5Dimes stole 14 500 USD

[Dark Horse]

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.

The rule is reasonable. It's no different in Vegas. Good luck hooking up your computer to a one armed bandit.

The rule is also in our favor. It protects our funds in the sportsbook. Why? Because these sportsbooks have no way of knowing precisely what they bring into their house with this type of software. Tony was fooled. Do you really think he would knowingly bring in a game with that type of disadvantage to the house? Who sold him such a sh*tty program? Who programmed it? Who else bought it or similar crap? What else is in that software that they don't know about? Backdoors perhaps? What happened to 5D here is not about 14K. The issue is much bigger than that. Think organized online crime and a worst case scenario. Who here would want their sportsbook funds at risk because of some weakness in the casino?

[thisisit]

Interesting to see if he gets anything from 5dimes, I'm gonna bet he gets his deposit, and 7k from them as a goodwill,goodbye offering.

[LVHerbie]

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

I'm definitely not as bright as many here but it doesn't take much advanced intelligence to look at the logs and see that TomC's assessment that allowing 5dimes "to seize here is simply giving them a freeroll due to their own retardation" is spot on.

The "guy" played over 1.1 million hands over two months (given the logs start at 12:00 AM on March 1st I'm guessing there are more hands not released) of almost exclusively 5-10 cent video poker daily with little to no breaks. I don't think he ever maxed out on coins (except playing a handful of times at a different game) and only took a few shots at 15 cents a hand thus I'm guessing he was under bankrolled for the opportunity.

On the other hand it is hard to see how it could take 5dimes 2 months to realize that a 18 hour a day winning nickle video poker player wasn't a bot unless they have absolutely no auditing and oversight of their casino play and 5dimes's self-proclaimed deity / part-time game designer failed to run his creation's pay table through a payout calculator.

[LVHerbie]

The rule is reasonable. It's no different in Vegas. Good luck hooking up your computer to a one armed bandit.

The rule is also in our favor. It protects our funds in the sportsbook. Why? Because these sportsbooks have no way of knowing precisely what they bring into their house with this type of software. Tony was fooled. Do you really think he would knowingly bring in a game with that type of disadvantage to the house? Who sold him such a sh*tty program? Who programmed it? Who else bought it or similar crap? What else is in that software that they don't know about? Backdoors perhaps? What happened to 5D here is not about 14K. The issue is much bigger than that. Think organized online crime and a worst case scenario. Who here would want their sportsbook funds at risk because of some weakness in the casino?

I'm guessing you missed the part of the thread were Tony bragged about designing the game himself...

[LegitBet]

I love Dark Horse, I have from my very first post here.
He his not getting the acknowledgement he deserves for his hyper vigilant posts on this.
He is rising above the at times pedantic pseudo logical mire and stating the bigger and 'pull the camera lens wider' view as to what this may mean just a few clicks down the road in a Hugely bigger way.
Think poker's black Friday was notable, he's pointing to the naked emperor and saying ahhhh does anyone else play chess? Can we extrapolate and look just a few moves down the road?!

[tachi]

The rule is reasonable. It's no different in Vegas. Good luck hooking up your computer to a one armed bandit.

The rule is also in our favor. It protects our funds in the sportsbook. Why? Because these sportsbooks have no way of knowing precisely what they bring into their house with this type of software. Tony was fooled. Do you really think he would knowingly bring in a game with that type of disadvantage to the house? Who sold him such a sh*tty program? Who programmed it? Who else bought it or similar crap? What else is in that software that they don't know about? Backdoors perhaps? What happened to 5D here is not about 14K. The issue is much bigger than that. Think organized online crime and a worst case scenario. Who here would want their sportsbook funds at risk because of some weakness in the casino?

12% edge for the players.
And we must believe.Why?

Also,without any proof,we must believe in Bin La#en's death.
Why we must believe?

[cyberinvestor]

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.

