to be reasonable. It's a private business who can make any rule they want. If you find a site's rule or rules to be unreasonable; then don't join the site. If SBR finds a sites rules to be unreasonable then don't rate them A+. But for someone to read a rule; find it unreasonable and then join the site is their problem. And then to knowingly break the rule and come here and lie with the ridiculous claim that you sat at your computer 16 hours a day for 30 straight days is really pathetic. The original poster disappeared as soon as he found out that the entire log of his 30 days could be traced. He's a scumbag. But I'm almost wondering if some people don't understand capitalism because a private company can make any rule they want. The rule could not be any clearer and basically in capitalism; a private company can set any rule they want and people decide for themselves if they like the rules and want to play there or if they don't. 5 Dimes said very clearly in their rules that NO ROBOTS ARE ALLOWED. So if you don't like that rule then you don't play there. And if every site says no robots then throw your robot in the trash and try to beat the book fair and squareComment
