Player vs 5Dimes Casino Conclusion

[mighty maron]

Bot was used....this was pure greed as it appears that he wanted to max the efficency and number of hands to be played.


Shame that if he was willing to put the time in he would have gotten a steady pay check.....

[tomcowley]

Just awful. An utter abortion of a decision. What's next, because I botted in a giant set of differently-sized components of a 14-team round robin with 3s, I won't get paid because I didn't sit there and get carpal tunnel doing it all myself? Just ******* retarded beyond words.

[Dark Horse]

The 5D rule says: no bots. What don't you understand about that? The rule was stated upfront. Fair and square. If you don't like it, play somewhere where they don't have that rule. Free choice.

[tomcowley]

Unconscionable provisions are unenforceable. Like that shitbook, Shilbet I think, who put your entire balance on a 6-team 1-1 payout world cup parlay for clicking one unlabeled button, even though they'd added it to the rules. Is there any evidence the player even knew about the no-bot rule and then intentionally violated it? 5d was my first book and I had no idea about it until this thread because I'd never have any reason to look for it because it's completely retarded.

[KGambler]

I understand your point, but I don't think the rule is nearly as ridiculous as you make it out to be. I don't have a problem with them stating you must play the games yourself. For example, they offer a VP game with a payout of 100.76% for perfect play. Is it wrong of them to outlaw bot use for this game? Using a bot is not the same as using a script to place round robins. Video Poker is a game, where the player makes strategic decisions. The bot takes that aspect away. It cannot make a mistake. Another quick point... Online poker rooms (not VP, actual poker) don't allow bots. The player has to play on his own.

Again, I understand your point. I just don't think it is a slam dunk to say this should be an unenforceable provision.

[cyberinvestor]

I understand your point, but I don't think the rule is nearly as ridiculous as you make it out to be. I don't have a problem with them stating you must play the games yourself. For example, they offer a VP game with a payout of 100.76% for perfect play. Is it wrong of them to outlaw bot use for this game? Using a bot is not the same as using a script to place round robins. Video Poker is a game, where the player makes strategic decisions. The bot takes that aspect away. It cannot make a mistake. Another quick point... Online poker rooms (not VP, actual poker) don't allow bots. The player has to play on his own.

Again, I understand your point. I just don't think it is a slam dunk to say this should be an unenforceable provision.

See we can even agree! It's a great point. I think it is fair for a casino to say we offer a plus Ev game but it can only be played by a human. That way the casino can suck in players with a plus EV game but also have the benefit of human error and allowing them to still catch the player.

[Dark Horse]

Not really, TC. If I hit a Kentucky Derby superfecta for 100K and the book has a limit of 10K, guess what. Could I have avoided that? Yes. So who's fault was that?

Books are entitled to risk management, just as players are. So I'm fine with books protecting themselves, and the 5D rule against bots should be read in that spirit. Casino software, especially if designed out of house, presents a risk. Who knows what type of candy is hidden in there, known only to the programmer.

It doesn't mean that the no bots rule is even close to perfect. It just means that bot players know to go somewhere else. And as a player on the sportsbook side I'm prefectly fine with that.

[KGambler]

Not really, TC. If I hit a Kentucky Derby superfecta for 100K and the book has a limit of 10K, guess what. Could I have avoided that? Yes. So who's fault was that?

Books are entitled to risk management, just as players are. So I'm fine with books protecting themselves, and the 5D rule against bots should be read in that spirit. Casino software, especially if designed out of house, presents a risk. Who knows what type of candy is hidden in there, known only to the programmer.

It doesn't mean that the no bots rule is even close to perfect. It just means that bot players know to go somewhere else. And as a player on the sportsbook side I'm prefectly fine with that.

Relax. I am pretty sure these books do A-OK with their casinos. I think your sportsbook funds are safe. The 5Dimes casino is making money, not putting them out of business.

[tomcowley]

Books have offered +EV sports promotions, to where literally picking every game with a coin is +EV (I actually 5x'd my sports roll on one of these early on in my career). Is it wrong to bot those plays in too? Of course not. Thankfully the book had good RR options so I didn't have to bother.

