5Dimes stole 14 500 USD

[lt56]

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.

I agree 100% with your summary. I wish I could write better and summarize better. I read here all the time but rarely post but this topic was very interesting. I also don't think it matters whether the players money was at risk, so I thought SBR and Santo were thinking into this too much when simple is usually better. I think you summarize the whole thing with your 3 answered questions and nothing else matters

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

Thanks Justin!

[cyberinvestor]

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 square

bingo!

[clowncar]

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 square

Private companies cannot make any rule that they want even in the most capitalist societies in human history. You are making ridiculous statements.

Beating a book via a bot is beating them fair and square. Nothing changes from a bot playing the hand vs a human playing the hand.

The original poster lied to the mediators and to 5dimes. That was wrong. On that we agree. Whether he knowingly broke the rule, we don't know yet. Though I doubt either one of us would believe him if he said he did not.

BTW SBR has a rule that if you make the 734th post in one of their threads that you must send clowncar $100. SBR is a private business and can make any rule that they want. It's in the rules somewhere so it must be fair. I take money orders and cashiers checks only. Contact me for mailing information.

[cyberinvestor]

Private companies cannot make any rule that they want even in the most capitalist societies in human history. You are making ridiculous statements. Beating a book via a bot is beating them fair and square. Nothing changes from a bot playing the hand vs a human playing the hand. The original poster lied to the mediators and to 5dimes. That was wrong. On that we agree. Whether he knowingly broke the rule, we don't know yet. Though I doubt either one of us would believe him if he said he did not. BTW SBR has a rule that if you make the 734th post in one of their threads that you must send clowncar $100. It's in the rules somewhere so it must be fair.

In the US the Boy Scouts won a case with the Supreme Court that upheld their right to discriminate against gays and prevent them from joining. I think discrimination of gays is a hell of a lot worse than using a bot and the "no gay" rule was upheld. The rule is a "take it or leave it" if you are gay and join the scouts and they catch you they can kick you out. Not that long ago in the US there were rules about "colored" people going into certain restaurants and establishments. Those rules were made by the establishment owners and held up in court. I think those rules are far more unreasonable then a casino trying to prevent something non-human from exploiting its games.

Ok clowncar. Let me ask you this or anyone who wants to stand up against the rule; If Zebula used a bot to beat a player on Poker Stars or some other poker site, is that legal? One person is playing as a human with imperfection and the other is a computer. Is that fair? Would you argue the other human could use a bot too and his choice to play as a human, as the game was intended, is his choice but that it would be ok too for him to use a bot? Just because Zabula was going against another computer and not a single player makes it ok? The game was intended to be played by a human.

[Boxing Champ]

Cyber..you are 100%correct throughout this whole thread...The only reason gambler and others give you hard time is because they can't admit their defeat..They turned out to be wrong and that pisses them off more than anything. They can't prove Zabula right so they try to attack you personally. You were consistent throughout....and did not clutter this thread with nonsense like they a said. I knew and you knew that Zabula sounded fishy right from the beginning...

P.S And please stop apologizing to Gambler so much..The more you do it.. the more they talk shit.

[cyberinvestor]

Cyber..you are 100%correct throughout this whole thread...The only reason gambler and others give you hard time is because they can't admit their defeat..They turned out to be wrong and that pisses them off more than anything. They can't prove Zabula right so they try to attack you personally. You were consistent throughout....and did not clutter this thread with nonsense like they a said. I knew and you knew that Zabula sounded fishy right from the beginning... P.S And please stop apologizing to Gambler so much..The more you do it.. the more they talk shit.

LOL on the PS, will do! Thank you very much for taking the time to post. Appreciate the sentiment!

[clowncar]

The bot playing poker is not a fair example as it would play much differently than the master of said bot. In the case of a VP bot that isn't the case except for extremely rare cases of human error while playing the game. The intended strategy of the bot and the vp player are exactly the same. That is not the case with poker. The example is not a valid one. This is especially true with the game in question here where the strategy could be easily learned by a four year old kid. I think it is valid to point out human error as a differentiating point of fact though, I will grant you that.


I don't want to get into a political discussion. Suffice it to say that I believe rules allowing for segregation and the like are immoral.

