Player vs 5Dimes Casino Conclusion

[cyberinvestor]

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.

Thanks Legit. Talk about some amazing technology. Anyway, I think any other examples of people winning against the law, where they exist, as trixtrix was implying probably fall under the same category. A new precedent wasn't set but rather it was impossible to apply the law to the situation given that it was from 1845. It has not all of a sudden said that bots or other devices are now legal if they don't change the outcome of the game.

[Justin7]

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.

A rule against bots at either EZ or 5Dimes is fine. Both are enforceable. The difference is: what is the remedy if a player cheats? What expected harm did the book suffer if a bot was used?

In EZ's -EV game, the book would suffer no expected harm. It might lose on variance, but the book still had the best of it... no matter if the player won or lost. No harm, no damages. In 5Dimes, the player got a ton of EV. Much more than he could have gotten if he played himself.

The one thing I dislike about the ruling (but cannot challenge legally) is that 5Dimes got a pass for their mathematical incompetence. I don't see a rational way (under contract law) to penalize 5Dimes for that.

[mtneer1212]

A rule against bots at either EZ or 5Dimes is fine. Both are enforceable. The difference is: what is the remedy if a player cheats? What expected harm did the book suffer if a bot was used?

In EZ's -EV game, the book would suffer no expected harm. It might lose on variance, but the book still had the best of it... no matter if the player won or lost. No harm, no damages. In 5Dimes, the player got a ton of EV. Much more than he could have gotten if he played himself.

The one thing I dislike about the ruling (but cannot challenge legally) is that 5Dimes got a pass for their mathematical incompetence. I don't see a rational way (under contract law) to penalize 5Dimes for that.

I see the biggest difference as 5dimes was able to provide reasonable proof that a bot was used, EZStreet did not have reasonable proof. The fact whether the game was -EV or +EV is irrelevant to me. The player should receive 25% of his winnings to penalize 5dimes for their +EV game, but the rule says NO BOTS. End of story.

[Boscoe]

I have no dog in this fight, but I was just curious if sbr had a response to the statements Tony made in the chat log. specifically:

Tony: yes, i designed the games
Tony: i know the pay tables
Tony: we both know the payout is above 100% on this game
Tony: people who play not using a robot lose

I tried skimming through all 30 pages or so of this thread and the other and didn't see anything.

[Justin7]

I have no dog in this fight, but I was just curious if sbr had a response to the statements Tony made in the chat log. specifically:

Tony: yes, i designed the games
Tony: i know the pay tables
Tony: we both know the payout is above 100% on this game
Tony: people who play not using a robot lose

I tried skimming through all 30 pages or so of this thread and the other and didn't see anything.

No explanation... but if I had to guess
Tony thought the game paid a little over 100%. 100.4%? And player mistakes would more than eat up that edge.

[tomcowley]

A rule against bots at either EZ or 5Dimes is fine. Both are enforceable. The difference is: what is the remedy if a player cheats? What expected harm did the book suffer if a bot was used?

In EZ's -EV game, the book would suffer no expected harm. It might lose on variance, but the book still had the best of it... no matter if the player won or lost. No harm, no damages. In 5Dimes, the player got a ton of EV. Much more than he could have gotten if he played himself.

The one thing I dislike about the ruling (but cannot challenge legally) is that 5Dimes got a pass for their mathematical incompetence. I don't see a rational way (under contract law) to penalize 5Dimes for that.

You're assuming- completely unjustifiably- that the player intentionally broke a rule or reasonably should have known. A normal person wouldn't necessarily expect botting to be disallowed (I didn't), it's not industry standard, and there's no evidence that the player botted after he knew about it. There was never an agreement between 5d and theplayer on that aspect, and it's 5d's fault 100% for not making it clear.

There was a book-the-bet pay-the-bet agreement, as per industry standard and a normal person's expectation of how wagering works.

Your argument- that the software accepted a bet, but there was an unknown-to-the-player, nonindustry standard trap rule, so he shouldn't get paid, is exactly, EXACTLY, the opposite logic of the recent wagerweb decision. To argue differently, you need to show that ths is standard (not true), that the player should have expected it (dozer says yes but he's obv just cluelessly wrong when pin and cris allow itaa), or that the player knew he was breaking a rule (no evidence presented to this effecy). How do you reconcile telling WW to pay and giving 5d a complete freeroll?

[Maniac]

The whole "is he/isn't he using a bot" argument is only going to get harder for the books to prove as time goes on. This case certainly looks very likely that the player was using a bot from what I can gather.