Yes you can! As an attorney I cannot tell you the garbage I have seen people put in contracts for business sales or even just standard employment contracts. For example I had a contract recently for a restaurant deal and the seller required the buyer to always have pink flowers on the back patio. It had to do with a family reason and how this restaurant was his grandmothers. It was important to the seller and the buyer agreed. The penalty for not having pink flowers was a $500 fine every day they failed the requirement. The craziness of that clause cannot be quantified but it is 100% enforceable in court. The only things you cannot mandate in a contract are illegal activities. Anything else and you can create a binding contract for it.

Not to mention this isn't "any rule". He isn't saying "no blacks can bet at 5Dimes". It's a rule whose intent is there to protect 5Dimes from a known or unknown technology beating them. Thereby allowing them to protect their business for everyone else who bets at 5Dimes. 5Dimes cannot check the action of every gambler so they watch for an anomaly. That's why bot winners get caught (cuz nobody wins in a casino) and bot losers just mix in with the rest of the casino losers.

Just like over the past few days I could not understand how people could not see something really fishy on this. I now cannot understand how people are trying to argue the rule or say Tony got a free roll. He sure did but his rules were tailored in a way to give him a free roll and you agreed to them. Don't like it, go to another book but whether you like the rule or not it is Tony's right. It used to happen a lot in Vegas during the 90's when they had a rash of underage gamblers in the casino. The kids played but if they won a major jackpot then they kicked them out and didn't pay. It's the rule. The casino cannot ID everyone on the floor so you only get caught if you look suspicious or when you hit it big. Under 21 not allowed. If you break the rule and lose the casino will not refund your money and they also will not pay you a jackpot. So if you are under 21 and betting in a casino you run the same risks as someone using a bot. It is against the rules, not really cheating, but you know the rules going in and if you are caught you won't get paid and any money you lose in the process is bye-bye. Now there were some cases about kids getting the money back but those were few and far between when compared with the overall situation.

[cyberinvestor]

Edit

[cyberinvestor]

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.

I cannot believe how many people got pissed off by me posting. I just pointed out things as I saw them. Things that did not add up and low and behold the guy used a bot. I do not use an SBR Posting Bot so I am not perfect in my posts and will make mistakes. I will gladly acknowledge them, as I did, when people point them out. That is the point of a discussion forum, to have a discussion.

The problem is people didn't want to have a discussion. They wanted Zabula blindly paid. Anyone who took the other side of this case and said he used a bot and broke the rules was attacked. My position or evidence was never attacked, I was attacked personally. Which shows the weakness in the other side of the case.

All the "informed" people said he was not using a bot. How did that work out? Looks like you didn't need to be informed to smell the rat here.

[cyberinvestor]

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.

Zabula did take money from 5Dimes as I understand this sentence (cut down the original post) from Bill's message.

[BigDaddy]

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.

great post

[JoeVig]

I'm not sure why so many people think a no-bot rule is ridiculous. If the games are supposed to be -EV, a casino should love the idea of allowing bots and raking in their profit. No, they are trying to protect themselves from bonus whoring and exploitation of obvious errors, like the 5D poker game.

The freeroll part of this equation is: how many times has Tony found a losing bot player and voided the losses? It is selective enforcement of the bot rule. I still think the perjury of the player voids this particular case. He should have fought the merits bot rule in the first place and it's selective enforcement, rather than deny the use of the bot.

[cyberinvestor]

I'm not sure why so many people think a no-bot rule is ridiculous. If the games are supposed to be -EV, a casino should love the idea of allowing bots and raking in their profit. No, they are trying to protect themselves from bonus whoring and exploitation of obvious errors, like the 5D poker game. The freeroll part of this equation is: how many times has Tony found a losing bot player and voided the losses? It is selective enforcement of the bot rule. I still think the perjury of the player voids this particular case. He should have fought the merits bot rule in the first place and it's selective enforcement, rather than deny the use of the bot.

Tony can pick and choose how he enforces his rules because of how the rules are written as you will see below. He could even pay the bot player who wins if he wants. Tony is warning you in advance that if you use a bot, you could lose your winnings.