The problem with stuff like that, and with promotions in general, is that books are schizophrenic about what they want. They want to offer "+EV games" as marketing, or they do it because they're too stupid to realize they're doing it, but they only want idiots who can't win at them, or will degen off their money 100% if they do win, to be the ones playing them. When books get all up in arms over "bonus hunters" and the like (not gnomers, just people who legitimately sign up once, win at a +EV bonus offer, and try to cash out right when they've finished rollover), there's simply no reasonable response but to laugh at them for being complete morons. If you offer a +EV opportunity, expect people to take it. If you can't manage the number of hunters*+EV with the degree of morons you attract, that is YOUR problem. Don't whine about it and try to steal money.

It's really similar in principle to people trying to count blackjack. Casinos want to offer 3:2, and they don't want to waste time shuffling more (which they could do to kill penetration), but they don't want to get taken, so they take measures to profile people quickly. But, you know, they actually PAY THE PEOPLE as they're booting them. If a book is giving away money, like you say 5d is, they either need to 1) not care and continue to give away money, 2) stop giving away money, 3) profile people fast enough, pay them, and boot them. Jacking winners is an absolutely ridiculous solution.

[Dark Horse]

I'm relaxed, KG. But surely you understand that the new, and effective, form of bank robbery doesn't involve walking up to the teller with a gun.

[cyberinvestor]

Dark Horse people just don't want to understand.

If you don't like 5Dimes rules then don't play there. The rule is enforceable because there is no law noted thus far in Costa Rica or 5Dimes jurisdiction that would invalidate such a rule.

You can say the rule is silly, immoral, unfair, etc. but the means nothing to it's enforceability. I don't know why some want to keep arguing about the rule.

Whether the players knew about the rule is no matter. Ignorance of the law or rule in this case does not allow you to break it.

[cyberinvestor]

I agree that 5Dimes isn't hurting for money but if you don't stop these types of things early then the sharks will smell the blood in the water and as more and more people hit them then it could take them for a ride. The first guys don't bring down the house, it is the dozens of others after the first guys that finish off the prey.

Yesterday WVU outlined a few online casinos taken down by this sort of play. I think he may have been part of the teams. Will have to check.

[necro]

stop playing casinos, that's it

you only lose

[KGambler]

I'm relaxed, KG. But surely you understand that the new, and effective, form of bank robbery doesn't involve walking up to the teller with a gun.

It doesn't involve a single player playing 5-10 cents per spin either. I know that is not your point. I just find it funny they let this guy play so many hands on that game and only realized what was happening when he went to make a withdrawal. And it is not the player's fault nor the software provider's fault that the payout table was so ridiculous. Tony told SBR that he edited the payout table himself and that he did not realize the player edge was 12.7%. So nobody but Tony was to blame for this game being available...

I get what you are saying though. They should have rules to protect themselves from fraud in the casino, the racebook, etc. The no bot rule could fall under this category of rule. But any kind of backdoor cheating in a casino game is more likely to involve a quickly hit large jackpot, not a slow grind consisting of 10K+ hands per day for weeks on end. They should probably be more proactive with profiling customers rather than trying to make these catch all rules.

[Bill Dozer]

Books have offered +EV sports promotions, to where literally picking every game with a coin is +EV (I actually 5x'd my sports roll on one of these early on in my career). Is it wrong to bot those plays in too? Of course not. Thankfully the book had good RR options so I didn't have to bother.

The problem with stuff like that, and with promotions in general, is that books are schizophrenic about what they want. They want to offer "+EV games" as marketing, or they do it because they're too stupid to realize they're doing it, but they only want idiots who can't win at them, or will degen off their money 100% if they do win, to be the ones playing them. When books get all up in arms over "bonus hunters" and the like (not gnomers, just people who legitimately sign up once, win at a +EV bonus offer, and try to cash out right when they've finished rollover), there's simply no reasonable response but to laugh at them for being complete morons. If you offer a +EV opportunity, expect people to take it. If you can't manage the number of hunters*+EV with the degree of morons you attract, that is YOUR problem. Don't whine about it and try to steal money.

