Player vs 5Dimes Casino Conclusion

[kero214]

In this case and Tackleberry's, SBR was both 5dimes lawyer and the judge. No win situation for the player.

[trixtrix]

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 The contract principle is that, barring a specific duration, an offer is valid until it is withdrawn, and the information-based accept/withdraw race is fair game.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.

i like to state for the record that tc has become possibly my most favourite poster since the departure of ganchrow. although i would like to contend one point that tc has not touched on, which is the player materially misrepresenting his original position (no usage of a bot) when entering into mediation w/ sbr, i think he would have a much stronger position if he admitted honestly up front to bot use, which is why i believe tackleberry is more deserving of a payout than op (on the basis that he did not enter into mediation in bad faith).

i also would like to argue the calculation of expected damages by j7, the expected damages of a bot should be the incremental expected profit of a bot use over reasonable human play, 5 dimes specifically designed the game for human play (expected negative profit in exchange for marketing and good-will), then it's reasonable to assume that a bot cannot damage a casino further than expected human play (which is the specific intent of the casino design), i would then argue discounting the entire sum is incorrect.

[sharpcat]

The OP was trapped into a game that offered the player an edge, but the games intention was to cripple the average players bankroll before he had a chance to capitalize on his longterm +EV.

If Tony wants to be slick and trap players with +EV payouts than he should be prepared to payout when he is beaten or else stop screwing with the payout charts. I don't know why it is unacceptable for a player to cancel a wager at 5dimes yet Tony can cancel them at will????

[McFly86]

Sbr I am interested to hear your responses to my and tc's arguments

[increasedodds]

This is a terrible decision by SBR. 5dimes should pay the balance and move on.

[mighty maron]

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.

This has got me thinking....what are the chances that the bot could nail the exact same time of breaks to exactly match the clock that was recording the actions on 5dimes to the tenth of a second

[Santo]

Software could do this 100%... tenths of a second are a lot in CPU terms.

[1984mountaineer]

Damn, why does everything in this business have to be shady? Even the guys who are supposed to stick up for us...

[wrongturn]

Sbr I am interested to hear your responses to my and tc's arguments

Thank you. They will come handy in sponsor rating negotiation.

[robzilla]

The bottom line here is don't play at 5d if u expect to get paid. If u don't care then keep ur cash at 5 d.

[nosniboR11]

yes bottom line DO NOT EVER PLAY AT 5DIMES, TONY IS A LYING THIEF

[blix177]

Depending on the size of his bankroll, his fund could be easily at risk. Kinda base on the Kelly concept.

[tomcowley]

Sbr I am interested to hear your responses to my and tc's arguments

[pjesnik24]

I think their argument is: "your arguments are stupid and it is a well known fact that anybody who agrees with you is retarded and because your arguments are extremely stupid we will not lower ourselves by answering it"

[scarface]

there is no way an A+ rated book would do anything wrong...i am sure sbr would alert players and lower their rating right?

[McFly86]

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.

Bump j7?

[Thremp]

Welp... Guess we know how SBR operates. Pay them the guap, they drive the getaway car.

[BigDaddy]

Bump j7?

he is busy making threads on how he likes dealing with sportsbook.com disputes latley

you can't make this shit up.

[scott235]

Welp... Guess we know how SBR operates. Pay them the guap, they drive the getaway car.

Tberry's rape was esp galling. A banner at the top of the page and a high volume complaint shop is a deadly combo for the player.

