Player vs 5Dimes Casino Conclusion

[LVHerbie]

Would those here who are urging the payoff support farming multiple ID's to whore a bonus, or avoid betting limits?

Why not? Similar rules apply banning all these activities in most T&C's. You are using an artificial means to have more opportunity at an advantage situation than you would otherwise have on your own. Most people would (publicly) frown on the multiple ID example, yet many are OK with using the bot.

Appears some players have as much of a double standard as they think the books have. And let's not forget the lying (or is that Lieng?) that went on in filing the complaint in the first place.

Most books/casinos, as does 5dimes, have rules against any sort of bonus abusing...

Bonus-hunters are not welcome at 5Dimes Sportsbook and Casino.


Management reserves the right to confiscate the Reward of any player(s) deemed to be taking advantage of our program. This will only be applicable when the deposited funds, which have earned a Reward, are redeemed.

I have no clue what the last sentence is suppose to mean but I'm assuming you agree that as long as 5dimes (ie Tony - the guy who claimed to design a video poker game that had 112% return and elementary strategy) thinks you are taking advantage of their bonus he can confiscate it as they have a rule allowing it?

[Counterfeit Cash]

[cyberinvestor]

If the player rather than a bot was the one playing 1000's of hands an hour for 12 hours a day or whatever the game would not have been 12% +EV, he would have made mistakes because he was tired, bored, eye strain ect. The bot wouldn't make mistakes. It's the same reason it's NOT OK to program a poker bot. All the people saying pay him would be crying for a refund if they found out they lost a sit and go to a bot. Sit and go's have a "perfect strategy" and while much much harder to program a bot to play sit and go's it's been done. If you played a decent amount of double or nothing sit and go's on stars you probably got refunds for playing against bots that where eventually caught. Did you ship the money back to stars and say give it to botter he won it fairly? At least botters in poker have put some serious time into their bot. The video poker bot had to be easy and he's already up on 5 dimes, he should consider himself lucky.

Great analogy. Because the book would be the loser in this case everyone wants them hung out to dry but if Zabula did this to other players he would be beheaded. It's ok for Zabula to use software to take advantage of 5Dimes but if he used it to take advantage of any of us at PStars (computer keeps playing perfect as we all begin to tire in a game) then how would everyone feel?

The real question is Why are so many people always sticking up for (in my opinion) Shady Books whose Casinos are rigged to give themselves a ridiculous advantage over us the players???

Every casino game is rigged. Even at MGM, Mirage, Ceasars, etc. All their games are setup so the longer we play the greater expectation we will lose in the end. Casinos don't need to purposely cheat us beyond the normal rules setup for their games which basically guarantee they make money.

[Fa11en]

I don't mean to come off as callous but I don't think a lot of the posters who immediately advocated paying players in these circumstances and continue to dispute Zab not getting the money understand that if SBR ruled in that matter, it would ADVERSELY affect the customers in general.

For this instance, imagine the casino players who realized it was a +EV game and have come out ahead in it and generally enjoy playing it. Now the payout structure has changed and there is no longer an incentive to play- eliminating the game for those who sought to take advantage of it the right way.

For those who say "they wouldn't refund the losses to a bot player", that is pretty poor logic. They have a rule. The guy PURPOSELY went against the stated rules. Not only did he go against the rules but he had a cute story and strategy all lined up if he was questioned. This guy was a professional who KNEW the risks involved in his scam. Because he saw an exploitable loophole and was sharp enough to develop a bot, then he should be rewarded despite not going about it in good faith?

The guy who flamed 5Dimes live chat and made threats claiming that the bad press and "without us" they are nothing does not understand that the 5Dimes business model is not really concerned with players who attempt to bonus abuse, cheat, take shots, angle shoot ect... I'm sure that 5Dimes offers the best lines for professionals and the large bettors who understand the sportsbook's viewpoint and do not contend them.