All Internet wagers must be placed through the user interface provided by 5Dimes Sportsbook & Casino on its Web pages. Any Internet wagering through other means, including the use of a "robot" player, is strictly forbidden. In the event that use of non-approved client software is detected, Management reserves the right to invalidate all such wagers retroactively, cancel the player's account, or take any other appropriate action.

By those three words Tony is letting you know he can decide that if he wants he can invalidate or pay if you use a robot. He reserves the right to decide and of course he will let robot players lose their ass and not pay winning robot players. Sure, maybe that sucks but it his right to make that rule, it is right on the site, and you agree to it when you sign up. Here is how Tony justifies his "I AM GOD" policy in this case.

[yokspot]

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.

Slight exaggeration. It depends how much you have available.

The loss per royal cycle, without the royal, is about $2000. Royal is about one in 25,000. You could easily bust a smallish bankroll. If you really went cold on the royals, you could be $6000 in the hole.

After, say, 100,000 hands you can say that his initial deposits are no longer at risk. But that's a helluva lot of hands. Up until that point, your funds are "at risk".

On the bot rule: casinos rule against bots to discourage bonus hunting, as bonus hunters typically use them. This is sensible and "fair". This is a wierd situation, however, as most casinos aren't so dumbass as to put out such riotously +EV games. The casino is blaming the player (albeit with "right" on its side) for its own failings. This isn't so clear-cut as ruling against a 'bot used for bonus play. Not by any means.

Microgaming, for example, has an in-house 'bot. They have no problem with it being used, as none of their games are +EV and their bonuses by and large suck these days.

Only an inept casino would find itself in this particular position. Isn't it staggering that such a highly-rated sportsbook would be so incompetent? I'm glad that SBR is still considering its ruling on this.

[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.

[robfromsc]

i've had more problems with 5dimes in the past month thn any other company ever all over $94 they said i lost in a casino. The withdrawable and total section is pure foolery, I was told my money will show up in 12 hours and 12 hours later they told me the casino took it. I would rather stick with sbg and you wager.

[Santo]

The only things you cannot mandate in a contract are illegal activities. Anything else and you can create a binding contract for it.

Simply not true. See Bragg vs Linden Labs. LL had in their TOS a rule that any dispute must be submitted to mandatory arbitration. The court threw it out.

Also worth considering whether this is a contract of adhesion. It, like the Linden Labs example, was presented as take-it-or-leave-it, and the parties were not on equal footing.

[shari91]

Santo -

I'm just curious: If you were the decision-maker charged with how to deal with zab's funds, what would you do? I had started to write you a PM asking this earlier today but was distracted by something else and didn't remember it until now.

After re-reading this thread a few times, I have an idea of what I'd decide but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you don't mind sharing them publicly. I'm sure quite a few others would be interested to hear them also. If you'd rather not, I understand that as well.

[blackbart]

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.

exactly what i believe occurred, he set this up looking for bot use. probably knows its widespread and is using this forum/case to publicize that fact.

[RenoOSB]

Interesting to see if he gets anything from 5dimes, I'm gonna bet he gets his deposit, and 7k from them as a goodwill,goodbye offering.

Why should they give him anything if he cheated?

[Santo]

Shari - I don't mind, but I'm in (more or less) the same timezone as you I think, and watching the Cup Final on SBS, so I'll write it up tomorrow when I'm more coherent, with the disclaimer that SBR likely have some facts I don't (or have missed), namely when the player started playing and how much / when the player has already been paid -- both of which I think are extremely pertinent to the outcome.

[cyberinvestor]

Simply not true. See Bragg vs Linden Labs. LL had in their TOS a rule that any dispute must be submitted to mandatory arbitration. The court threw it out. Also worth considering whether this is a contract of adhesion. It, like the Linden Labs example, was presented as take-it-or-leave-it, and the parties were not on equal footing.