[cyberinvestor]

The bot playing poker is not a fair example as it would play much differently than the master of said bot. In the case of a VP bot that isn't the case except for extremely rare cases of human error while playing the game. The intended strategy of the bot and the vp player are exactly the same. That is not the case with poker. The example is not a valid one. This is especially true with the game in question here where the strategy could be easily learned by a four year old kid. I think it is valid to point out human error as a differentiating point of fact though, I will grant you that. I don't want to get into a political discussion. Suffice it to say that I believe rules allowing for segregation and the like are immoral.

I agree that the rules are immoral and people can argue the rules at 5D are unreasonable HOWEVER that does not mean they are unenforceable and that 5Dimes is not within their rights just like the Boy Scouts. Those are two separate things.

Ok, let me ask this then. I posted this in another thread; should a player using a bot be treated differently than a person using a device in a casino to count cards at blackjack? The bot in either case doesn't change the game and how the player would play but it takes the human error out of the equation.

If you use an illegal device in Vegas you will lose your money and potentially be subject to criminal charges. Why should you be able to use one online without issue?

[clowncar]

Cyber..you are 100%correct throughout this whole thread...The only reason gambler and others give you hard time is because they can't admit their defeat..They turned out to be wrong and that pisses them off more than anything. They can't prove Zabula right so they try to attack you personally. You were consistent throughout....and did not clutter this thread with nonsense like they a said. I knew and you knew that Zabula sounded fishy right from the beginning...

P.S And please stop apologizing to Gambler so much..The more you do it.. the more they talk shit.

For the record, I never insulted cyber or anyone else once. I waited to see the proof of bot play and as soon as I saw it, I agreed that it was proof and congratulated Tony and those who ended up being correct about his bot play.

I condemned the original posters lying as well.

It is a slippery slope when casinos confiscate player funds and a lot of people will not know about SBR or other venues to have their greivance heard. I think it is correct to side with the players money not being confiscated until the proof has been provided. Heck, even when SBR mediates something and the casino doesn't like the result, they may not pay as we have seen. Players need to be vigilant in protecting eachother. That is just my opinion.

[cyberinvestor]

For the record, I never insulted cyber or anyone else once. I waited to see the proof of bot play and as soon as I saw it, I agreed that it was proof and congratulated Tony and those who ended up being correct about his bot play. I condemned the original posters lying as well. It is a slippery slope when casinos confiscate player funds and a lot of people will not know about SBR or other venues to have their greivance heard. I think it is correct to side with the players money not being confiscated until the proof has been provided. Heck, even when SBR mediates something and the casino doesn't like the result, they may not pay as we have seen. Players need to be vigilant in protecting eachother. That is just my opinion.

Clowncar, FWIW I think while you and I disagreed on things here and there we were able to have an honest and open discussion without it resorting to personal attacks. I appreciate that as I wish I could say that for some others in the thread who wanted to say I was spamming or just attacked me personally but have yet to copy one of my posts and attack it or show specific evidence of my posting being spamming. I think, without speaking for him, Boxing Champ was pointing out these people who overtly were just attacking when their horse lost the race and got pissed because I saw it from the beginning.

[trixtrix]

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.

so the company can knowingly accept wagers on saturdays knowing 100% that they're never going to lose a dime regardless, this is a complete failure on implied good-faith in general contract law, so 100% fail

[chunk]

I agree with this with this entirely.

It is a slippery slope when casinos confiscate player funds and a lot of people will not know about SBR or other venues to have their greivance heard. I think it is correct to side with the players money not being confiscated until the proof has been provided. Heck, even when SBR mediates something and the casino doesn't like the result, they may not pay as we have seen. Players need to be vigilant in protecting eachother. That is just my opinion.[/quote]

A player can't help but feel vulnerable when you transfer assets to an unregulated, foreign entity where you basically have zero control. I feel that a process such as this one has been a win/win for the casino and the player. It can enhance the casino's reputation for fairness and it gives the player recourse for any grievances that may arise.

