[Bill Dozer]

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.

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.

[diondublin]

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.
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.

Firstly, my apologies if this response is in the 'wrong' place. However, it is not true that the player's funds were never at risk. He could have had an extended losing streak, which although unlikely, is not impossible. Certainly blowing through a good few thousand hands without any win would not raise any statistician's eyebrows.

One also has the more subtle point that a decent losing run to start with has the player thinking that the game is suspect and thusly he gives up. Then he loses several thousand. Not risk-free!

[Joe Dogs]

So what your saying here is the player is entitled to nothing,correct?

[robmpink]

C'mon, sbr ALWAYS rules in favor of their paychecks.

[robmpink]

It is no different vs the rx.com in this case.

[ThaWoj]

im not taking sides but nobody seemed to mention anything about the accuracy of the data (2 .xls excel spreatsheet files posted in the other thread) from zabulas 1000's of hands. can we honestly trust that 5dimes, sbr , or some other party didnt distort or manipulate the data? IMO I doubt it only due to the lack of anything coming from zabula, tho english is not his native language and he might not understand exactly whats going on.

IDK, a lot of variables in this case, i really dont know how the 14.5k should be handled.

[KGambler]

As many people have pointed out (between here and the other thread), he was not guaranteed to win money. And to say he was essentially being paid by the hour is even more off base. The game he played had massive variance.

I played the game in question. If I lost money, am I entitled to a refund from 5Dimes? I am serious. I played the game in question, using the proper strategy, and I am not sure if I won or lost. But if I did lose, can I get a refund? Wouldn't that mean the game was rigged, since players are supposed to win automatically? I would like my $30 per hour please...

I agree with trix-trix... Saying the player did not enter into mediation in good faith (he lied about bot use) and/or that bots are not allowed at 5Dimes are acceptable findings. But saying he was guaranteed to profit is not correct. And saying he was essentially working for x dollars per hour is just silly.

[Legions36]

Umm 5dimes says so and SBR as well. Sorry but i have to take there word no matter what you guys say, 2 trustworthy words and company's i believe them over this player. I think you guys forget how much SBR is on our side and how much they do to help us out when needed not to mention 5dimes is a very reliable outfit.

[trixtrix]

Umm 5dimes says so and SBR as well. Sorry but i have to take there word no matter what you guys say, 2 trustworthy words and company's i believe them over this player.

how's cascade doing these days?

[BrianLaverty]

It is no different vs the rx.com in this case.

Umm.. its very different.

There is statistical evidence that player DID use the bot... Anyone who looked at that HH can come to that obvious conclusion.

Did we even see any HH in EZStreet Case? No, we didn't. Why? Because there was no evidence IMO.

5Dimes says a player is using a bot... they won't do it unless they have statistical evidence. Say what you want about Tony the person, but he's always paid up.

[mtneer1212]

Now can EZStreet come up with the same type of evidence after the fact......... should be interesting........

[slash]

Now this is wrong. Very wrong. 5 dimes loses credibility, and the same goes for sbr.

This certainly shows other books that they can use the bot excuse in the future and get away with it. At least from a sbr view point.

[Doug]

It still seems the player should get some adjustment here, not a payoff of zero dollars.

[jboy4]

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....

[tomcowley]

x-posted from the big thread. Both of Dozer's conclusions are wrong.

1) The bot rule is prima facie ridiculous. The speed of play (and of sports bet acceptance, etc) is controlled primarily by 5dimes software, is always controllable primarily by 5dimes software (especially in a game with almost no decisions like this one), and the bot doesn't change the EV of the game. edit: Furthermore, in a ~no-skill game, the exact same- or even far higher volume- results are obtainable by completely legal means, by giving people money, having them create accounts, and paying them a salary to play. There's no possible such thing as bot-specific actual harm here.