[mikeybets]

The casino is a bot so do they forfiet

[BigdaddyQH]

The fact is this. There is NOTHING that any of you can do. There are people out there who could OWN you if they chose to. They could steal all of your money from any offshore book. They could make your life totally miserable, or end it if they chose to. They can steal everything from all of your bank accounts. You people have no idea of how easily this can be done. The technology is way ahead of you. Anyone who posts on any public forum can be traced in a matter of hours. The same holds true for anyone who wagers in a book on line. It is so simple that a 3 year old could learn the technology. Now whether people have the resources to do it is a different story. Many do. The Feds can find any one of you who lives, or is a citizen of the U.S, and make your life so miserable that you will just give up and do what you are told to do. That, my friends, are the facts. That is what you are up against. For everyone who claims to be a high roller, 10% may actually be telling the truth. Off shore books are getting hit left and right. Payoffs are slower, and a lot more complex. I cannot believe that no one in here can read the handwriting on the wall. It is just a matter of time people. The Nevada Gaming Corperations, with the help of the U.S. Government and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, will soon be running all on line operations for all wagering, and any attempt by any off shore establishment to continue to operate in the U.S. will be crushed, one way or the other.

[trixtrix]

The fact is this. There is NOTHING that any of you can do. There are people out there who could OWN you if they chose to. They could steal all of your money from any offshore book. They could make your life totally miserable, or end it if they chose to. They can steal everything from all of your bank accounts. You people have no idea of how easily this can be done. The technology is way ahead of you. Anyone who posts on any public forum can be traced in a matter of hours. The same holds true for anyone who wagers in a book on line. It is so simple that a 3 year old could learn the technology. Now whether people have the resources to do it is a different story. Many do. The Feds can find any one of you who lives, or is a citizen of the U.S, and make your life so miserable that you will just give up and do what you are told to do. That, my friends, are the facts. That is what you are up against. For everyone who claims to be a high roller, 10% may actually be telling the truth. Off shore books are getting hit left and right. Payoffs are slower, and a lot more complex. I cannot believe that no one in here can read the handwriting on the wall. It is just a matter of time people. The Nevada Gaming Corperations, with the help of the U.S. Government and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, will soon be running all on line operations for all wagering, and any attempt by any off shore establishment to continue to operate in the U.S. will be crushed, one way or the other.

objection, you honour: relevance..

[tomcowley]

For everybody (rightfully) getting mad at covers recently, here's a bump of SBR endorsing a blatant sponsor robbery and doing a Shilheim-esque defense lawyer/whitewash job.

[nosniboR11]

5dimes is a blackeye for sbr, period

until the stop taking up for this crook, sbr will continue getting beat up

[yokspot]

The old problem: without business contacts you have no pull. With business contacts, you also have no pull because the moment you try to excercise it, your contact pulls rank, ie. his advertising cash, and sends you home with your tail between your legs. In truth, no advocacy website has any influence over the overshore gambling ops they represent, much as they all try to claim otherwise.

[BigFish]

The fact is this. There is NOTHING that any of you can do. There are people out there who could OWN you if they chose to. They could steal all of your money from any offshore book. They could make your life totally miserable, or end it if they chose to. They can steal everything from all of your bank accounts. You people have no idea of how easily this can be done. The technology is way ahead of you. Anyone who posts on any public forum can be traced in a matter of hours. The same holds true for anyone who wagers in a book on line. It is so simple that a 3 year old could learn the technology. Now whether people have the resources to do it is a different
story. Many do. The Feds can find any one of you who lives, or is a citizen of the U.S, and make your life so miserable that you will just give up and do what you are told to do. That, my friends, are the facts. That is what you are up against. For everyone who
claims to be a high roller, 10% may
actually be telling the truth. Off shore books are getting hit left and right. Payoffs are slower, and a lot more complex. I cannot believe that no one in here can read the handwriting on the wall. It is just a matter of time people. The Nevada Gaming Corperations, with
the help of the U.S. Government and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, will soon be running all on line operations for all wagering, and any attempt by
any off shore establishment to continue
to operate in the U.S. will be crushed, one way or the other.

Thanks for enlightening those of us who can't "read the handwriting on the wall.".

[KilltheBitch]

damn...just complemented SBR in another thread and now I hear about this. WTF? I left the shithole forum across the street for what it has become especially with the CORY deal...... and now this...wtf? EOG here I come!