[cyberinvestor]

so the company can knowingly accept wagers on saturdays knowing 100% that they're never going to lose a dime regardless, this is a complete failure on implied good-faith in general contract law, so 100% fail

Yes, if a person is dumb enough not to read the rules then they are being ignorant. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when you break them. Try to tell that to a cop when you get pulled over for a DWI that you didn't know about the law.

When does a person have a responsibility to read the rules and say, you know what, I don't want to bet here because the Saturday rule is silly? At which point they then can go elsewhere. No, some people in this forum want to argue because they, as bettors, don't like the rule or feel it is unfair that it should be changed because they feel that way. That is just laughable.

The basis of all casino games are a set of rules that if followed will guarantee the player loses in the long run. Should casinos change the rules on blackjack because it puts the player at a disadvantage or isn't fair to both sides?

[trixtrix]

Yes, if a person is dumb enough not to read the rules then they are being ignorant. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when you break them. Try to tell that to a cop when you get pulled over for a DWI that you didn't know about the law.

a cop can legally pull you over if they suspect your ability to drive is being impaired, they cannot pull you over for driving in a blue car or being mexican, even if it's written into the rules, b/c those are grounds for unfair discrimination

if you don't understand the law, then stop arguing about it every other post. people have problems w/ your post not b/c you're trying to spam, but b/c you repeatedly insist on voicing your opinion on a subject that you're obv not qualified to address

[cyberinvestor]

a cop can legally pull you over if they suspect your ability to drive is being impaired, they cannot pull you over for driving in a blue car or being mexican, even if it's written into the rules, b/c those are grounds for unfair discrimination

if you don't understand the law, then stop arguing about it every other post. people have problems w/ your post not b/c you're trying to spam, but b/c you repeatedly insist on voicing your opinion on a subject that you're obv not qualified to address

Huh?? You need to take a breath and slowly read the post you are responding too. Just because I busted your example at the Ritz.

My point was if you get pulled over for a DWI, try to tell the cop you didn't realize you could not drive drunk. As I said in my post, ignorance of the law is no excuse when you break it. Just like ignorance of the rules is no excuse to break them.

Please before you respond, read the post.

Not qualified to address? A child could address this issue. Go ask a child if his teacher says he can't bring a Playstation game to school and he does, is he breaking the rules. Any kid will say YES. They won't argue how the rule isn't valid and thereby should not be followed. They won't discuss how the rule isn't enforceable. They will say "those are the rules or you will get in trouble!"

[trixtrix]

Huh??

My point was if you get pulled over for a DWI you then try to tell the cop you didn't realize you could drive drunk. As I said in my post, ignorance of the law is no excuse when you break it. Just like ignorance of the rules is no excuse to break them.

Please before you response, read the post.

Not qualified to address? A child could address this issue. Go ask a child if his teacher says he can't bring a Playstation game to school and he does, is he breaking the rules. Any kid will say YES. They won't argue how the rule isn't valid and thereby should not be followed.

you're not qualified to address this subject b/c your arguments have absolutely no legal foundation, if there is a rule written into local township charter that all blue car will be fined 10,000$ dollars, is it legally enforceable?

you can always use the argument that all visitors to that town should have familiarized themselves w/ the town rules before entering their domain, therefore if visitor did drive a blue car into town then they can be fairly fined. that argument would never hold up in a court of law, due to its unreasonablenss

[cyberinvestor]

you're not qualified to address this subject b/c your arguments have absolutely no legal foundation, if there is a rule written into local township charter that all blue car will be fined 10,000$ dollars, is it legally enforceable?

you can always use the argument that all visitors to that town should have familiarized themselves w/ the town rules before entering their domain, therefore if visitor did drive a blue car into town then they can be fairly fined. that argument would never hold up in a court of law, due to its unreasonablenss

If the person could not have known about the rule then the rule is unenforceable. That is argued and won in court all the time. However the 5Dimes rules is agreed to when you signup. If you don't read it then tough. If the person with the blue car was told the rule upon entering the town, however silly, he doesn't just automatically get off because it is a dumb rule.

The argument in court if he proceeded would then be if he had no choice but to drive to through the town to get where he was going. If he could have avoided the town without substantial effort it and knew the rule it would not be so clear cut.