The way I see it if you are smart enough to create a bot to play for you then you should be smart enough to add in a few extra lines of code to account for various random "breaks" every now and then using some sort of random number generator - each break programmed to be for a random number of minutes (say between 30-60mins break around lunchtime, between 5-15mins every few hours to simulate bathroom breaks as well as a 5-8 hour break to simulate sleep!).

Would be some kinks to work out such as getting the program to log you out before the sleep break and log back in when you wake etc.

Of course, using a bot would only be worthwhile on +EV games (of which an online casino is likely to have very few of anyway barring paytable mistakes)

[wrongturn]

Frankly when I saw the break intervals was so uniform that the chance of forged data is actually bigger than normal. How difficult to add a random number generator for the breaks in a program??? But I assume SBR has verified the data can be trusted.

[Maniac]

Admittedly, my programming knowledge is very very very basic at best but I have recently been trying to learn Python in the last few weeks and have been found a PDF book which has been designed so that children can get to grips with Python and focuses around creating your own little games etc (hangman, coin flip simulator etc so far).

One of the first ones I learnt was to use a random number generator for a "Guess the number I am thinking" type game where the program picks a number betwen 1-100 and you have a certain number of guesses to get it correct with it saying higher/lower etc so as far as I can see there should be no problems whatsoever with using a RNG in a program as sophisticated as a video poker playing bot is.

I think the main issue is either naivity or simple greed with the programmer either looking for a max payout in minimum time setting it to play 16-20 hours straight etc or just not really realising that the books may have a bot rule which they can use to screw you as they see fit so dont think about adding in safeguards to try to make the play look as much like a real player as possible...

[Santo]

It was clearly programmed TO take breaks to mask the play, but just needed a random variable from -100 to +100 added to the break in seconds and he would have probably got away with it.

[Justin7]

You're assuming- completely unjustifiably- that the player intentionally broke a rule or reasonably should have known. A normal person wouldn't necessarily expect botting to be disallowed (I didn't), it's not industry standard, and there's no evidence that the player botted after he knew about it. There was never an agreement between 5d and theplayer on that aspect, and it's 5d's fault 100% for not making it clear.

There was a book-the-bet pay-the-bet agreement, as per industry standard and a normal person's expectation of how wagering works.

Your argument- that the software accepted a bet, but there was an unknown-to-the-player, nonindustry standard trap rule, so he shouldn't get paid, is exactly, EXACTLY, the opposite logic of the recent wagerweb decision. To argue differently, you need to show that ths is standard (not true), that the player should have expected it (dozer says yes but he's obv just cluelessly wrong when pin and cris allow itaa), or that the player knew he was breaking a rule (no evidence presented to this effecy). How do you reconcile telling WW to pay and giving 5d a complete freeroll?

With all due respect, I have to call bullshit. Anyone intelligent enough to either program a bot, or hire a crew to program one knows to read rules with a fine tooth comb. A player that uses bots is likely more skilled at analyzing casino games than most sportsbook/casino owners. One of the reasons that "bullshit rules" are called out, is because sportsbook/casinos are the experts compared to most players, have a better understanding of the rules, and the less skilled party (the player usually) doesn't know the rules.

In the case of a bot user, you are not a "normal person" -- you are probably more skilled. You are expected to know the rules. The more expert party is always held to a higher standard. This is usually the sportsbook, but in cases involving bots, the player is usually more advanced than the book. No-bot rules with +EV games (either via bonuses or payouts) are not typically "gotcha" rules. They are designed to limit damages caused by pro players who attack promos aimed at more recreational players.

I haven't studied 5dimes rules closely. Are you contending that 5dimes had no rule in place that clearly prohibited bot play? I would hold a bot player to knowing any plain rule on their site.

Refresh my memory. What WW case are you referring to?

[Justin7]

Frankly when I saw the break intervals was so uniform that the chance of forged data is actually bigger than normal. How difficult to add a random number generator for the breaks in a program??? But I assume SBR has verified the data can be trusted.

Did the player specifically challenge any portion of the data?

[clowncar]

Did the player specifically challenge any portion of the data?

I completely disagree with you about the bot rule being a reasonable rule but there is little to no doubt that he was using a bot if the information provided was accurate. And if that is the case then he was lying to both 5dimes and sbr and therefore I have little problem with the decision sbr made.



He didn't specifically challenge the data but he certainly hints at altering of data here.....