2) The player actually very easily could have lost in this scenario. Remember that very-likely-rigged WSEX casino promotion that you (Justin), me, and several other sharp people you know lost like a total of ~50k on in a -3+ sigma result (or, for that matter, rigged live casino blackjack you've run into in your life)? If I ran into a clearly +EV online casino game and hit a -2 or -3 sigma result (never winning a single longshot bet, as in WSEX) at the outset, it's quite possible- and certainly not unreasonable- that I would assume the game was rigged, stop playing, and if you allow the book to seize here, that I would have been freerolled. Also, a player could simply be playing underrolled (people overbetting in this industry? that NEVER happens...) and simply busted his money before he ever went positive. He would also be getting freerolled.

The only way to conclude that he couldn't have lost and that his funds weren't at risk is to only consider the cases where he played long enough, and ran well enough, to be convinced enough that the game was fair and funded enough that he'd reach a long enough term to win. In simpler terms, the only reason this player was "guaranteed to be printing money" is because he, specifically, was printing money. That's not the case, at all, for any random person who decided to bot the game in question. Allowing them to seize here is simply giving them a freeroll due to their own retardation. That's a terrible precedent, and it's allowing something awfully similar to what BetFair pulled ("Oh noes, we were idiots and giving away money, and they played more than we thought they would, so it's robbin' time now.")

[chachi]

sorry bill - funds were never at risk?

maybe me saying it will mean nothing to you, but maybe justin could have a quiet word on the side, or perhaps just reread the statistical definition of variance.

unless the pay table has only two possibilities as follows, funds are always at risk:

win = win
lose = push

[shari91]

For those of you who may have missed Justin's post a couple of hours after Bill's, here it is. Note that a decision is still being made with regards to the player's funds.

There were some other interesting things in the log. From April 1, 2:09 a.m. to April 3, 12:56 a.m., the player played 45,576 hands. During that time, he had 1 2-hour break, and several 8-minute breaks. He then took a 4-hour break, before playing another 20,107 hands. I didn't look a lot closer than that. 3 days of solid play at a frantic (albeit possible) pace with only 6 hours of sleep... I think this strongly suggests the player was not playing all the hands. Did he have a crew? Probably not, or he would have mentioned it. A bot was almost certainly used. The precise timing of his 8-minute breaks was also peculiar, which was discussed earlier. I think 5dimes has met its burden of "clear and compelling proof" that the player used a bot. The only remaining issue is: what is the fair remedy? Dozer and I have been discussing this a lot. In the big picture, 14k is chump change for 5dimes. Whatever Dozer decides though, it will guide future disputes. We want to be sure we nail it perfectly, so we're spending a bit of time on resolution. There are a couple nagging issues that bother me. The player got caught because he used a bad bot. A good bot is undetectable. So do we reward good bots, and punish bad bots? Also, 5Dimes hurt itself by putting up a +EV game for players. Not just 0.5 or 0.7%, but a crazy 11% (although I have not confirmed the EV, since I don't know the payout chart when the player paid). I think a US court would confirm 5Dimes' decision to void casino winnings in this case (if internet gambling were legal in the US), but I don't like that result very much.

[chachi]

that's all fine and dandy shari, but " conclusion #1 " has a hole in it any student in an intro to statistics course would recognize is false

[shari91]

that's all fine and dandy shari, but " conclusion #1 " has a hole in it any student in an intro to statistics course would recognize is false

I understand chachi. I just wanted to let people know that a decision hadn't been made regarding zabula's funds as of yet for those who may not have read the other thread in its entirety.

I assume that when everyone logs on again, they'll read over both threads and Tom's post will be addressed in some manner. And in my opinion that's what I've liked about the handling of this case - because everything has been put in public view, posters have had the chance to weigh in with all of us being on a level playing field as far as having a chance to review the 'evidence' in this case. I personally like this way of doing things. Not only does it force me to consider other fact-based opinions and look at angles I would never have come up with on my own, but I've learned a lot which is always great.

[TheMoneyShot]

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.

[chachi]

moneyshot - a poor choice of words on your part, nobody can 'manipulate' an online casino unless exploiting a backdoor and inject code or artificially influence results.

[vitalyo]

I just wanted to let people know that a decision hadn't been made regarding zabula's funds as of yet for those who may not have read the other thread in its entirety.

TNX Shari that's exactly what i thought .

