5Dimes stole 14 500 USD

[mighty maron]

The bot rule is clearly in place. 491.3 seconds....I could not hit that figure exactly twice if I tried

Scenario...at the gas pump....try to hit 50.00 on the button going on full fill and release the handle.....Cant do it very often

I think 5 dimes wins this based on the exact times of the breaks...

[jgilmartin]

Nothing different here than the most recent case where SBR ruled in favor of the player, nothing in those logs can prove that he used a bot. No matter how suspicious it seems SBR has to rule for the player unless they can somehow prove beyond a doubt that the player used a bot.

Forums will break out into a riot if SBR mugs the player here to support their sponsor book after they lynched Easy just a month ago on the same exact scenario.

There is a lot different about this case, most importantly the logs. The fact that he had 5 breaks within 2 tenths of a second in length of each other one day, and 4 breaks within 3 tenths of a second in length of each other the next day proves, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he used a bot. For a human to take such precise breaks so many times in a row, they would have to sit at the computer with a stopwatch, and even then, would likely miss by a few tenths (at least).

Additionally, this player had a logical reason to use a bot - 5Dimes was apparently offering a +EV casino game; the more hands he played, the more money he would make. In the case of EasyStreet, the game was -EV; the only reason he would have had to use a bot would be to bonus whore, but he kept playing long after he had met rollover, which would be counterproductive for a bonus whore.

I do feel the 'no bot' rule is stupid, but if the rule was in place prior to this happening, I don't think the player has much of a case here, honestly.

[ThaWoj]

[Grandmaster B]

When Tony said that people who don't use bots lose at that game, I think what he meant was that only someone using a bot would be able to employ the proper strategy. This pretty much shows that he doesn't know jack shit about VP, because he clearly didn't realize the massive player edge nor the relatively simple optimal strategy (and the free websites which calculate the strategy for you). It doesn't mean he thinks a bot can overcome a -EV or rigged game. More likely, it means that:

1. his records show that most clowns who play the game play it so badly that they don't win
2. Tony doesn't know enough about VP to figure out the optimal strategy
3. Tony doesn't know enough about VP to determine the house edge (player edge in this case )

I would not take that as an admission of cheating or wrongdoing on the part of 5Dimes. Also, it would be completely ridiculous for him to make that comment if he did indeed mean that the game was somehow rigged. He would never make such a comment. He clearly meant something else.

well I guess then Tony is as sharp as Phil Ivey according to your statement...

[KGambler]

Evidence is very strong a Bot was used, perhaps even conclusive (not sure). Other than speed of play, did the Bot give him an added advantage---No. How hard is Tony looking for players that used a Bot and lost? It's his own fault for offering such a lucrative game.

I have not looked at the file myself, but if the listed break lengths are correct, it does indeed look like a bot was used.

[KGambler]

There is a lot different about this case, most importantly the logs. The fact that he had 5 breaks within 2 tenths of a second in length of each other one day, and 4 breaks within 3 tenths of a second in length of each other the next day proves, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he used a bot. For a human to take such precise breaks so many times in a row, they would have to sit at the computer with a stopwatch, and even then, would likely miss by a few tenths (at least).

Additionally, this player had a logical reason to use a bot - 5Dimes was apparently offering a +EV casino game; the more hands he played, the more money he would make. In the case of EasyStreet, the game was -EV; the only reason he would have had to use a bot would be to bonus whore, but he kept playing long after he had met rollover, which would be counterproductive for a bonus whore.

I do feel the 'no bot' rule is stupid, but if the rule was in place prior to this happening, I don't think the player has much of a case here, honestly.

Good post.

Does anyone dispute the lengths of the breaks though? I have not looked at the files myself. Already we have seen people unintentionally spreading misinformation in this thread.

[KGambler]

well I guess then Tony is as sharp as Phil Ivey according to your statement...

I'm probably not the only one who has no idea what you are talking about.

[Grandmaster B]

I'm probably not the only one who has no idea what you are talking about.

You're inside of Tony's mind? with the statement you made telling everyone in this thread what he 'really meant'

So

How sharp is he?

[durito]

If you play any game long enough you will loose eventually...

You understand what +ev means right? The longer the player played that game the more he was gonna win.

[JoeVig]

Sorry for the long post here. Just looking at the first file, and comparing the date and the rounded length of the "breaks".

Look at the similar length breaks all occurring on the same day / playing session. This is pure bot.