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

[LVHerbie]

In the case of a bot user, you are not a "normal person" -- you are probably more skilled. You are expected to know the rules. The more expert party is always held to a higher standard. This is usually the sportsbook, but in cases involving bots, the player is usually more advanced than the book. No-bot rules with +EV games (either via bonuses or payouts) are not typically "gotcha" rules. They are designed to limit damages caused by pro players who attack promos aimed at more recreational players.

What scares me about this ruling is that this is exactly what rules against advantage play and bonus abuse, such as one below, are designed to do...

Management reserves the right to confiscate the bonus, affiliate earnings and/or applied transaction fees in any account(s) deemed to be taking advantage of any of our programs.

If rules like this starts getting enforced alot of us are in big trouble... And what would be really scary is if they were free to wait till you put in withdraw to make the determination...




On a side note it is interesting they softened it a little by taken out specific language against bonus-hunters and the sentence I said didn't make sense since the time I quoted it previously in this thread...

[tomcowley]

With all due respect, I have to call bullshit. Anyone intelligent enough to either program a bot, or hire a crew to program one knows to read rules with a fine tooth comb.

No. It literally never crossed my mind to check for a rule against botting in sports combos, and that script would have been on the order of complexity of what was needed to do the 5d game.

A player that uses bots is likely more skilled at analyzing casino games than most sportsbook/casino owners. One of the reasons that "bullshit rules" are called out, is because sportsbook/casinos are the experts compared to most players, have a better understanding of the rules, and the less skilled party (the player usually) doesn't know the rules.

In the case of a bot user, you are not a "normal person" -- you are probably more skilled. You are expected to know the rules. The more expert party is always held to a higher standard. This is usually the sportsbook, but in cases involving bots, the player is usually more advanced than the book. No-bot rules with +EV games (either via bonuses or payouts) are not typically "gotcha" rules. They are designed to limit damages caused by pro players who attack promos aimed at more recreational players.

Oh. My. God. CP players are far more skilled on average than books at evaluating the EV of a parlay. They're expected to know the rules. They're always held to a higher standard. Usually the sportsbook is more skilled than the player, but in cases involving CPs, the player is usually more advanced than the book. "no cp" rules with +EV parlays are not typically "gotcha" rules. They are designed to limit damages from pros who attack bets allowed for more recreational players.

Where is the real Justin7 and who hacked his account and started posting this stuff?

Refresh my memory. What WW case are you referring to?

Trixtrix getting robbed of CP winnings (and more) because WW had some no CP rule buried while their software allowed them. SBR said pay in full of course. Same as sportsbook.com.

[LVHerbie]

No. It literally never crossed my mind to check for a rule against botting in sports combos, and that script would have been on the order of complexity of what was needed to do the 5d game.


Oh. My. God. CP players are far more skilled on average than books at evaluating the EV of a parlay. They're expected to know the rules. They're always held to a higher standard. Usually the sportsbook is more skilled than the player, but in cases involving CPs, the player is usually more advanced than the book. "no cp" rules with +EV parlays are not typically "gotcha" rules. They are designed to limit damages from pros who attack bets allowed for more recreational players.

Where is the real Justin7 and who hacked his account and started posting this stuff?

Trixtrix getting robbed of CP winnings (and more) because WW had some no CP rule buried while their software allowed them. SBR said pay in full of course. Same as sportsbook.com.

Indeed... To me it seems like the slope starts getting pretty slippery if we start judging the reasonableness of a rule's enforcement based on the intelligence of a book vs. the player and a question if it is a +EV / -EV situation...

[evo34]

The first two paragraphs you wrote are totally absurd. This player is a scumbag whom I don't particularly give a rat's azz about. But to defend the ruling against him by talking about "expected harm" and who has the "best of it" is just poorly reasoned.

So, if a player was to take your logic as advice, before deciding whether to break an extremely difficult to detect or enforce rule, he should first calculate whether or not he thinks he is supposed to win. If yes, stop and do something else. If not, go right ahead...

Furthermore, let's say the guy had programmed a bot with faulty strategy that somehow made him -EV. By your logic (the casino would clearly have had "the best of it" in theory in this case), he should then have had the green light and thus have been entitled to any winnings.

I have no problem with enforcing rules, no matter how arbitrary they may be. But the logic behind your support of this decision is severely flawed.