The smaller rec bettor who chargebacks, needs bonuses, and constantly trying to contend canceled bets on bad lines ect. is typically way more of a problem than they are worth in regards to the bottom line and function of the book. Does that give Tony the right to treat them like crap? Absolutely not but it is these conflicts that ultimately have negative effects on the other customers- professional or otherwise. SBR does a hell of a service with its watchdog work and it seems like the MODs are successful in creating a fairly objective venue to facilitate such discussions. I've noticed that Shari puts in overtime to constantly give the threads a perspective about what is in the benefit of the gambling industry as a whole rather than people's specific vendettas or interests.

Immediately taking Zab's side was understandable as it was kind of a human interest story but to continue to support paying him would have negative consequences for the customers, not the books.

Cory has done a good enough job showing is not an honorable customer but a customer should get paid if the money was obtained within the rules? Yes, Cory should have been paid despite how malignant he may be to the gambling community. Protecting good customers from scam books is just as important as protecting good books from scam customers.

[yokspot]

not that im against zabula but the problem there is that what if the hands he actually played as a human he wasnt winning? i.e. he admitted he went on a few terrible swing where he was down to almost nothing..what if the hands the bot played caused his balance to increase during times of catching royals and quad deuces?

so one could argue he woulda never got to 14.5 k if it wasnt for the bot because he would of stopped playing due to tiredness/eat/sleep/bathroom/shower/beatoff etc and who knows what his balance was/woulda been at the point in which he woulda stopped?

I don't think ANY of the hands were human - it was all 'bot. If some were human, then whether or not the 'bot or the man hits the deuce quads or the royal would simply be down to variance.

My point was simply that, since the game is the simplest possible and there is no room for player error, then all the bot achieves is volume. So, assume a "reasonable" volume of a maximum of 7 human hours per day, and pay him his amount divided by 20 (total 'bot hours) times 7. That would amount to about 5K.

My question to Lou was: how much has he already been paid? That way, if such a partial payment was held as reasonable, we'd know how much he was still owed.

Of course, 5 Dimes is totally entitled, as per the rule, to pull the plug out right now. It doesn't smell COMPLETELY right, though.

[increasedodds]

If you take the bet, pay the bet.

Fix your broken game and move on.

Tired of this nonsense.

[tomcowley]

Using a bot, is not an oh-it-didnt-occur-to-me thing like someone parlaying the over and spread on the same game without reading page 7 of 8 in the wagering rules.

Horseshit. It never occurred to me to check T&C when botting in massive combinations of sports bets. Never. Because a rule against that would be completely retarded. And, unless it disappeared since the last time I did it, there wasn't a bot rule at that book. And there isn't a rule at CRIS. Or at pinny.

The last thing I'll add, discussing the logic and fair use of rules is what we are here for, especially with a top book. But, at the end of discussing this one with 5D, the core of this dispute was, could we cast doubt that he violated the rule of using a bot. We couldn't.

It's an obvious trap rule, in what Tony admitted he knew was a trap (+EV) game, and it's not an industry standard rule (see cris and pinny, at a minimum). Unless you can show that the player was specifically aware of the rule, your decision is just garbage. You literally failed at every logical conclusion in this one.

[soldier1047]

Wow..such bullshit

[donkdown]

After reading all of this SBR and 5dimes are right here and I hate to say this cuz I hate Tony!!

[mrpooh]

Here is what it comes down to: is using a bot illegal or not, regardless of if it is EV- or EV+? If it is, the player should get nothing. If it is not, the player needs to be paid. If using a bot is not legal, he broke rules and when you do that, you should not benefit. However if it is legal, he did nothing wrong.

[tomcowley]

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.

I'm not going to call J7 a hypocrite, but saying here it would have been absolutely ok to bot EZstreet's casino when they have a no bot rule, but now it's not ok to bot 5d's casino when they have a no-bot rule is... quite inconsistent. It's either ok to bot somebody's casino or it isn't- 5d getting hurt by putting up a retarded payout table (that they even knew was +EV) is no more of a defense than EZ getting hurt by running bad.