It's really similar in principle to people trying to count blackjack. Casinos want to offer 3:2, and they don't want to waste time shuffling more (which they could do to kill penetration), but they don't want to get taken, so they take measures to profile people quickly. But, you know, they actually PAY THE PEOPLE as they're booting them. If a book is giving away money, like you say 5d is, they either need to 1) not care and continue to give away money, 2) stop giving away money, 3) profile people fast enough, pay them, and boot them. Jacking winners is an absolutely ridiculous solution.

I think a better analogy, especially in this case, is getting caught having multiple accounts to get more than one bonus. If you take a promo, whether it's a 30% cash bonus or a +ev casino game, and don't get greedy you'll cash... Even if you tell a friend or two, or five. But, start making the accounts from your own computer or use an auto-player in casino for a stretch that no single human could, and you might get caught in the cookie jar. 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.

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.

[LVHerbie]

On the topic of rules in general, they aren't the end all. There is a fair use factor. A player can't lose and and then win less back and not be paid because the rule said no bots and he used a bot. The book can't say no correlated parlays and then go back and reverse a random time frame where they happened to lose a la sportsbook.com. A No-past-posting rule doesn't mean the book can leave lines up an extra 5 minutes and wait for the outcome to alert the player his bet came in late. In some cases rules alone can't dictate the dispute's outcome. In some cases software behavior trumps rules as in the correlated parlay case or Oddsmaker's rule that says no parlays or you lose everything. Written rules trump when a clerk obviously misquotes a bonus.

Regarding the risk to the player, he already did get paid on his bot play once. He's not paying that back. He also knew the odds were in his favor and used the bot. We stated on the book's behalf that if there was any doubt he used a bot, he would be paid in full. The math is always interesting but in this dispute, the player will get nothing more.

5Dimes wrote to SBR after the conclusion of this case saying they are refunding all losers of this game from March 1 on, the time when the bot player started and they show the payout odds were at 112%. 25 players will see a credit to their account at the start of the week.
note: Crediting casino game losers during that time is something they wanted to do after the dispute and was not suggested by SBR and wasn't part of any resolution. March 1st is the date the bot-player started.

So, since the logs started at 12:00:03 AM March 1st, did the player start using the bot at that exact moment? Or was the player playing himself to start that day and just turned on the the bot at a later point during that specific day and 5dimes have some way to to detect bots in their casino that takes over two months and 1.1 million hands to occur? My guess is that they didn't catch the player till he won a large amount (ie they have no interest in preventing bot play unless you are a winner and due a cashout)...

Also 5dimes made sure to mention that they refunded 25 players their loses during this "period" of bot use... Seems like if they want to brag about refunding losers they should give the amount but I'm guessing it was pretty small given the limits are 25 cents for and only 25 other players even played this specific game during the period in question... IMO seems pretty gimmicky and tacky (probably more so then even the easystreet vp contest) unless you want SBR to include the partial information in its finding while at the same time hiding the refund was likely very small in comparison to the 14k they got out of paying to their bot player freeroll rules...

[SBR Lou]

IMO seems pretty gimmicky and tacky (probably more so then even the easystreet vp contest) unless you want SBR to include the partial information in its finding while at the same time hiding the refund was likely very small in comparison to the 14k they got out of paying to their bot player freeroll rules...

Are we really suggesting that having a clear rule against bots is a "gotcha" rule? The overwhelming majority of casino players have a system, that system is to log on and play. These botters aren't merely propping up a mechanical bird to hit draw. The player sniffed out a positive expectation game and used a device to play more hands per day than he could have. The bot knew when to redraw or hold 3 cards to a natural royal, and never had to deal with fatigue.

What's largely missed gauging the tone of these responses is this player got paid once already from his botting ways. When he placed his hand in the cookie jar again, the cookie was taken from him. I don't know the variance of this game, but I know what 2+2 equals, and I, along with any reasonable human being, would presumably not think it is OK to setup a robot to gamble for me. Even those who farm for gold in World of Warcraft know there are consequences to their actions.