A rule against bots at either EZ or 5Dimes is fine. Both are enforceable. The difference is: what is the remedy if a player cheats? What expected harm did the book suffer if a bot was used? In EZ's -EV game, the book would suffer no expected harm. It might lose on variance, but the book still had the best of it... no matter if the player won or lost. No harm, no damages. In 5Dimes, the player got a ton of EV. Much more than he could have gotten if he played himself. The one thing I dislike about the ruling (but cannot challenge legally) is that 5Dimes got a pass for their mathematical incompetence. I don't see a rational way (under contract law) to penalize 5Dimes for that.

[McFly86]

Where is the real Justin7 and who hacked his account and started posting this stuff?

Agree. Justin, you are definitely the brains of this operation, and your work in the Cory case was very impressive. Could you please clarify:

1. What did the player do to prejudice the book? It seems that the major cause of the winnings was the book's incompetence, rather than use of a bot.

2. The player put up real money and could have lost. By confiscating winnings, are you not allowing the book to freeroll the player? In my opinion you are rewarding the book's incompetence.

3. You say that, "In the case of a bot user, you are not a "normal person" -- you are probably more skilled. You are expected to know the rules." Do you really support different interpretations of rules for persons A, B and C?

[Justin7]

Agree. Justin, you are definitely the brains of this operation, and your work in the Cory case was very impressive. Could you please clarify:

1. What did the player do to prejudice the book? It seems that the major cause of the winnings was the book's incompetence, rather than use of a bot.

2. The player put up real money and could have lost. By confiscating winnings, are you not allowing the book to freeroll the player? In my opinion you are rewarding the book's incompetence.

3. You say that, "In the case of a bot user, you are not a "normal person" -- you are probably more skilled. You are expected to know the rules." Do you really support different interpretations of rules for persons A, B and C?

This is just a contracts case. Under contract law, you just ask
1. did the parties have a contract (yes, as described by T&C)
2. did a party break it (yes, the player violated the rule against bots)
3. was that rule reasonable (yes, other books have it, and it limits a book's loss offering a +ev promo)

If one player violated the contract (as the player did, using a bot), what are the book's damages? In this case, it was the EV the player earned. This case is very different from EZ, because even EZ could show that a bot was used (which it failed to do), there was no loss of EV for the book.

re: 1. I agree. More today than when this first came out.
2. I agree there is a freeroll risk. I don't know of a good way to negate that under contract law.
3. Contract law looks at the relative expertise of the parties. If the writer is an expert, an identical contract can be enforced differently than if only the non-writer is an expert.

[Justin7]

So, if a player was to take your logic as advice, before deciding whether to break an extremely difficult to detect or enforce rule, he should first calculate whether or not he thinks he is supposed to win. If yes, stop and do something else. If not, go right ahead...

Furthermore, let's say the guy had programmed a bot with faulty strategy that somehow made him -EV. By your logic (the casino would clearly have had "the best of it" in theory in this case), he should then have had the green light and thus have been entitled to any winnings.

I have no problem with enforcing rules, no matter how arbitrary they may be. But the logic behind your support of this decision is severely flawed.

Why would you break a rule in order to lose?

Ridiculous or unreasonable rules are not generally enforceable. This, also, is based on contact law.

[wrongturn]

"In the case of a bot user, you are not a "normal person" -- you are probably more skilled. You are expected to know the rules."

Somehow a skilled player using a poor bot while knowing the no-bot rule sounds very odd to me.

[tomcowley]

This is just a contracts case. Under contract law, you just ask
1. did the parties have a contract (yes, as described by T&C)
2. did a party break it (yes, the player violated the rule against bots)
3. was that rule reasonable (yes, other books have it, and it limits a book's loss offering a +ev promo

I think you're wrong on 1, although click-thru no-read agreements are an unsettled area with decisions in different places going each way, so there's no point in the two of us personally arguing about it here. 2 is not in dispute (if 1 is true). I also think your logic for 3 is wrong, but I could show much more easily that it's clearly inconsistent with past decisions.

But I'm not going to do any of that- your error in this dispute is a philosophical one that's far simpler to explain. In past disputes- literally all past SBR wager dispute decisions that I'm aware of- the contract in question was the implied book-the-bet, pay-the-bet contract created when a wager was accepted and the principles of contract law were then applied to that contract, with the default assumption that both sides intended to agree to the wager they agreed to (because a reasonable person would conclude that a book offering a wager and a player betting it form such a contract). Furthermore, when you look at industry standards, it is obvious that they were developed from that perspective as well. Several common rules allow both parties relief. Some nonstandard rules are allowed because they are not biased towards either party- they're just strange. In no case, however, is a book allowed unilateral relief unless a player has entered into the wager contract under fraudulent/false premises. Let's look at a few of these.