[trixtrix]

If the person could not have known about the rule then the rule is unenforceable. That is argued and won in court all the time. However the 5Dimes rules is agreed to when you signup. If you don't read it then tough. If the person with the blue car was told the rule upon entering the town, however silly, he doesn't just automatically get off because it is a dumb rule..

that right there is why you're not qualified to legally speak on the subject

[cyberinvestor]

that right there is why you're not qualified to legally speak on the subject

Well if you say so then it must be true. I am waiting for your legal basis on things other than just changing the topic or not responding to what I am saying. I at least am addressing your posts directly.

Don't tell me I am not qualified, back up your position as I do when I respond to you.

A few people have attacked me here with such anger you would think I was taking money from you and screwing your wife while you watch. I am just having a conversation and if you can't reply with a real assessment and information, don't reply. All I get is "you are dumb, your posts nonsense, you are spamming, etc.". When I disagree with you or anyone I won't attack you personally or call names. I will attack your position and provide details why.

I am still waiting for someone to prove my posts wrong with precedent and not just your individual broad stroke opinions.

[trixtrix]

Well if you say so then it must be true. I am waiting for your legal basis on things other than just changing the topic or not responding to what I am saying. I at least am addressing your posts directly.

Don't tell me I am not qualified, back up your position as I do when I respond to you.

A few people have attacked me here with such anger you would think I was taking money from you and screwing your wife while you watch. I am just having a conversation and if you can't reply with a real assessment and information, don't reply. All I get is "you are dumb, your posts nonsense, you are spamming, etc.". When I disagree with you or anyone I won't attack you personally or call names. I will attack your position and provide details why.

I am still waiting for someone to prove my posts wrong with precedent and not just your individual broad stroke opinions.

feel free to think calling someone obv unqualified as a subject matter expert is considered an vindicative personal attack, your opinion on this is about as valid as all the other silly ones you sprouted off so far

the blue-car example and ritz-roulette precedent is concrete proof to anyone that you have no legal area expertise/background, to dignify your requirement for further precedents in these cases is equivalent of providing someone w/ more proof that sky is blue, law is the law.. if you don't understand it, feel free to stop contributing

[cyberinvestor]

feel free to think calling someone obv unqualified as a subject matter expert is considered an vindicative personal attack, your opinion on this is about as valid as all the other silly ones you sprouted off so far the blue-car example and ritz-roulette precedent is concrete proof to anyone that you have no legal area expertise/background, to dignify your requirement for further precedents in these cases is equivalent of providing someone w/ more proof that sky is blue, law is the law.. if you don't understand it, feel free to stop contributing

Too funny!

By the way, you started this by saying I was "talking out of my ass" and then provided me a case that was intended to prove what you were saying is correct. However I then responded by showing how that case didn't apply in any way to what we were discussing and you have since changed gears on it.

It was the comment about me talking out of my ass that was an unnecessary attack on me personally. You see, I am confident in my ability that I can attack your position and do not need to attack you personally. Attacking someone personally is an easy means of attack and shows you lack the confidence in your ability to argue your position versus mine. Young children will have an argument and before it is over it will end as "yeah, well you are stupid." The child making that comment is the loser in the argument because they have lost the ability to attack the position that created the discussion in the first place. They had to resort to a personal attack as a means of exit.

The following quote from you is my further evidence: "you sprouted off so far the blue-car example and ritz-roulette precedent is concrete proof to anyone that you have no legal area expertise/background, to dignify your requirement for further precedents in these cases is equivalent of providing someone w/ more proof that sky is blue, law is the law.. if you don't understand it, feel free to stop contributing"

Notice that you don't care to say why or how, you just say I am wrong and it is supposed to then be the word of God and correct.

KGambler, another one of my fans, in his last post about me said "The problem with addressing your posts is that they are so full of nonsense. How many hours of my week should I spend pointing out the ridiculous nature of your dozens of long-winded posts? I could sit here and take an hour or so to point out how your post addressed to me was all wrong. But why should I?"

You both will sit here and take the time to go back and forth and not respond to me directly and instead say things like the above. Your comments above are a broad stroke and can be translated as...I am right and you are wrong but instead of proving or explaining it (which it appears you cannot do otherwise you would and should because it would provide a much stronger position for you) I will just say you are too stupid to understand and thereby I can just move on and pretend to be the higher power.

