5Dimes stole 14 500 USD

[KGambler]

Boxing Champ, that makes no sense. No sense whatsoever... I really wish you and cyberinvestor had posted less in this thread. You are the two least informed posters participating, yet you are the two most prolific posters.

[Boxing Champ]

Boxing Champ, that makes no sense. No sense whatsoever... I really wish you and cyberinvestor had posted less in this thread. You are the two least informed posters participating, yet you are the two most prolific posters.

Why? what is it that bothers u so much???

[Legions36]

He was found to be in the wrong acording to SBR as well as 5dimes.

[wrongturn]

Las Vegas allows card counter to keep winnings because any rule to confiscate winning in such case will not stand in court. Internet books can write whatever rule they want, such this one, because players have no court to go.

[boondoggle]

Las Vegas allows card counter to keep winnings because any rule to confiscate winning in such case will not stand in court. Internet books can write whatever rule they want, such this one, because players have no court to go.

lol..the dude used a bot and cheated...end of story.

[boondoggle]

What is funny is that the OP has disappeared from this thread.

[Boxing Champ]

What is funny is that the OP has disappeared from this thread.

He's working on another bot...with random breaks in between 20 hour sessions...

[trixtrix]

really if you're going to use a bot to autoplay 20+ hours a day at 110+% expectation game, you should at least be more intelligent in terms varying time-intervals and rest breaks in between hands

[trixtrix]

He was found to be in the wrong acording to SBR as well as 5dimes.

5 dimes reporting self findings are considered at the very least to be a conflict of interest, come to think of it so is SBR, though i guess the counter-argument is they're at least one step removed from direct involvement and no mediation in the offshore world that does not involve some sort of vested interest..

[Boxing Champ]

He probably did not take into consideration that every one of his 100,000 of hands would be viewed and dissected by hundreds of strange people looking for every possible excuse to sink'em.....

[trixtrix]

Las Vegas allows card counter to keep winnings because any rule to confiscate winning in such case will not stand in court. Internet books can write whatever rule they want, such this one, because players have no court to go.

but we can use the legal court findings and precedents as a baseline for our actions and thoughts can we not? i mean what else can we base our objective feedback on if not relevant legal examples?

[wrongturn]

lol..the dude used a bot and cheated...end of story.

Using bot breaks the rule. I am not arguing about that. I am just saying sportsbook can write any rule, fair or unfair. They could write a similar rule on sports betting, saying if you use a computer program to aid your betting, your winning will be zero'ed. How is that different to this rule?

[trixtrix]

Using bot breaks the rule. I am not arguing about that. I am just saying sportsbook can write any rule, fair or unfair. They could write a similar rule on sports betting, saying if you use a computer program to aid your betting, your winning will be zero'ed. How is that different to this rule?

b/c vig makes sportsbetting in general a negative expectation game, if you use a bot to bet sides (assuming 50/50) at -101 or worse then it's unreasonable to use that basis to seize your acct

now if you use a bot to play every game which both sides are offered at a price of +101 or better, then it is entirely a different story

[mtneer1212]

Now at what point will the inevitable rumblings come from EZStreet saying this is wrong......? Evidence is irrelevant they will say........

[Justin7]

I have the video which proves he can play as fast as he played. Yes, he has a touch screen computer. He was hesitant about giving me permission to post it so I won't unless he wants me to.

Just like in the Cory case, I had nothing to gain from this. I will continue to support the players in crazy bot allegations (EasyStreet). I beat the system for years purely because casinos and books run poorly constructed promotions. I kind of consider myself a freedom fighter for those who can beat the system within the T&Cs. It might be hard to believe I would go through this kind of effort for no personal gain, but that is just the kind of guy I am.

WVU,

I think it is good to have experienced casino players as player advocates in cases like this. While you and SBR might reach different conclusions from time to time, your input is valuable, and helps ensure that players get a fair shake.

[durito]

WVU,

I think it is good to have experienced casino players as player advocates in cases like this. While you and SBR might reach different conclusions from time to time, your input is valuable, and helps ensure that players get a fair shake.

What is your take here?

It seem obvious the player used a bot and I agree with most of what Bill wrote.

But, the players funds were certainly at risk. Saying they weren't is like saying our funds aren't at risk when we bet on sports. I lost quite a bit of money today on a bet that had a far great edge (at least v pinny close) than this game was paying. I'm certainly not getting my money back.

[Justin7]

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.

[Boxing Champ]

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.

You are right on the money Justin7!!!

[LegitBet]

question for the lawyers..i am not and i am bothered by this nagging itch i cannot scratch with this situation, and there's a legal term that keep coming to mind.

regarding a casino sitting back and watching 'against the rules' behavior until they are harmed by it, all the while benifiting (freerolling) from the situation is creating this thought of the idea behind Common Law Marriage dovetailing with Estoppel.
Am I near an idea here or too many episodes of LA Law?

I always enjoy switching sides in an arguement where i'm not emotionally involved, and am constantly fasicnated by the points of the other side.