1) Steam and stale numbers, nonrecreational play, etc: Some books have rules against steam play, and books have tried to void stale numbers as bad lines. Even though these rules are nominally reaonable, as they protect against sharp players being faster to moves, these rules and voids have been considered universally unacceptable. SBR-approved solutions to the problem are mutual delays (where the player can back out too, not asian-style freerolls) and phone-only wagering. No silliness about steam players being more expert at monitoring line moves. The contract principle is that, barring a specific duration, an offer is valid until it is withdrawn, and the information-based accept/withdraw race is fair game.

2) Bad line. All books have a bad line rule, and even though it's 99% to the book's benefit, if anybody accidentally bet Dallas -55 instead of -5.5 tonight, they'd also have a bad line claim. SBR approves of this rule because it mirrors the unconscionability provision in contract law.

3) Past-posting. All books also have this rule, and it's also mostly in the book's favor, although players can mount a past-post defense (betonline had one in the last month). SBR also approves of this rule because it's implicit that a pregame line is only intended for action before the game starts, and it's generally absurd to consider that the book ever intended to enter into that wagering contract.

4) CPs. Plenty of books have anti-cp rules, and they're also "reasonable", but SBR has considered them universally inapplicable because, in their view, the software accepting the bet is a strong enough display of intent to enter the wagering contract. The remedy is getting the software to not accept the bet (or, as always, SPECIFICALLY telling the player what he's not allowed to do in the future). trixtrix's wagerweb decision, sportsbook.com, etc. No nonsense about expert parlay players being held to a higher standard.

5) BetEd 3rd party deposit situation. A player, with no demonstrable intent to defraud, and supposedly with permission from the book, made an authorized deposit from somebody else. BetED voided the account upon cashout. This was considered completely ridiculous by SBR, despite a rule in the T&C. Upon reflection, I think SBR actually botched the logic in this case (claiming it's a no-possible-harm T&C violation, instead of not even grounds for a wagering contract violation), but it's the right final conclusion because BetED couldn't show any grounds to disallow the book-pay wagering contract. The no-possible-harm T&C violation argument clearly doesn't jibe with the advantage play SBR approves of in 1 and 4.

6) Multiaccounting to collect extra bonuses, exceed limits, bet after being banned, etc. All books have rules against this, and SBR recognizes them all because it considers that the player is materially misrepresenting who he is in order to get the book to enter into a wagering contract (or pay signup bonus money) that it wouldn't do if it he had properly represented who he was. In contrast to (5), where the player wasn't trying to evade any limits or collect undue bonuses. And there's a provision in contract law that allows for voiding due to misrepresentation.

I can go through a few more decisions if anybody really cares, but I think I've made my point.

With 5d, the mechanism of entering the wagers clearly doesn't meet any of the standards for voiding the wager contract, and although the rule is "reasonable", in the loosest sense of the word, it is not necessary, or logically enforceable, any more than a CP rule is. The "problem" of volume play is totally fixable by software methods, with caps/flags on hands, money churned, winnings, hands/minute, etc. that can pause play and alert the casino to examine the game/player more closely if desired, just like the problem of taking certain CPs is fixed by making the software not take them.

What a lot of people have recognized here, even though I don't think anybody has put it eloquently yet, is that your perspective on this dispute is clearly not the same as it was on older disputes. For the first time that I'm aware of, SBR, and you personally, have stopped being (generally excellent) arbitrators of the book-the-bet, pay-the-bet wagering contract between book and player, and instead, your arguments have given default primacy to the T&C over the wagering contract.. and if they gave primacy to the wagering contract, it would be an absolute slam-dunk for the player. The old SBR has rejected plenty of T&C based arguments with far more merit (steam, CPs, etc)

In the simplest possible terms, you're posting as 5d's defense lawyer here, rationalizing their conduct with bad arguments, instead of posting as the arbitrator of the wagering contract, which is your historical role and the whole reason you have the reputation you do. This is a really sad thing to see- it's the exact kind of shit Shilheim would pull if he were smart enough to make it look that good.

You can still make this right.

[Counterfeit Cash]

^^^good lord

[scott235]

You know what I think the irony of all this is? Casinos/books very well may end up losing a lot of volume and $$$$$ because of this ruling.

[warriorfan707]

Bottom line here, I for one will not be playing in any of these so called A+ casinos anymore. They are all rigged. The minute you win you dont get paid, but you can lose thousands and nothing is ever done about them basically just stealing your money. Makes me question these ratings....