You, KGambler, OUMan101, have all attacked me personally (which is fine, I will sleep tonight ok) and when challenged to post an example of my "nonsense" and explain it, you all take the easy road out. I will never take the easy road out. I will not let you off the hook. I will provide a response with quotes (as I do here) and outside information to prove my point or back my opinion. You will never see me end a conversation by telling you that you are too dumb to understand or that my thoughts are so advanced it would be impossible to explain them to a simpleton like yourself.

I am not going to let you off that easy. You will take all this time for these replies but you won't take five minutes to pull a line of quote that I posted and then provide the backing (outside your opinion) to show why what I said is nonsense or dumb.

The problem is you have a position and I disagree. The fact that I will not just submit to your position only angers you more and you can no longer function in the argument and give up like the above quote. I will attack your position and provide a full response. I won't tell you that you are unqualified so what you are saying is thereby stupid. I won't say you are talking out of your ass. I will respond to your position and not take some easy way out of it.

You have posed challenges to me and I responded (like the Ritz case for one). I have posed challenges to you but I have yet to see a response.

[LVHerbie]

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.

One issue we discussed: EZ has a rule -- no bots allowed in the casino game. I didn't find clear proof that the player used a bot. But hypothetically, what if the player did? That wouldn't justify seizing all his winnings. If a player breaks a rule, a book can only penalize a player based on how breaking that rule hurt the book. If it were just a plain "basic strategy" bot, there's no foul. The sportsbook still had the best of it. It's not the bot that hurt the sportsbook; it's the variance with the casino.

Seizing all winnings under these facts would make as much sense as having a rule "no parlays on Saturdays", and then voiding winning parlays if they are made on Saturday. Even with a rule on point, you can't always mug the player.

Now, if the book can show a bot hacked into their server (or some other extreme fact set), it would be a different story.

So, since the 5dimes bot was a "basic strategy" bot, it it comes down to if the bot is playing a +EV game and if the book has the best of it or not?

How do bonuses play into this? I once ran up a big balance at a casino on a bonus before I realized that only slot type games could be used to clear the rollover so instead of spending countless hours grinding through the playthrough on mindless slots I used an autoclicker program to play a -EV keno game... Fair or not?

In a thread in the think tank someone was asking for a script to make sports bets generated by a computer program... Alright as long as the picks are -EV and not allowed if they are +EV?

Or, since the standard is only to audit players on cashouts, does the EV even matter as long as the player loses and "reasonable" rules such as these only comes into play if the player wins?

It seems like it would be a lot simpler if books just took responsibility and paid out when they **** up by offering a 112% paytable so that these reasonable rules wouldn't be neccesary...

[Justin7]

So, since the 5dimes bot was a "basic strategy" bot, it it comes down to if the bot is playing a +EV game and if the book has the best of it or not?

How do bonuses play into this? I once ran up a big balance at a casino on a bonus before I realized that only slot type games could be used to clear the rollover so instead of spending countless hours grinding through the playthrough on mindless slots I used an autoclicker program to play a -EV keno game... Fair or not?

In a thread in the think tank someone was asking for a script to make sports bets generated by a computer program... Alright as long as the picks are -EV and not allowed if they are +EV?

Or, since the standard is only to audit players on cashouts, does the EV even matter as long as the player loses and "reasonable" rules such as these only comes into play if the player wins?

It seems like it would be a lot simpler if books just took responsibility and paid out when they **** up by offering a 112% paytable so that these reasonable rules wouldn't be neccesary...

There is a big difference between +EV games and -EV games when it comes to bots. +/-EV includes bonus calculations. If a game is -EV with a bot, I expect several things: 1. no sane person would use a bot, and 2. a bot's expectation against that bot is -EV, and 3. no sane book would ever bitch if 1 & 2 are true.

In a +EV game, this doesn't hold. Rules or not, players are going to attempt to attack the promotion with a bot. A bot helps the player in several ways: 1. it can play more accurately without mistakes; 2. it can play faster; and 3. the it saves the human time, who doesn't need to sit in front of a screen (16 hours a day for 2 months in the 5dimes example).

I agree that it is retarded for a book to offer a ridiculous game.