Thursday, April 21, 2011 575.5
Thursday, April 21, 2011 575.5
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 575.4
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 575.3
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 575.1
Saturday, April 16, 2011 567.5
Saturday, April 16, 2011 567.4
Saturday, April 16, 2011 567.4
Saturday, April 16, 2011 567.4
Friday, April 15, 2011 567.3
Thursday, April 14, 2011 564.8
Thursday, April 14, 2011 564.4
Thursday, April 14, 2011 564.4
Thursday, April 14, 2011 564.3
Thursday, April 14, 2011 564.3
Monday, April 18, 2011 563.7
Sunday, April 17, 2011 563.4
Monday, April 18, 2011 563.4
Monday, April 18, 2011 563.2
Thursday, April 14, 2011 542.5
Friday, April 15, 2011 542.5
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 523.4
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 523.4
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 523.4
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 523.3
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 523.3
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 516.8
Monday, April 11, 2011 516.6
Monday, April 11, 2011 516.3
Monday, April 11, 2011 516.3
Monday, April 11, 2011 516.2
Saturday, April 02, 2011 500.5
Saturday, April 02, 2011 500.3
Saturday, April 02, 2011 500.3
Saturday, April 02, 2011 500.3
Saturday, April 02, 2011 500.2
Friday, April 22, 2011 493.4
Friday, April 22, 2011 493.4
Friday, April 01, 2011 491.5
Friday, April 01, 2011 491.4
Friday, April 01, 2011 491.3
Friday, April 01, 2011 491.3
Friday, April 01, 2011 491.3
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 487.5
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 487.4
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 487.4
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 487.2
Friday, April 08, 2011 485.6
Friday, April 08, 2011 485.4
Friday, April 08, 2011 485.4
Saturday, April 09, 2011 485.3
Saturday, April 09, 2011 485.2

[clowncar]

Yup. It looks like bot play. Too bad, he deserves the money. I also have been going through it and the time consistency per hand is pretty amazing as well between breaks.

Joe did you look for jackpot delays?

[WVU]

I may be backing a losing horse here. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, and certainly not the last

[clowncar]

It's just a statistical anamoly that defies all math. It has to be a bot.

[v1y]

The rule clearly says you're not allowed to use a bot. The statement is not ambiguous in the rules. Those logs show break patterns which are clearly indicative of a bot, not to mention this guy said (lied) he wasn't using a bot.

Tony wins this one for sure I think.

[JoeVig]

Clowncar - I did not, just a simple sort on breaks rounded to the 0.1 second, and the clustering was painfully obvious.

Get a smarter bot next time.

[WVU]

My advice to the player was to not publicly release the play history unless he truly did not use a bot. I guess he decided to take his chances. Good job to SBR for convincing him to release the play history. I sure as hell wouldn't have.

[clowncar]

Alright thanks, Joe.

Grats Tony. Sorry Zab, I was cheering for you.

[mighty maron]

Op got greedy...no need for bot in this...simple strategy...got greedy got caught...

Wonder if 5 dimes will have a video poker contest like EZ...think not

[trixtrix]

The rules are the rules, and you agree to them when you play there. All of these questions about "what is wrong with a bot" mean nothing. The rule was posted, and he either did or did not use a bot.

all business contract rules are generally required to pass the litmus tests of reasonableness and general good-faith. a relevant counter-example to your point could be a book have a rule on point that you are not allowed to log in EVER from a different ip address than the one you used in the initial sign-up process, then if you ever logged in from work or travel ip address, use that rule to confiscate your balance.

an unreasonable and/or unfair rule cannot be legally enforced, prohibiting a bot to auto-play a negative expectation (net of everything including potential bonuses and/or rebates) would fall into the unreasonable category. a bot to auto-play a positive expectation game is an entirely different matter since it passes the reasonableness smell-test.

[trixtrix]

LIER

well... i see you have certainly earned your right to criticize others' english and grammar...