I think you would be better off quitting gambling for good.

[warriorfan707]

A +EV game, making small wagers to ride out any variance, and a bot so no mistakes and it could play while he slept. It's impossible to lose, 100% impossible.

Wrong

[kaliboyz]

pay the guy his 32k or we will boycott your sorry ass 5dimes. People please stand up for your right!!! when we lost to their casinos, they took our money and you can't complain to anyone about their casino is rigged, but when you win, they will disabled your account and blamed you for using "bot" or "you took a shot" wtf? wtf? SBR, please be the judge for us and investigate to see if their casino is rigged or not, if they're rigged then i want all my money that i lost to them back ASAP. But i guess SBR can't do that shit because SBR married to all their sponsors. People the only thing we can do is "BOYCOTT" 5DIMES , take all your money out and move your money to different book and don't deposit until they pay the guy his 32k, we need to teach them a lesson in our hands, we need to show them who we are.

[zabula11]

I'm going to post this in a new thread since the original is going on with people asking for the conclusion and missing the post. Anyone who wants to see the work the posters did to verify the bot can review there.

I'm going to post this in a new thread since the original is going on with people asking for the conclusion and missing the post. Anyone who wants to see the work the posters did to verify the bot can review there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Dozer
5Dimes made obvious mistakes. 1) 5D had a game with a 12% return and 2) didn't catch it for an extended period of time. These mistakes are part of the circumstances that make up the position of the house and player.

Assuming the player is no longer arguing that he did not use a bot (which he can communicate different at any time), the question is what is the fair conclusion? Our initial reaction based on the typical bot scenario is the bot rule is not a catch-all since the player still puts his funds at risk against a house edge and that rule can't be used to catch a player only when they win. That was not the case here.

1) The player's funds were never at risk. Betting high volume only up to 25 cents at +112 means he could only win after a short time of clicking. The player was essentially getting an hourly paycheck. For every hour 5D had 12% return, we be gainfully employed. Had he taken advantage of this without needing to get more money than he could generate himself with bathroom breaks and sleep, he may still be playing right now and he would be taking a payout, albeit a smaller one.

2) Although 5D let him play over a long time, he did receive a payout from his bot venture. He is in the plus column.

The bot rule alone is not fair. For example, if the bot actually wagered for the player $100 on a 99% payout game, the book has a shot at the player's funds when he has no chance at the casino's. In this case, the bot rule is fair and applicable. The player had a chance at the house funds, while his were never at risk

Come on, Bill... "Assuming the player is no longer arguing" that is most funny.. I am totally depressed, said, exhausted, on drugs, alcohol etc after this.. I just had to take a few days off os this ....
More shocked how 5Dimes takes money I am shocked by reaction of SBR which is NOT in my favour.. haha.. because I did not gave you any share?...

Another funny thing is this statement: "The player's funds were never at risk." GEEEEEEEEEE!!! Try to play this game!!! It can lost you 3000 USD per day !!!! No problem, had this!! I never seen more swinging game.. I also wrote here that once from 7000 account I went to like 50 and I bet you can see that in this trus full hand history showen here that doesnt show anything.. only some strange pauses that I dont agree are real... they did not even shown hand history from other games I was playing like deuces wild full pay etc.. just some strange part with strange data.. it is no hand history.. it just shows how things goes in 5 Dimes... I also saw here another player having problems with paying out 32k.. lol.. 390% game.. that is much but anyway.. I stil lwant my money from 12.5%.. does it now look so huge edge against player with 390? So dont you think Tony should pay????? I am not alone now... you see.. more people are agains 5 Dimes and you still are in their favour??? With non sens argumenst against me.. even Lou is not replying to me anymore.. probably you dont know what to do with such bad "hand history" where is nothing and with no guarantee that data was not changed.. how else they could "prove bot" than using such stupid thing like same amount of resting time??? If I had such bot, then show me that bot... it would have to be very stupid bot.. being able to play but not able to make pauses? Lol. You are all wrong with your thinkings and 5 Dimes still owes me 14 700 USD! And nothing is changed..

[WVU]

Zabula poses a good point that the actual hand history was not posted. His funds were indeed at risk, regardless of what some seemingly clueless observers have stated.

[wrongturn]

I agree with tomcowley. While I appreciate SBR act as player's lawyer in disputes involving non-sponsors, in case of 5D, they clearly act as 5D's lawyer, and they do good jobs on that, no doubt.