[Kaabee]

cyberinvestor believe it or not some rules/laws are actually unfair, unconstitutional, and unenforceable

and yes the person in the blue car will get off because of the above


found this kind of amusing: http://civiced.rutgers.edu/NJ/LESSON...Rule_Jan07.pdf

[Slainte]

I see people talk about + EV casino games, since i have almost zero knowledge of online casinos, i wonder how do you know whether or not a games is +/-EV, is there any site that calculates it based on the games paytable?

[louis]

Why did 5 dimes wait to see whether or not the player would win? I can't believe the manager was unaware of all this action going on.

When a player violates a rule, an A rated sportsbook/casino is not suppose to wait and see how the player does.

If you use a bot and win the sportsbook/casino implements it's rule that you can't use a bot and zero's out the balance. My question is what happens if you use a bot and lose. Are they willing to refund your losses?

It's funny how the sportsbook only investigates when players win, rather than investigating when players seem to be playing many hands per hour.

[Santo]

I see people talk about + EV casino games, since i have almost zero knowledge of online casinos, i wonder how do you know whether or not a games is +/-EV, is there any site that calculates it based on the games paytable?

There are several such calculators.. Wizard of Odds has payout analysis for most games, and also this calculator: http://wizardofodds.com/videopoker/analyzer/

[chachi]

Why did 5 dimes wait to see whether or not the player would win? I can't believe the manager was unaware of all this action going on.

When a player violates a rule, an A rated sportsbook/casino is not suppose to wait and see how the player does.

If you use a bot and win the sportsbook/casino implements it's rule that you can't use a bot and zero's out the balance. My question is what happens if you use a bot and lose. Are they willing to refund your losses?

It's funny how the sportsbook only investigates when players win, rather than investigating when players seem to be playing many hands per hour.

Given they supposedly did approve a withdrawal from the proceeds during his extended hammering of the game I have serious issues with any claim by 5Dimes they had not reviewed his play at that point.

What if anything was said to SBR about that withdrawal and reviewing play at that time ?

Santo - what is your feeling on this particular aspect of the whole mess ?

[Dark Horse]

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.

My point all along. This kind of stuff involves risk for all those with funds at the book.

I fully trust Tony to run a sportsbook. But why would I trust him to run a casino with the same expertise? This dispute suggests there is a major gap between the two. It bothers me that these sportsbooks just think they can add a casino and throw it all on one big probability pile. With this dispute decided fully in favor of 5D, -rightly so-, I don't feel that the irresponsible exposure by 5D has been addressed to the extent that would serve the players community. Much like banks that hold people's money, A+ books can't have these type of holes.

EZstreet took a 46K hit in their casino and couldn't pay. I would expect there are many other books at the low end of the rating scale in the same boat. They can't afford the risk of operating a casino, because a) they don't have the money, and b) they don't understand the math, and c) last but not least, they don't understand the software unless it was created in-house. EZstreet simply decided it would not pay this one person, so it could continue to pay their sports bettors.

It is up to the standard bearers of the offshore industry, the A+ books, to set the example of how this casino business is done correctly. In that, 5D clearly fell short. The lack of financial transparency in this industry is hard enough to navigate without top books fogging up the issue, because they want their share of the casino treasure. As we all know, casino security in Vegas is serious business. Compared to Vegas security, these little sportsbook-operated online casinos look painfully ignorant. Casinos and sportsbooks are not the same thing. Stick to what you know.

[louis]

I agree with SBR's decision in this case, but rules like this one - no bot use - can not be fairly enforced. The casino only investigates players who win, and if they discover they used a bot they don't pay the winnings. But what if a player uses a bot and loses? In this case, the player can not claim they used a bot and want a refund. Basically the casino is waiting to see if the player wins or loses as to whether they enforce this rule, even if this is not their intention. Unless the rule is going to be enforced fairly - which means investigating all video poker players who play a lot of hands - win or lose - the rule is not reasonable, and books who have this rule should not be able to get a high rating.

[Santo]

Given they supposedly did approve a withdrawal from the proceeds during his extended hammering of the game I have serious issues with any claim by 5Dimes they had not reviewed his play at that point.