[BOP24]

You've won THIS round Tony, but we'll be back

[trixtrix]

How many people after hitting a royal don't stop for 3 seconds at least?

this is called an unreasonably drawn conclusion, it's equivalent of saying any reasonable poker player will sit out for a stretch after winning a big pot

At some point during a 20 hour poker session you stop at least for 5 minutes to stretch and blink your eyes. This guy played for 20 hours without so much as sneezing.

this is called a reasonably drawn conclusion, see the difference? unless you piss into a soda can, there should be at least a bathroom break and food/beverage break

[Boxing Champ]

When Tony said that people who don't use bots lose at that game, I think what he meant was that only someone using a bot would be able to employ the proper strategy. This pretty much shows that he doesn't know jack shit about VP, because he clearly didn't realize the massive player edge nor the relatively simple optimal strategy (and the free websites which calculate the strategy for you). It doesn't mean he thinks a bot can overcome a -EV or rigged game. More likely, it means that:

1. his records show that most clowns who play the game play it so badly that they don't win
2. Tony doesn't know enough about VP to figure out the optimal strategy
3. Tony doesn't know enough about VP to determine the house edge (player edge in this case )

I would not take that as an admission of cheating or wrongdoing on the part of 5Dimes. Also, it would be completely ridiculous for him to make that comment if he did indeed mean that the game was somehow rigged. He would never make such a comment. He clearly meant something else.

Or maybe he meant just what he said...

You're reading too much into this buddy...

[DEP78]

Most likely a bot, but can't be proven with enough certainty to go against the player
- player and 5D agree to a 50% payout, $7,250 payout. Maybe $10k
- confidentialality agreement to not go public. No admission of guilt by either party
- 5D closes his account
- 5D keeps A+ rating at SBR

That's my 2 cents

[HedgeHog]

To paraphrase OJ's lawyer: "If you use a Bot, you get squat".

[trixtrix]

Has 5Dimes not paid the 100 or 1000 other people that played this game? I cannot imagine Zabula is the only one who played? They are not taking all those people's money away. They are taking Zabula's because he exploited this EV using a bot (allegedly).

again an unreasonable position, how do you know they have not confiscated money from other people who won in this vp game? b/c none of them registered a complaint w/ sbr?

[Boxing Champ]

well... i see you have certainly earned your right to criticize others' english and grammar...

I never claimed that I had A in English...
English is my second language...

Great catch though... "Lyer"

1. lier 157 up, 20 down
buy lier mugs, tshirts and magnets
Retard's way of spelling liar
John: I like you!
Bob: You lie!! Lier!!
John: It's liar dipshit.
Bob: :O
lie liar truth pants on fire lia

[Bill Dozer]

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, he'd 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.

[Boxing Champ]

Where are all the bot backers and 5Dime haters...that made all those 5Dimes suck threads..

I think we all need a public "MY bad"..or something like that...

[HedgeHog]

Congrats Tony.

[Jerm3462]

Did SBR make a ruling?

I see people congratulating Tony.

Did I miss?

[trixtrix]

If you play any game long enough you will loose eventually...

You understand what +ev means right? The longer the player played that game the more he was gonna win.

he actually said the player was going to get "loose", i agree entirely w/ that statement, anyone who does anything repetitive for 20+ hours a day probably needs to eventually get "loose"

bp needs to either clarify his posts further or get a bit "looser" w/ his critique of other people's english however

[Boxing Champ]

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 players.

Assuming the player is no longer arguing he used 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 would collect. 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 profit column.

The bot rule is not fair alone. 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 casinos. In this case, the bot rule is fair and applicable. The player had a chance at the houses' funds, while his were never at risk.

So what are you saying???

[cyberinvestor]

Seems the jury has spoken. I think it is a fair verdict and SBR was very smart to do it this way. With 5Dimes being a sponsor SBR was damned if they do and damned if they don't. By putting this on the forum and having members say that this was a bot takes away the "you are ruling for a sponsor" claim away when SBR rules for Tony.

Only other comment is a lot of people keep saying would 5Dimes pay if Zabula lost using a bot? Answer is of course not. If you go into MGM Grand and cheat at roulette and lose MGM could careless. If they catch you cheating and you are winning, you can enjoy prison. So why is 5Dimes any different? Every casino will let you cheat when you lose but if you cheat and win, sorry. As a craps player I have seen the boxman check the dice when the table is hot but never when it is ice cold.

[Boxing Champ]

he actually said the player was going to get "loose", i agree entirely w/ that statement, anyone who does anything repetitive for 20+ hours a day probably needs to eventually get "loose"

bp needs to either clarify his posts further or get a bit "looser" w/ his critique of other people's english however

Are you trying to start something???

If not than go spell check 15 pages of everyone else's posts....
Like I said English is my second language..
Like your retarded avatar says "We all make mistakes"