[Bill Dozer]

Come on, Bill... "Assuming the player is no longer arguing" that is most funny.. I am totally depressed, said, exhausted, on drugs, alcohol etc after this.. I just had to take a few days off os this ....

Zabula,
You stopped communicating on the 11th opting to instead ask others for help getting around my questions regarding your bot.

All your hand history is available. Write to help@sportsbookreview.com and we'll get it to you. It's a huge file.

[NobodyUKnow]

Zabula, if you want to be all depressed about something, be depressed that you paid some chump-change for a terribly scripted bot that totally gave you away. Your hand history screams BOT and most bots out there aren't that expensive, get around the breaks/interval issue by randomizing it, and are completely undetectable. You found one from some script-kiddie that wasn't and then you didn't even think before deployment.

You bought crap, got really greedy because you have no self-control or a modicum of common sense, and got made a fool of. Sorry, no sympathy at all for your stupidity, even if I think 5D also shares some blame and needs a downgrade for their non-professionalism, incompetence, and many other disputes. You sir, are not a winner, though.

[Dr.Gonzo]

I think you're wrong on 1, although click-thru no-read agreements are an unsettled area with decisions in different places going each way, so there's no point in the two of us personally arguing about it here. 2 is not in dispute (if 1 is true). I also think your logic for 3 is wrong, but I could show much more easily that it's clearly inconsistent with past decisions.

But I'm not going to do any of that- your error in this dispute is a philosophical one that's far simpler to explain. In past disputes- literally all past SBR wager dispute decisions that I'm aware of- the contract in question was the implied book-the-bet, pay-the-bet contract created when a wager was accepted and the principles of contract law were then applied to that contract, with the default assumption that both sides intended to agree to the wager they agreed to (because a reasonable person would conclude that a book offering a wager and a player betting it form such a contract). Furthermore, when you look at industry standards, it is obvious that they were developed from that perspective as well. Several common rules allow both parties relief. Some nonstandard rules are allowed because they are not biased towards either party- they're just strange. In no case, however, is a book allowed unilateral relief unless a player has entered into the wager contract under fraudulent/false premises. Let's look at a few of these.

1) Steam and stale numbers, nonrecreational play, etc: Some books have rules against steam play, and books have tried to void stale numbers as bad lines. Even though these rules are nominally reaonable, as they protect against sharp players being faster to moves, these rules and voids have been considered universally unacceptable. SBR-approved solutions to the problem are mutual delays (where the player can back out too, not asian-style freerolls) and phone-only wagering. No silliness about steam players being more expert at monitoring line moves. The contract principle is that, barring a specific duration, an offer is valid until it is withdrawn, and the information-based accept/withdraw race is fair game.

2) Bad line. All books have a bad line rule, and even though it's 99% to the book's benefit, if anybody accidentally bet Dallas -55 instead of -5.5 tonight, they'd also have a bad line claim. SBR approves of this rule because it mirrors the unconscionability provision in contract law.

3) Past-posting. All books also have this rule, and it's also mostly in the book's favor, although players can mount a past-post defense (betonline had one in the last month). SBR also approves of this rule because it's implicit that a pregame line is only intended for action before the game starts, and it's generally absurd to consider that the book ever intended to enter into that wagering contract.

4) CPs. Plenty of books have anti-cp rules, and they're also "reasonable", but SBR has considered them universally inapplicable because, in their view, the software accepting the bet is a strong enough display of intent to enter the wagering contract. The remedy is getting the software to not accept the bet (or, as always, SPECIFICALLY telling the player what he's not allowed to do in the future). trixtrix's wagerweb decision, sportsbook.com, etc. No nonsense about expert parlay players being held to a higher standard.

5) BetEd 3rd party deposit situation. A player, with no demonstrable intent to defraud, and supposedly with permission from the book, made an authorized deposit from somebody else. BetED voided the account upon cashout. This was considered completely ridiculous by SBR, despite a rule in the T&C. Upon reflection, I think SBR actually botched the logic in this case (claiming it's a no-possible-harm T&C violation, instead of not even grounds for a wagering contract violation), but it's the right final conclusion because BetED couldn't show any grounds to disallow the book-pay wagering contract. The no-possible-harm T&C violation argument clearly doesn't jibe with the advantage play SBR approves of in 1 and 4.