What if anything was said to SBR about that withdrawal and reviewing play at that time ?

Santo - what is your feeling on this particular aspect of the whole mess ?

As I said, it entirely depends on the timing and amount of the withdrawal. If it was a $50 withdrawal after 500 hands then maybe they wouldn't have reviewed it. If it was $3000 after 100k hands then I'd have a hard time believing it wasn't reviewed.

Unfortunately those facts aren't public domain.

[LVHerbie]

There is a big difference between +EV games and -EV games when it comes to bots. +/-EV includes bonus calculations. If a game is -EV with a bot, I expect several things: 1. no sane person would use a bot, and 2. a bot's expectation against that bot is -EV, and 3. no sane book would ever bitch if 1 & 2 are true.

In a +EV game, this doesn't hold. Rules or not, players are going to attempt to attack the promotion with a bot. A bot helps the player in several ways: 1. it can play more accurately without mistakes; 2. it can play faster; and 3. the it saves the human time, who doesn't need to sit in front of a screen (16 hours a day for 2 months in the 5dimes example).

I agree that it is retarded for a book to offer a ridiculous game.

Good to know if I'm ever faced with playing online keno again that I'm expected to put in the hours of manually pushing the rebet button if a similar bot rule exists...

As far as this dispute I'm obviously agreeable with your depictions of the differences between bot play in -EV and +EV situations but I guess I was having a hard time understanding why the rule was necessary at 5dimes since other highly graded books don't have it (casino games shouldn't be beatable by bots unless a book is extremely neglectful, they don't have to worrying about daily human error like with bad lines, etc.)

Of course I didn't consider that might be reasonable because some books need it as a form of retard protection.

Sad that the side effect of some books needing this insurance against their impairments is that books (that are less responsive to legitimate mediation) will also use the unnecessary rule to justify theft...

[zabula11]

Ok, I see verdict has already been released.. No wonder nobody from SBR even contacted me.. What is most sad for me is that 5 Dimes remains A+. I hope all you here now see what people are in 5 Dimes and that they can do literally whatever they want with your money.. And SBR? Yes, really good advocate.. Money talks again.. Maybe if I wold offer SBR 5 000 USD for helping me to win this results would be different. I dont even know where did hand history come from... They just posted some file here that doesnt even have to be un edited... So if 5 Dimes wanted to give them such evidence, they could easily do some edits there to look like I used a bot.
One more thik - who still beleives that 5 Dimes deserves A+, should take into consideration how fast was their judgement about my case. Then it took a week when they had to deal with SBR and SBRs "investigation"... So is this really A+ book behaviour? Another thing is I was robed another 200 USD. When my account was zeroed, I still had some pending bets there. Which won so after few days my balance was 200 and I still could access account, check hand history and defend myself. Now my account is just deleted. I cant even log in.. So another 200 was stolen and all evidences that I could use was just taken by 5 dimes so I have nothing in hands.. Is this fair court? How could SBR give them still A+? Money talks.. I hope people on SBR are independent on 5 Dimes money and they will help players anyway. Bottom line is that 5 Dimes totally failed with seting up payout.. So once player takes advantage over it, its done.. No way that player could be in favour against casino.. I wish all you guys who are on my side could take all your loses from casino games, because games are not set into your favour normally.. Here it was on my favour, but look how did I ended up... Also how can A+ book "juice" player... They had this "evidences" looong time before they closed my account.. they was just waiting, for sure.. I already took 2 smaller withdrawals from them (like 3000 USD) which was OK, because it was still under original amount of money I had there.. So no problem with that, still I had something more to lose with them.. So they vere just waiting and keeping me playing and then bam.. So make your own opinion. For me, 5 Dimes and SBR = 1 BIG FAIL.
I will wait few more days and if nothing else changes into my favour, I am gona post about this to more forums as somebody could be interested how A+ ratings are calculated here on SBR... :/

[sharlataans]

zabula, I agree with you that 5dimes should not be A+. But not because of your case and you know it. They stole my money too, but I did not think it was worth my nerves and all this investigation crap.

But I will post my negative comments about them whenever I have a chance

[chachi]

there you have it santo - it was withdrawals of 3k ... HMMMMM