[LVHerbie]

The book can't say no correlated parlays and then go back and reverse a random time frame where they happened to lose a la sportsbook.com.

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...

[yokspot]

How much was he paid?

There was an interesting post suggesting he receive a portion that would be consistent with human play. A human could play at least five hours a day, so at least a quarter payment would be reasonable. A third (7 hours' worth) would be probably the outer reasonable amount, so $5000 of his $14,500 would be fair, I think.

[Jerm3462]

I, along with any reasonable human being, would presumably not think it is OK to setup a robot to gamble for me. Even those who farm for gold in World of Warcraft know there are consequences to their actions.

Awesome analogy, Lou.
I couldn't figure out what was so wrong about using a bot at an online casino, until you used gold farming in MMORP as an example.

As a longtimeonline gamer, there is nothing more frustrating knowing a bot is farming gold for some dude while he sleeps
, and I'm up all hours of the night working my ass off, earning less, doing the same thing the bots doing,

gamer Lou

[bettilimbroke999]

This is ridiculous, if he knew the strategy and clicked the cards himself he is fully entitled to the paycheck but since he programmed the strategy and let software click it for him he is entitled to nothing?

This whole situation is weird, what book fails to recognize a casino game has a 12% expected loss for months?

[Kindred]

Mediators being in the affiliate business always leaves room for suspicion and conspiracies. But this case is pretty easy to see the player was the one with the unfair advantage.

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. I don't think half this forum gets the concept of EV. It's the reason the casinos NEVER lose in the long run. It's impossible. In this case the player was the casino.

That being said 5dimes is incredibly incompetent to have let this go on for so long. They probably deserve to eat the loss just for the shear stupidity of it. With a game offering the player +EV odds you should be paying attention BEFORE a big jackpot is hit.

I don't know where the player is from, but I read he doesn't speak English very well. Many online casinos have separate wagering requirements for players from countries known for bonus abuse and advantage play. You'd think some alarm bells would go off when some guy who speaks broken English from a county where $10 an hour is a good living loads up his account and plays 1000's of hands an hour of video poker. I really can't grasp how they just let that happen. It almost looks like a trap to steal money but they paid up and the player is already ahead so all I can say is WTF

[SportsMozart]

This is classic story- poor stays poor and rich get rich. Money talks and bs walks! The way of the world. I just admire that punk Tony from 5Dimes and the way he talks to his customers as if they were his employees! Classic symptoms of Napoleon complex!

[Kindred]

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.

[ThaWoj]

How much was he paid?

There was an interesting post suggesting he receive a portion that would be consistent with human play. A human could play at least five hours a day, so at least a quarter payment would be reasonable. A third (7 hours' worth) would be probably the outer reasonable amount, so $5000 of his $14,500 would be fair, I think.

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?

edit:
the bot didnt do anything except to continue on the continuous play which everyone knows in a +EV game the more hands played = the closer you get to the +EV. my post was simply referring to yokspots post about how much he should get. im not sure if 25% is the right number but to me it seems reasonable enough, im sure both parties would be somewhat satisfied.

[donjuan]

Mediators being in the affiliate business always leaves room for suspicion and conspiracies. But this case is pretty easy to see the player was the one with the unfair advantage.

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. I don't think half this forum gets the concept of EV. It's the reason the casinos NEVER lose in the long run. It's impossible. In this case the player was the casino.

That being said 5dimes is incredibly incompetent to have let this go on for so long. They probably deserve to eat the loss just for the shear stupidity of it. With a game offering the player +EV odds you should be paying attention BEFORE a big jackpot is hit.

I don't know where the player is from, but I read he doesn't speak English very well. Many online casinos have separate wagering requirements for players from countries known for bonus abuse and advantage play. You'd think some alarm bells would go off when some guy who speaks broken English from a county where $10 an hour is a good living loads up his account and plays 1000's of hands an hour of video poker. I really can't grasp how they just let that happen. It almost looks like a trap to steal money but they paid up and the player is already ahead so all I can say is WTF

I don't think you understand the concept of "long run".