My discussion about contracts was in response to Santo who said "You can't just put any rule in a contract and expect it to be enforced." My point, as I discussed in my example, (two parties on a restaurant deal) is to say that two parties can agree to any clause in a contract (since that is not "take it or leave it" as both parties are mutually creating the contract) provided the clause is not about breaking a law (prostitution, killing someone, etc.).

The Bragg case had merits because it was under US law. A contract by 5Dimes is not governed by the "take it or leave it" philosophy since US law does not apply to it. So I assume 5Dimes is within their right to layout such a rule. I am not familiar with Costa Rican law to say whether the "take it or leave it" contract legalities exist.

However there are still "take it or leave it" contract clauses (crazy ones) that hold up. The Bragg case was a unique situation but there are contracts a student must agree to if they want to attend a certain college. There was recently a BYU student (although I would need to search the case) who had sex outside marriage and was suspended from BYU. These cases can be hit or miss but "take it or leave it" contract clauses are not necessarily immediately thrown out on that basis.

The Bragg case, it could be argued, gave a "take it or leave it" contract that prevented the party from going to court which could be seen as a legal right. Thereby the clause itself was illegal under certain interpretations.

Does a person have a legal right to use a bot? No. So Tony can have that clause in his "take it or leave it" contract and I believe it would hold up even in a US court.

[shari91]

Shari - I don't mind, but I'm in (more or less) the same timezone as you I think, and watching the Cup Final on SBS, so I'll write it up tomorrow when I'm more coherent, with the disclaimer that SBR likely have some facts I don't (or have missed), namely when the player started playing and how much / when the player has already been paid -- both of which I think are extremely pertinent to the outcome.

I'm glad you mentioned the importance of when and how much he has already been paid because that's what I keep coming back to as well. Gives me a bit more confidence that I'm not on some bizarre train of thought.

I look forward to reading your opinion tomorrow. Enjoy what's left of the match!

[Santo]

Yes sorry my orignal statement was overly broad, I was meaning for it to refer to this type of contract (TOS/EULA governing software/environment/sportsbook) where the contracts are of adhesion (and, importantly in terms of defeating a contract of adhesion, when a particular game is only being offered in one place, there are no other competitors in the market with whom to enter the contract).

The BYU case is Brandon Davies I guess (baskeball player?), but as far as I know that wasn't tested in court?

As for US vs Costa Rican Law, the precedent and standard SBR has long used is that of common law / US law rather than the local jurisdiction in arbitrating disputes.

[Trident]

Why should they give him anything if he cheated?

Exactly, the only thing he should be paid is if his deposits from the point of bot play exceeded what he has already been paid. Once he turned on the bot he violated one of the terms in 5Dimes T&C which should void any winnings.

[cyberinvestor]

Exactly, the only thing he should be paid is if his deposits from the point of bot play exceeded what he has already been paid. Once he turned on the bot he violated one of the terms in 5Dimes T&C which should void any winnings.

That's the bottom line but everyone wants to make this more complicated than it is.

[philswin]

He does not deserve a thing from 5Dimes, he cheated. He then came on here made up a stupid story, typing in some BS like he did not grasp the language. His chat with Tony was full of stupid lies. He wasted 5Dimes time, SBR time, and put both companies reputation at risk. He made post after post defending his position, now when caught he is gone.

[Santo]

I should mention I have no particular sympathy for the way this player acted. I am more concerned with the precedent of accepting and enforcing rules where the book has the ability to free-roll / create advantageous situations for themselves, particularly if they were aware of the activity some period of time/play before taking the action and allowed play to continue.

[chachi]

What about a situation if a book manager lies to a customer, and then lies to SBR when they investigate the complaint ...

[philswin]

The precedent should be you come on SBR with a BS complaint and get busted. SBR should not continue to represent this claim or discuss a settlement. He filed a false claim. Delete his account at SBR and tell him to never come back. 5Dimes should do the same.

[RenoOSB]

He does not deserve a thing from 5Dimes, he cheated. He then came on here made up a stupid story, typing in some BS like he did not grasp the language. His chat with Tony was full of stupid lies. He wasted 5Dimes time, SBR time, and put both companies reputation at risk. He made post after post defending his position, now when caught he is gone.