The line of thinking, that it's ok to bot if and only if the book has the bet of it, leads to absurd conclusions. If there's a +EV casino bonus offer, then botting it to meet rollover is bad. But botting it beyond rollover, to the point where the house has a theoretical hold >bonus offer, that's ok. So you literally get a point, where after N hands, the player still has the theoretical best of it, botting was completely wrong, and the book is justified in seizing the entire balance. But after N+1 hands, he's now given enough action that the book had the best of it, botting was absolutely ok, and the book must pay in full. This is a joke. The whole line of thinking is a joke. You knew it was fine in EZstreet, and you're pulling out bullshit logic to try to disallow it now.

And you call it a gotcha rule in EZ, but call it reasonable for 5d, even though it's not industry standard.

[WVU]

Is the player getting nothing? I haven't seen whether this was decided or not. I would suggest paying the player 25% of his win. I would deduct 50% for using a bot and 25% for holding back or being somewhat dishonest on the facts. I would penalize 5dimes 25% because they offered a hugely +EV game and should be held somewhat accountable for it.

The player has given me permission to post the video on his behalf, but I don't know if it matters at this point. It does prove that 20 hands per minute is indeed possible without using a bot with the setup he had.

[wrongturn]

I have a hypothetical question for SBR jury. If a player uses a bot on +EV game, but plays it at slow pace, like 1 hand per minute, way less than a good pro can play manually in a day. How do you rule on such case. Thanks.

[scott235]

Books have software to stop correlated parlays and could develop software (similar to online poker) to detect bot play... The reason they don't is because as long as games are put into place that don't allow mechanical play to be beneficial (for example you find blackjack games that don't shuffle every hand online for obvious reasons) the book has no risk from bot players...

5dimes likely has no way to detect bot play (seems pretty obvious given they let the bot go fulltime for at least two months) and the problem is they have no interest in stopping or looking for bots unless they lose (similar to your sportsbook.com and correlated parlays example)... In this case, either to extreme incompetence or complete lack of oversight (I would put my money on both) they allowed it to occur over 1.1 million hands virtually guaranteeing the player a profit because they allowed to continue over such a long enough time frame that they very unlikely to lose...

Unless 5dimes monitors all casino play for bot play (and not just winners due for cashouts) then the case is exactly like sportsbook.com...

This is the problem I have as well. No bots should mean no bots, period. These bots churn a lot of cash quick on the -EV side.

[jogumon]

So, if i go into a vegas casino, with a counting device strapped to my ankle, and I win, is it legal? Should the casino pay me my winnings? They took the bet.

[scott235]

I think if you hooked up a PC with a bot program to a poker/slot machine, they would confiscate it immediately, and not wait and see whether or not you won first.

[cyberinvestor]

I think if you hooked up a PC with a bot program to a poker/slot machine, they would confiscate it immediately, and not wait and see whether or not you won first.

Of course this would be overt cheating. But in jogumon's example let's say you have a counting machine under your pants that you use to calculate the count as the cards are dealt for BJ. In this case the casino cannot see you attach a machine to another machine. However with your counting machine you lose 10 sessions in a row. You finally win big, the casino senses something, and catches you with the device. Should they then give you the losses back on those sessions because you were using a device? Of course not and no casino in Vegas or offshore ever has when they catch someone in this way. They will consider it cheating and take your winnings because you used an illegal device.

One could argue that a counting device is nothing more than a bot. Because the counting device doesn't cheat the game but it provides the player an accurate count, something he might not have trying to do the count in his head with all the intangibles (math errors, memory issues, fatigue etc.).

If the player can keep the count in his head (creating the +EV with perfect strategy) without a device the casino will show him the door and let him keep his money up to that point. If he uses a device the casino will seize his money. If Zabula caught this +EV game and won without a bot he deserves the same outcome as the counter who doesn't use a machine. If Zabula uses a machine he deserves the same treatment as anyone found in a casino with an illegal device. Bottom line!

[scott235]

We are all beating the crap out of this dead horse, aren't we? All I am sayin is that the slot cheat wouldn't be ignored, would he, even if was losing, albeit playing perfect strategy and playing very quickly because of his device. In vegas, I'm quite sure no bots clearly would mean no bots, and not just when it was convenient for the house.