6) Multiaccounting to collect extra bonuses, exceed limits, bet after being banned, etc. All books have rules against this, and SBR recognizes them all because it considers that the player is materially misrepresenting who he is in order to get the book to enter into a wagering contract (or pay signup bonus money) that it wouldn't do if it he had properly represented who he was. In contrast to (5), where the player wasn't trying to evade any limits or collect undue bonuses. And there's a provision in contract law that allows for voiding due to misrepresentation.

I can go through a few more decisions if anybody really cares, but I think I've made my point.

With 5d, the mechanism of entering the wagers clearly doesn't meet any of the standards for voiding the wager contract, and although the rule is "reasonable", in the loosest sense of the word, it is not necessary, or logically enforceable, any more than a CP rule is. The "problem" of volume play is totally fixable by software methods, with caps/flags on hands, money churned, winnings, hands/minute, etc. that can pause play and alert the casino to examine the game/player more closely if desired, just like the problem of taking certain CPs is fixed by making the software not take them.

What a lot of people have recognized here, even though I don't think anybody has put it eloquently yet, is that your perspective on this dispute is clearly not the same as it was on older disputes. For the first time that I'm aware of, SBR, and you personally, have stopped being (generally excellent) arbitrators of the book-the-bet, pay-the-bet wagering contract between book and player, and instead, your arguments have given default primacy to the T&C over the wagering contract.. and if they gave primacy to the wagering contract, it would be an absolute slam-dunk for the player. The old SBR has rejected plenty of T&C based arguments with far more merit (steam, CPs, etc)

In the simplest possible terms, you're posting as 5d's defense lawyer here, rationalizing their conduct with bad arguments, instead of posting as the arbitrator of the wagering contract, which is your historical role and the whole reason you have the reputation you do. This is a really sad thing to see- it's the exact kind of shit Shilheim would pull if he were smart enough to make it look that good.

You can still make this right.

Very logical post.

[McFly86]

This is just a contracts case. Under contract law, you just ask
1. did the parties have a contract (yes, as described by T&C)
2. did a party break it (yes, the player violated the rule against bots)
3. was that rule reasonable (yes, other books have it, and it limits a book's loss offering a +ev promo)

If one player violated the contract (as the player did, using a bot), what are the book's damages? In this case, it was the EV the player earned. This case is very different from EZ, because even EZ could show that a bot was used (which it failed to do), there was no loss of EV for the book.

re: 1. I agree. More today than when this first came out.
2. I agree there is a freeroll risk. I don't know of a good way to negate that under contract law.
3. Contract law looks at the relative expertise of the parties. If the writer is an expert, an identical contract can be enforced differently than if only the non-writer is an expert.

Obviously contract law applies. I am a lawyer, and I believe a court would find the following:-


* A contract existed between the book and the player, whereby the book would offer wagers, and the player would have the option of accepting those wagers. The essence of the contract is that the winner of each wager is to receive payment.

* The book offers a variety of wagers, including an online casino. The player played a particular casino game intensely over a long period of time. The player won significant amounts. The casino game was, in fact, weighted in the player's favour.

* Prima facie the player is entitled to payment.

* The book's "Terms & Conditions" prohibits players from using a "bot".

* The book argues that it is not obliged to pay the player due to violation of the "bot" rule, and secondly due to the favourable nature of the casino game.

* The "bot" rule is unenforceable because (1) the term "bot" is unintelligible, and (2) a "bot" cannot be a source of prejudice for a book in this instance (if indeed ever). The "bot" -- as alleged by the book -- merely played the game repeatedly according to a simple set of rules. The player did not gain any unfair advantage from using the alleged "bot" (for example, by manipulating the nature of the game or the payouts or any bonus system). The book offered the particular game to the world at large. It is nonsensical to argue that an individual's rate of play -- in a publicly-offered game -- is detrimental to the book. By offering the game to the public at large, the book was implicitly inviting as much play as possible. The book has suffered no damage by way of the alleged breach of the "bot" rule, which therefore cannot be enforced.

* The book was responsible for designing the payouts of the particular game. The book, as a wagering expert, was in the best position to design and test the casino game. It can only be presumed that the book was negligent in determining the payouts for the casino game. It would be unconscionable for the book to profit from its own negligence by voiding the contract. The player would not have been entitled to request a refund from the book if, as was a distinct possibility, he had been a nett loser from the game. The player risked his funds, and is therefore entitled to reward, in accordance with the essence of the contract.

* The book's arguments fail, and the player is entitled to payment in full.


Now to whom can I submit my bill?

[McFly86]

Bill do you maintain that the player's funds were never at risk?