LOL you guys need to stop fighting ! Just wait few more hours

GL.

[trixtrix]

Using a bot to have an advantage?

you either have an advantage or you do not, a bot will not change that at the macro level (at micro-level if the payoff is sufficiently close to 100%, it can be argued using a bot to make perfect decisions in every instance saves you the slight premium of making a wrong choice by mistake or accident)

[LVHerbie]

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.

I would disagree that the player's funds weren't at risk... As I pointed out in the other thread if this was a game with a lower variance and standard deviation and the player was making twenty-five cent bets it would be the case but with this pay table in video poker this isn't true...

To put into prospective according to Wizard of Odds blackjack has a variance of 1.32 and standard diviation of 1.15. For Jacks or Better the variance of one hand is 19.51 and 4.42. FP Dueces Wild is even higher at 25.83 and 5.08.

Using 11000 coin return for Royal Flush and 2500 for Four Dueces (1 coin or 55000 / 1250 for five coin) returns a game with a variance of 6,545.9 and Standard Deviation of 80.9...

Video Poker for Winners software has bankroll calculator which allows you to simulate win and loss rates given a bankroll and target amount... I ran it for a 10k bankroll with a 30k target win for 100k hands (I used these amounts because of the processing time that a larger bankroll and target amounts would have taking)... Given this pay table at 100k hands 32.53% of the time you are going to lose money, and 67.47% you will show a profit)...

I was running it for a larger sample of hands but because of the extreme variance of the game I was already hitting the parameters (1.32% you will go broke and 2.03% of the time hit the 30k target) so I'm going to rerun it with wider parameters...

[Fa11en]

It is simple as this:

If SBR rules in the player's favor then that player in entitled to the full 14k balance. I think we all agree that he does not deserve that amount of money especially being that he gave a bold-faced lie to the public and tried to use the threat of bad press as leverage to get Tony to resolve the issue as quickly and easily as possible as it would be no problem for 5Dimes to ship the money despite not obtaining it per stated rules.

If SBR rules in 5Dimes favor than they can adjust the recommended compensation as Shari alluded to in her previous post, which will no doubt happen.


The Dozer ruling based on "at risk" money for the house/player was extremely flawed as Herbie did a great job explaining in the previous posts and should not have a basis in the ruling- The bot play was enough to invalidate Zab's claim and winnings but 5Dimes was in the wrong as well (also noted by Dozer).

As a dealer for a reputable book, please let me try to explain the rift that I see frequently (especially in regards to Tony) between the reality in the business end of sports betting vs common customer complaints. A book tries to carve out its reputation through several different means (for EZstreet I hear its free payout Tuesdays and excellent customer service!!!) and 5Dimes has been able to establish itself based on significant standards. One thing Tony is able to do is offer a product no other book can in the form of exotic props, variety, and taking the risk (Wrestlemania) that offers very little in return- except for the opportunity for customers to exploit loopholes in rules, shot-taking, and odd interpretations. Being a betting professional himself, he should understand these risks and rather than deal with it he takes customers on directly, resulting in bad press (deservingly so) and he lets his hubris get the best of him.

For fun, lets say that Tony intended there to be a +EV game with considerable variance. IN THEORY, he very well could consider this a profitable venture in the sense that it loses so frequently, the bankroll and time commitment of a player to be successful is so significant that it would not be exploited through conventional means and if a player "hit big" they would be likely to try to go on a run with the money and lose it back to the casino or sportsbook. IN MARKETING THEORY, take 100,000 hands performed by Zab, spread it out to a hundred customers and then span of a year or several months then you don't mind being able to announce a big winner every now and again, which will likely be dumped right back- so his exposure is nullified. A professional that sees the value in said game and uses a bot to circumvent as it is no inconvenience to them- hence the bot rule. I believe that is how Dozer is trying to explain how the bot rule is legitimate in this circumstance through "at risk money" and NOT legitimate in Cory's case considering Cory's was a -EV game and EZ attempted to dispute mathematical probabilities as basis of ruling in addition to bot.