[scott235]

BTW, I'm ok with how SBR and 5dimes handled this situation. I just don't think that it is as cut and dried as some others do, that's all.

[trixtrix]

Of course this would be overt cheating. But in jogumon's example let's say you have a counting machine under your pants that you use to calculate the count as the cards are dealt for BJ. In this case the casino cannot see you attach a machine to another machine. However with your counting machine you lose 10 sessions in a row. You finally win big, the casino senses something, and catches you with the device. Should they then give you the losses back on those sessions because you were using a device? Of course not and no casino in Vegas or offshore ever has when they catch someone in this way. They will consider it cheating and take your winnings because you used an illegal device.

One could argue that a counting device is nothing more than a bot. Because the counting device doesn't cheat the game but it provides the player an accurate count, something he might not have trying to do the count in his head with all the intangibles (math errors, memory issues, fatigue etc.).

If the player can keep the count in his head (creating the +EV with perfect strategy) without a device the casino will show him the door and let him keep his money up to that point. If he uses a device the casino will seize his money. If Zabula caught this +EV game and won without a bot he deserves the same outcome as the counter who doesn't use a machine. If Zabula uses a machine he deserves the same treatment as anyone found in a casino with an illegal device. Bottom line!

yea again you're talking out your ass, precedent has been set a long time ago at ritz land-based casino, when three of their customers was caught w/ a (cheating) device after winning 1.3 mm GBP+ at roulette. they were allowed to keep their winnings..

http://www.gamblinggates.com/News/07122004/Ritz_Roulette_Scam24041.html

[yokspot]

Is the player getting nothing? I haven't seen whether this was decided or not.

Bill has actually said that the matter is now finalised.

I would suggest paying the player 25% of his win. I would deduct 50% for using a bot and 25% for holding back or being somewhat dishonest on the facts. I would penalize 5dimes 25% because they offered a hugely +EV game and should be held somewhat accountable for it.

I agree with this.

However, as yet we've not been told how much he had already received on his previous 'bot venture. If he'd won 3K and been paid, then he'd only need a grand or so to make up the difference. So it's relevant to know.

[trixtrix]

I'm not going to call J7 a hypocrite, but saying here it would have been absolutely ok to bot EZstreet's casino when they have a no bot rule, but now it's not ok to bot 5d's casino when they have a no-bot rule is... quite inconsistent.

tc, you know i hold your work/opinions in high regards, but i'm confused at the above post: i believe one of the established premises to this case was that 5 Dimes had a "no-bot" rule in place in specific reference to casino play? is that premise wrong? are you arguing that there were no specific rule on point?

if so then obv this would obv be a foul on the book, my precursory check on 5 dimes T&C as of today yielded this:

"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.
"

http://www.5dimes.com/rules.html

are you saying this passage was added after the fact?

[bettilimbroke999]

[tomcowley]

are you saying this passage was added after the fact?

No. I think you're misreading my sentence. Both EZ and 5d had no-bot rules.

[OSUCOWBOYS]

Bot was used 100%. Rules state "No bots".

Tony was right in his decision not to pay.

[bettilimbroke999]

Player won, ridiculous rule state players cant win

Tony did a good job of taking no personal responsibility for offering a +EV game and upholding the ridiculous rule and robbing the player

[LVHerbie]

Horseshit. It never occurred to me to check T&C when botting in massive combinations of sports bets. Never. Because a rule against that would be completely retarded. And, unless it disappeared since the last time I did it, there wasn't a bot rule at that book. And there isn't a rule at CRIS. Or at pinny.

It's an obvious trap rule, in what Tony admitted he knew was a trap (+EV) game, and it's not an industry standard rule (see cris and pinny, at a minimum).

The rule is obviously only going to be enforced against winners as the "we reserve the right" to invalidate bets language demonstrates. Plenty of hypothetical examples were this player or another using a bot could lose big and 5dimes obviously keeps all that money. The rule itself necessities being a de facto "gotcha" or "trap" rule because if it wasn't it would be real easy to angle shoot and freeroll 5dimes even through -EV games.