[LVHerbie]

Are we really suggesting that having a clear rule against bots is a "gotcha" rule? The overwhelming majority of casino players have a system, that system is to log on and play. These botters aren't merely propping up a mechanical bird to hit draw. The player sniffed out a positive expectation game and used a device to play more hands per day than he could have. The bot knew when to redraw or hold 3 cards to a natural royal, and never had to deal with fatigue.

What's largely missed gauging the tone of these responses is this player got paid once already from his botting ways. When he placed his hand in the cookie jar again, the cookie was taken from him. I don't know the variance of this game, but I know what 2+2 equals, and I, along with any reasonable human being, would presumably not think it is OK to setup a robot to gamble for me. Even those who farm for gold in World of Warcraft know there are consequences to their actions.

While I wouldn't call the rule a "gotcha" rule, as it is (given the length and volume of play allowed) very likely that 1) 5dimes has no technology in catch bot players in their casino, 2) no auditing of play (unless the player wins), 3) and only open to exploitation if they incompetently offer a 112% return game, the rule sure plays out like one...

No where in any of my posts will you find me defending the actions of the player or suggesting that he is due any more money. If reread them you will see that I pointed out that specific points of Bill's statement that I believe were incorrect, argued that 5dimes was neglect in offering the game, argued that are other implications of the bot rule and it would be unnecessary if 5dimes wasn't in neglect, and questioned 5dimes' intentions and motives in giving a few token refunds to unrelated players of the game (ie Are they implying that this somehow partially rights their neglect in having created this situation or that the software/program was faulty instead of the individual who created and designed a game with an easy exploitable paytable?)

What I would like (similar to example of correlated parlays) is that books take responsibility for the games and bets they offered... Unfortunately a online casino can't see who is on the other end of the computer and if book/casino is only able to able catch a bot after it exploits a game for two months and 1.1 million hands on a game with a 112% return there is clearly either a flaw in the enforceability of the rule or something seriously wrong with their current system...

[kero214]

First of all... why are so many people always sticking up for a player who was trying to manipulate a game? Using a bot to have an advantage? I don't understand this? Secondly, why must everyone point fingers at Dozer and Justin? These guys are professionals. They are making the best decision on this matter. This has nothing to do with advertisements... promotions... etc. Everyone needs to relax and rethink what they are saying on these boards. Everyone is being biased in their own right. The proof is in the pudding.... who in the hell can play 45,576 hands in 47 hours without using a BOT?

After this case is resolved the question is.... what's going to happen to the next guy that comes forward saying he won 20k??? And then the 4th... then the 5th??? In a way... this is a waste of time for SBR. Unless books figure out another method... you're going to get more and more players who will try and manipulate the game play.

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???

[mtneer1212]

I can't see how anyone would find fault with this ruling. The rules are clear, it was a clear case of being caught.

[jboy4]

Another rape in the offshore sports industry.

[McFly86]

1) The player's funds were never at risk

Excuse me? He was +EV so he was never at risk?

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

[DevilCheese]

I'm surprised it took someone this long to exploit this game, it's been available on 5dimes forever. The statement that there was no risk to the player is a bit ridiculous, as there is always a chance to go broke at some point. But, it's not too far from the truth, with only a bankroll of $1800 the risk of ruin drops to below 1%. More of a risk in my opinion was gambling that the game wasn't rigged and that if it wasn't, 5dimes would actually pay out. I was one of the 25 to get some refunded, but it wasn't much as I was afraid they wouldn't payout if I won much. Did they also take money from those that won smaller amounts from the game?

[McFly86]

If the casino game was 101% would you support confiscating the players' funds?

This is an insane decision - you are rewarding a book for its negligence by letting it freeroll players.

[kero214]

This is classic story- poor stays poor and rich get rich. Money talks and bs walks! The way of the world. I just admire that punk Tony from 5Dimes and the way he talks to his customers as if they were his employees! Classic symptoms of Napoleon complex!

Everybody knows that Tony is an AssHole and treats his customers like crap, this is FACT not opinion, so why the hell do you guys keep going back to 5dimes like it's the only A rated book. Act like a bunch of freakin' broads with battered woman's syndrome.

[JoeVig]

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.