Zab's blatant angle shoot is admirable. How else was he supposed to explain the volume of hands?

I have empathize with Tony in the sense that when customers try to take shots, argue bad lines, fixed games, manipulate lines/limits, ect... it is very difficult to not take it personally and in his mind (and mine as well) you are simply trying to offer a demanded product that is unique and sets you apart from the competition. When these situations arise Tony assumes the worst and tries to shoot straight to the point but most of the time becomes outright offensive which is bad business of course. However, once the situation plays out he always paid the player if the situation warrants it AND OFTEN WHEN IT DOES NOT. No-one deserves to be treated poorly, even if they are trying to scam but there needs to be a deterrent to angle-shoots in order to preserve the ethos of the industry which is inherently corrupt.

Interestingly, I would of never discovered SBR if a co-worker did not suggest it to look up Tony quotes.

[trixtrix]

my suggestion: i agree w/ tc that 5d deserves at least partial blame

establish an average rate of win per hr by the player, credit him w/ 12 hrs of play per day instead of 20+ hrs of play, which is a reasonable assumption if op is a veteran poker player instead of a botter, recalculate his overall balance, take 15% off the top for violating the T&C, and take another 15% off the top for not negotiating w/ sbr in good faith. then the remaining balance should be paid out.

[shari91]

my suggestion: i agree w/ tc that 5d deserves at least partial blame establish an average rate of win per hr by the player, credit him w/ 12 hrs of play per day instead of 20+ hrs of play, which is a reasonable assumption if op is a veteran poker player instead of a botter, recalculate his overall balance, take 15% off the top for violating the T&C, and take another 15% off the top for not negotiating w/ sbr in good faith. then the remaining balance should be paid out.

Have you factored in Bill's comment that zabula had already received a 5Dimes payout during the time he was using a bot? Or would that money just be a separate issue in your eyes?

[chachi]

my suggestion: i agree w/ tc that 5d deserves at least partial blame

establish an average rate of win per hr by the player, credit him w/ 12 hrs of play per day instead of 20+ hrs of play, which is a reasonable assumption if op is a veteran poker player instead of a botter, recalculate his overall balance, take 15% off the top for violating the T&C, and take another 15% off the top for not negotiating w/ sbr in good faith. then the remaining balance should be paid out.

Have you factored in Bill's comment that zabula had already received a 5Dimes payout during the time he was using a bot? Or would that money just be a separate issue in your eyes?

trix - if you do that you need to add 15% back in for Tony lying to the customer and 25% for Tony lying to SBR

[trixtrix]

trix - if you do that you need to add 15% back in for Tony lying to the customer and 25% for Tony lying to SBR

where did tony lie in this case?

[trixtrix]

Have you factored in Bill's comment that zabula had already received a 5Dimes payout during the time he was using a bot? Or would that money just be a separate issue in your eyes?

i don't think that matters, i'm saying going back since inception of his vp play, any leftover balance on the acct, deposits, and winnings from other games should be fully paid out. then calculate his overall net winnings from vp since inception, average at 12 hr/day, x number of days, -30%, - any winnings from the original check that was derived SOLELY off of vp and thats the settlement.

it should be explained that:

1.) 12 hrs/day is just a projection in regards to actual damage, the amount he would have made fairly instead of using a bot

2.) 30% off the top are punitive measures, if you violate an on point/reasonable rule you should be subject to some sort of penalty, similarly for wasting sbr's time by not approaching mediation w/ good faith.

[chachi]

where did tony lie in this case?

basing this upon posted chatlog and SBR staff posts, but he told the customer in chat that he designed the game/knew the tables/was aware of >100% and yet anecdotally told SBR was unaware of player edge

[KGambler]

basing this upon posted chatlog and SBR staff posts, but he told the customer in chat that he designed the game/knew the tables/was aware of >100% and yet anecdotally told SBR was unaware of player edge

No. He told the player he was aware the game had a player edge. He told SBR that he did not know the player edge was so massive (12.7%).

[Bill Dozer]

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.

[chase hardy]

I think the player deserves some cash and then just ban him from the site. They made the game, its they're faught!