I have enjoyed everyone of the posts here, and am intrigues by how many of you would behave/feel if compelled to argue the other side of whatever side you have been on.

[RenoOSB]

I don't think you're helping him. The questions were in his best interest. If he is giving false information the dispute will be over as he doesn't get another chance as a truthful party and a different argument.

But, the Qs I was asking were about the play not if I could post his hand history.

I agree with you 100% Bill. I received an email as well seeking my assistance but knowing of this thread, I said I would defer to you.

Personally, I thought this might be a bot when I first read the circumstance but I have kept an open mind in reading this interesting thread.

Reno

[durito]

Justin,

What do you make of them changing the payout after this issue (and them saying it was a mistake)? If the payout was set as they wanted it and they were keeping it there, I'd say for sure void all the winnings. But, they have changed the payout, implying they made a mistake. The player shouldn't be penalized for that. Don't know how you'd resolve that.

[trixtrix]

question for the lawyers..i am not and i am bothered by this nagging itch i cannot scratch with this situation, and there's a legal term that keep coming to mind.

regarding a casino sitting back and watching 'against the rules' behavior until they are harmed by it, all the while benifiting (freerolling) from the situation is creating this thought of the idea behind Common Law Marriage dovetailing with Estoppel.
Am I near an idea here or too many episodes of LA Law?

I always enjoy switching sides in an arguement where i'm not emotionally involved, and am constantly fasicnated by the points of the other side.

I have enjoyed everyone of the posts here, and am intrigues by how many of you would behave/feel if compelled to argue the other side of whatever side you have been on.

whether the 5 dimes in this case bear some share of the blame is a distinct and independent argument from whether or not the player in question is guilty of perjury, which is where most of this thread seems to be focused on.

if one side is guilty on some accounts, that does not mean it absolves the other side of ALL sins. even if op admits to 100% use of bot, that not indicate 5 dimes is freed from all their responsibilities. imo, a partial payment is warranted.

[TexansFan]

Edit

[tomcowley]

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.

2) The player 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 decision.

[jboy4]

I wonder how much he has lost in 5 dimes casino? Online casino are a rip off. I dont care if there ranked A+ OR F. Its hard enough to win anything in them. This is total bullshit.. I am losing all faith in the offshore gaming industry. I am going back old school and giving Intertops all my business. Screw these A+ books. Damn cheats....

[LVHerbie]

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.

Thanks for weighing in Justin as I would agree the issue isn't quite a cut and dry as everyone is making it out to be... IMO the problem is less rewarding "good bots vs. bad bots" then, as is the case in the Cory's dispute, rules such as these give online casinos the ability to freeroll the player... If this player had loss (and I don't with Bill that the player had zero risk as this game has extremely high variance) 5dimes would definitely not given him back... This brings up the point of why it took the book so long to figure out the player was using a bot...

The variance likely masked the fact the player had a huge advantage (and Tony didn't properly check his pay tables...) and the book didn't take a look at his play until after he hit a big number...

[LVHerbie]

If a book properly checks their paytables and promotions there is no need for this silly rule to began with as a bot has no advantage over the house... In this case the bot simply increased the player's hourly and in the of easystreet the rule appears to allow them to cheat a winner...

[durito]

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.

2) The player 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 decision.

So there you have it. I am not apparently smart enough to come to these conclusions, but they are dead on.

[Kaabee]

[quote=Justin7;9983555]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).

It was 56000 for royal and 12500 for four deuces (at the max bet of 5 coins)
wizardofodds and vpgenius both come up with 113.5%

[Boxing Champ]

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.

2) The player 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 decision.

Can u please explain this in simpler terms for us immigrants please..Thanks.

[Doug]

This could have been an intentional trap set by Tony. A guy could attack this game with $500-1,000 and PROBABLY bust out and give up. Now when Zabala wins, the bot rule is there ( shouldn't be needed for other than live poker). Anybody playing this game at 20,000 hands a day for a month would use a bot.

The game itself is so odd, that it would only attract WVU types. Certainly 5D would check this out thoroughly before offering it. I bet they made money off of this 112% game !

Show me one other casino ( slot) game where you routinely play thousands of hands before getting any payout whatsoever. Even lotteries don't work like that !

5D can be a bit shady on grading unusual bets ....like props on the 1st eighth of a game or when the 1st score occurs timewise ( NFL), they fix it when you prove them wrong only, you can make good money grading winners as losers until challenged, none of these books are too trustworthy.

[MonkeyF0cker]

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.

I highly, highly doubt that. If the regulations were set up anything like Las Vegas (and I would assume that they would be), if you take the bet - you pay it. Incompetence is no excuse for invalidating wagers.

[Santo]

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.

I think this is the major issue. When people said bots wouldn't prove anything, they were giving the player more credit for intelligent software design.. how you program a bot to have constant break intervals is beyond me...

[lukahh]

The best case scenario for player is to return his deposit. But then again, should there really be no punishment for playing against the rules you agree to?

[Santo]

The whole issue is whether the rule is reasonable or not. You can't just put any rule in a contract and expect it to be enforced.