The fact that they clearly don't have any mechanism to catch bots until well over 2 months of continuous play and the player has achieved a large win through 5dimes' own dilapidation validates 5dimes' reasoning for having the rule in place.

[cyberinvestor]

yea again you're talking out your ass, precedent has been set a long time ago at ritz land-based casino, when three of their customers was caught w/ a (cheating) device after winning 1.3 mm GBP+ at roulette. they were allowed to keep their winnings..

http://www.gamblinggates.com/News/07...Scam24041.html

Once again the personal attacks are not necessary. The reason these players got to keep their money was: "Scotland Yard has failed to find evidence to prosecute the gamblers and refunded them the “significant” quantity of cash which officers seized after their arrest."

They didn't get to keep it because their technique was ruled legit. The police could not prove they used a device. Nice try though trixtrix.

[trixtrix]

Once again the personal attacks are not necessary. The reason these players got to keep their money was: "Scotland Yard has failed to find evidence to prosecute the gamblers and refunded them the “significant” quantity of cash which officers seized after their arrest."

They didn't get to keep it because their technique was ruled legit. The police could not prove they used a device. Nice try though trixtrix.

in a case as obv as that one, even by your definition the prosecution couldn't come up w/ sufficient evidence to convict them of wrongdoing, yet you advocate casinos can confiscate "en masse" based merely on premise of "cheating", hypocritical much

also, the prosecution is saying there is insufficient evidence to criminally prosecute the gamblers under existing law, not that they have insufficient evidence a device was used. your incompetence astounds me

"Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 forbids "unlawful devices". However in previous cases suspects have been able to argue that they had not interfered with a game, simply used a system to win."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/mar/23/sciencenews.crime

[Dark Horse]

excuse me? He was +ev so he was never at risk?

You really need to reconsider this because you are completely wrong.

The player had already been paid previously for this game. This has been mentioned several times before.

[McFly86]

The player had already been paid previously for this game. This has been mentioned several times before.

Again, you are just wrong...

[cyberinvestor]

in a case as obv as that one, even by your definition the prosecution couldn't come up w/ sufficient evidence to convict them of wrongdoing, yet you advocate casinos can confiscate "en masse" based merely on premise of "cheating", hypocritical much

also, the prosecution is saying there is insufficient evidence to criminally prosecute the gamblers under existing law, not that they have insufficient evidence a device was used. your incompetence astounds me

"Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 forbids "unlawful devices". However in previous cases suspects have been able to argue that they had not interfered with a game, simply used a system to win."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...encenews.crime

No, if the person is using a device and they are guilty then they do not deserve to be paid. These people while they probably cheated were not found guilty. No precedent was set that devices could be used as you claimed in your initial post.

Zabula in this example if he had a better bot probably would not have been caught and thereby should be paid. Zabula was easy to catch and thereby guilty and should not be paid. What the hell are you arguing?

[trixtrix]

No, if the person is using a device and they are guilty then they do not deserve to be paid. These people while they probably cheated were not found guilty. No precedent was set that devices could be used as you claimed in your initial post.

"Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 forbids "unlawful devices". However in previous cases suspects have been able to argue that they had not interfered with a game, simply used a system to win."

[cyberinvestor]

"Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 forbids "unlawful devices". However in previous cases suspects have been able to argue that they had not interfered with a game, simply used a system to win."

Show me some of these cases where the suspects were able to argue against this and win. I would like to see how the facts of the case apply to our scenario because as we both know, your shot in the dark about the Ritz case, does not apply to what we have been discussing since no device could be proven there.

[LegitBet]

Show me some of these cases where the suspects were able to argue against this and win. I would like to see how the facts of the case apply to our scenario because as we both know, your shot in the dark about the Ritz case, does not apply to what we have been discussing since no device could be proven there.

I watched a documentary on this case, and I recall it was the antiquated wording of the law that got them off.
The law prohibited effecting the out come of the game in any way.
Obviously written before they could have imagined mini computers helping the player PREDICT the outcome.
Also I seem to recall there was a panic code that could be punched into the scammers cellphone keypad that would disable it's laser or the ability to find it upon inspection.