I have the same thing happen from time to time at my site. Guys try and scam a book then email the forums to see if they can get us to help them. You cant imagine how many chargebacks people give these books. Even players who were on the up and up sometimes turn to the dark side and make up a story to try and screw a place.

[cyberinvestor]

Santo-

You cannot compare a take it or leave it contract that removes a persons right to a day in court with one the prohibits someone from using a bot.

Due process is a right, bot usage is not.

[shari91]

The precedent should be you come on SBR with a BS complaint and get busted. SBR should not continue to represent this claim or discuss a settlement. He filed a false claim. Delete his account at SBR and tell him to never come back. 5Dimes should do the same.

Speaking as a poster - not an employee - this is my first reaction every time I glance at the first page of this thread. Sheer lies - of which there were many more - yet many posters declared he'd been stolen from based off one or two pages and are too bloody lazy to read this entire thread to see how the whole thing played out. They'll only see Bill's Conclusion thread and surmise that SBR has determined that there's reasonable evidence a bot was used because 5Dimes is an advertiser here.

Santo:

Here we go again..

Let's start with
a) Were you using a bot? Yes, it may not have meant you won faster or anything, but did you use one?
b) If no, what was your rate of play (how many hands per minute/hour)?

zabula:

a) surely I did not
b) I wrote it in my post I think.. I played about 1200 hands a hand in average, playing around 14-18 hours a day which gives around 20 000 hnads a day (sometimes I had day of when it was some national holiday etc, but mostly not.. I am not much sociable person so sitting home is my life :/ )
So around 20 000 hands was my target every day. Once I reached it, I felt into bed. Very tiring but if it can earn you like 5 000 USD per month, you can even survive such strict day schedule... Maybe in US you wouldnt bother do such super boring thing but here 5 000 usd per month for 16 hours of sitting behind computer is very good... some people have similarly long work shifts and earns like 500 - 1000 USD per monht here in this country... so would you do it for 5x average salary? I think so...

[chilidog]

As for US vs Costa Rican Law, the precedent and standard SBR has long used is that of common law / US law rather than the local jurisdiction in arbitrating disputes.

Costa Rican law is based on the Napoleonic Code. Casinos and sportsbooks operate here under a grey area of the law. Technically, they are customer service/technical support call centers for the actual sites located/licensed in another jurisdiction. Costa Rica does not legally recognize these casinos/sportsbooks, and they are not allowed to bring in any gambling-related income into the country. They are only allowed to transfer money to pay employees and expenses, etc. Costa Rica charges an annual fee to these businesses, and I think that it tops out at $50,000 a year. This is not a license to operate a casino/sportsbook.

Costa Rican law does say that it will not interfere nor regulate any payment issues between a land-based casino and its' patrons. Meaning, if a patron stiffs the casino, there's nothing legal that can be done. And likewise if the casino just decides not to pay the patron, there is nothing legal that can be done. It is an antiquated law that has not been changed, and no laws have been introduced concerning internet-based casinos/sportsbooks.

The current President of Costa Rica recently tried to tax the income that the sportsbooks and casinos bring in, but that law never went anywhere. I guess she realized that legally, there are no internet sportsbooks/casinos here, and no income is supposed to be brought into the country. It didn't always used to be this way. Even the mighty Neteller itself used Banco Nacional de Costa Rica as one of its' banking centers. Everything was fine until, yet again, Costa Rica dropped to its' knees and became the USA's bitch. The USA threatened Costa Rica with placing them on a financial blacklist if they did not comply, and of course, CR complied.

Basically, the customer has no legal recourse in Costa Rica.

[Santo]

Santo-

You cannot compare a take it or leave it contract that removes a persons right to a day in court with one the prohibits someone from using a bot.

Due process is a right, bot usage is not.

Agree, they're not comparable, but it's not only due process terms that have been ruled inequitable.

Anyhow, I'll summarise my thoughts tomorrow. Cup Final is done, so bed awaits.