5dimes crediting back my losses

I logged in to my 5 dimes acct last night and was very pleasantly surprised to read a message waiting for me from the management. It stated I was credited back my net losses on one of their video poker games due to the payout being incorrectly programmed. So far I have not received any credit, and I just went back to the message to copy it onto here but I see it has been erased. That's not a good sign. I copy and pasted it though so I have proof from a chat with management. They said they weren't familiar with the situation and that I should get back with them in 30-60 min after they check it out. I will keep you all informed of any developments.

This is very puzzling to me that they would say they are unfamiliar with this and then erase the message on my acct. Would be great if it happens though as I am down on that game over 7k net.

Just wanted to make the forum members aware that this kind of stuff goes on at online sportsbooks. I don't think I have any recourse other than making it public, but if anyone has advice on what to do about this I'd love some. This is the rather lengthy chat session regarding the above issue:

Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are now chatting with 'Billy'
Billy: Hello. How may I assist you today?
clark: hi
clark: my act is xxx
clark: I received a message saying I was credited my losses on Royal Jackpot deuces wild video poker but I have not received any credit
Billy: Just a moment please
clark: ok
Billy: Can you confirm the password on your account?
clark: xxx
Billy: Just a moment please
clark: ok
Billy: What casino were you using?
clark: bonus
Billy: Just a moment please
clark: The message said the game had an incorrect payout programmed so I was credited
clark: but I have not received any
Billy: Message where?
You are not currently in a chat session.
You are not currently in a chat session.

Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are now chatting with 'Ian'
Ian: Hello. How may I assist you today?
clark: Ian I was just chatting with Billy and got cut off may I reconnect?
Ian: Sure
Ian: Just a moment please
Please wait while I transfer the chat to 'Billy'.
You are now chatting with 'Billy'
Billy: Where did you get that message?
clark: when I first login
clark: I ll copy and paste it hold on
clark: Please be aware you were credited back the losses accrued playing (VP) Royal Jackpot Deuces Wild from 03/01/11 to 05/09/11 on the Bonus Casino due to the game having an incorrect payout setting. The pay out for the game has now been adjusted to fair price. Feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Dear Customer,
Billy: Just a moment please
clark: ok
Billy: My manager is now checking into this for you, he is asking if you could contact us back in about 30-60 minutes.
clark: ok shoukd I ask to be reconnected with you?
clark: should
Billy: Sure that is fine.
clark: ok thanks

Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are now chatting with 'Diana'
Diana: Hello. How may I assist you today?
clark: hi, may I be reconnected with Billy please?
Diana: Just a moment please
Please wait while I transfer the chat to 'Billy'.
You are now chatting with 'Billy'
Billy: Hello. How may I assist you today?
clark: hi it's Clark again. I had received the mesage from management you were checking on?
Billy: Sure just a moment.
clark: ok
Billy: That message was placed on your account by mistake, that is why there is no credit back on your account, as per my manager.
clark: Billy please explain how that could be done by mistake
clark: I am down over 7k on that game and if I had been playing a flawed game...
Billy: The message was not meant for you account.
clark: Those were the exact dates I started and stopped playing that particular game. Quite a coincidence.
Billy: Just a moment please
clark: I have been a loyal customer for over 2 yrs and I like your site, if there is something else going on just please explain it and I will probably understand
Billy: As soon as the general manager determine that you were a pro casino player, that type of bonus does not apply to your account, so the message was a mistake.
clark: A pro casino player?
clark: What in the world are you talking about
clark: IF the payout is incorrect its incorrect
Billy: That is as per our general manager sir, I just follow orders.
Billy: Your account is not eligible for any type of bonus.
clark: Ok, how is a refund of losses on a flawed game considered a bonus?
Billy: In order for you to receive any bonus you must re deposit the amount of your payouts.
Billy: Not a bonus but a credit.
Billy: Sorry that is what I meant.
Please wait while I transfer the chat to 'Ernest'.
You are not currently in a chat session.
You are now chatting with 'Ernest'
Ernest: Hello, Clark
clark: Hi
clark: My previous chat with Billy was a bit bizarre
clark: I'm hoping you can clarify
Ernest: it appears the message you saw was placed in your account by mistake
Ernest: I apologize about that
clark: Thats what he said
clark: but how is it a mistake, those were the exact dates I played that game
Ernest: your player profile does not apply for this credit
clark: he said I was a "pro"?
clark: what does that mean?
clark: WHat is my player profile?
Ernest: yes, it's been determined you're not an average player
clark: lol
clark: thank you
clark: Is that a good thing?
clark: How am I not an average player?
Ernest: it is for you
clark: And what does that have to do with me losing in a flawed game?
Ernest: it wasn't flawed
Ernest: it was flawed for some customers
clark: Could yo please explain that statement?
Ernest: you're not one of those, if you were you'd have the credit the note was referring to
clark: you
clark: How it can be flawed for some but not others?
Ernest: because you're not an average player, your history proves it
Ernest: so the settings in your casino play are fine
clark: I assure you I am not cheating if thats what you are jinting, I was trying to figure out how to take a screenshot last night with no success.
clark: hinting
Ernest: not at all
clark: oh ok
Ernest: au contraire, I'm saying you're a very good player
clark: oh ok thanks
clark: I um
clark: I dont understand the statement,"the settings in your casino play are fine" though, do I have different settings? I am not trying to badger you, I just want to feel confident in playing at your site
clark: Are you still there?
Ernest: sorry, yes, still here
Ernest: what I mean to say was that the recreational players were the ones affected by this
Ernest: you're not one of those
clark: Once again, how can some be affected by it but not others? And I am recreational, I just have lots of free time. Have you seen how much Igamble and the games Ive played? Yes I killed full pay deuces but I got like 18 royal flushes. And its an easy game. Can't people win at your site?
Ernest: they sure can, have not been winning?
clark: I bet 500 a game sports, avg. You know this
clark: At what?
clark: I lost about 5k the other night at deuces wild
Ernest: well, you still have taken out 19k more than you've deposited
Ernest: I really don't see the problem, Clark
Ernest: the message was posted by mistake in your account, that was all
clark: The problem I see is if there was a problem with the programming in a game that was represented to be fair, everyone who played it should be compensated. How can you pick and choose because someone is ahead?
clark: Look I really like your site and you give people a fighting chance, but this doesn't fly, do you think?
Ernest: I still don't see the problem, your account was not affected by this as it has deemed to be a more professional type of play
Ernest: you still win, it's not like we're preventing you from that
clark: Ernest, winning or losing is chance, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be credited from a flawed game. Come on you have to see that. And Im really curious, what part of my play is professional?
Ernest: again, the game was NOT flawed
clark: Once again, im not trying to waste your time, I just think you guys are the best online site and I have told dozens of people.
clark: but this is crazy
Ernest: Tony, our General Manager determined your account and action is more professional
clark: That you would credit people that played that game suggest there was a problem Ernest
Ernest: for some people, not for all of them
clark: How is that possible
Ernest: I've been pretty clear on that
clark: Same payout schedule for everyone
Ernest: not all accounts are the same
clark: Oh you adjust the payout schedule is what you are saying
Ernest: and yours, like I said before, show a professional type of action and play
clark: Is that what you are saying, I have a different payout schedule?
clark: Still there Ernest?
clark: Or are you done with me?
Ernest: I'm saying your account is not a recreational account, your game pattern is different from regular accounts
Ernest: no, your payout schedule is not different from other accounts
clark: Well when you don't tell me what makes me a pro I can't defend myself very well. Second year ever betting on games by the way. Ernest, a malfunction on a game is a malfunction for all players that have played it, not just your favorites. You're on some dangerous ground here.
Ernest: we don't have favorites, but your game pattern doesn't make you eligible for the credit the note was about
clark: We aren't getting anywhere, but I have to go unfortunately. I hope this can be resolved later.
Ernest: there's nothing to resolve, sir
Ernest: This decision has been made by management
clark: Doesn't look good Ernest.
clark: But thanks for chatting
Ernest: You're welcome
clark: Bye

Pretty standard chat with casino support honestly. If you're up $19k I'm surprised you weren't cutoff long before. Be glad you got paid, I know of others that 5 Dimes is stiffing right now. I have a feeling the message you received was for them, voiding their winnings and refunding losses.

Cases like this are why the U.S. needs to authorize and regulate online gaming. If a properly regulated casino tried to pull that sort of double-switch they'd get hit with a fine and possibly worse. Adopting the position that "we've determined that you're not eligible for the advertised credit/bonus/promotion due to some criterion we've just made up on the spot" should be illegal, but that's only possible where there are enforceable laws.

Quote: JimMorrison

I have a feeling the message you received was for them, voiding their winnings and refunding losses.

I hadn't thought of that possibility.

The payout schedule they had for quite awhile paid 112%, but the variance and risk of ruin was really high and that's how I thought they justified it. It sounds like maybe they made a mistake initially setting the payouts and now want to cancel all the winning action, which would be scandalous. Especially since they are deciding to keep the losing action.

Can't say for sure because they won't give me a straight answer.

There was a thread about 5Dimes seizing 14,500 in winnings in another forum:
http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6233

The OP of that thread also said that he found a high player edge game. Maybe your case had something to do with this (the suggestion made in previous post that the message you received was actually to void winnings and refund deposit).

Quote: clarkacal

The payout schedule they had for quite awhile paid 112%, but the variance and risk of ruin was really high and that's how I thought they justified it.

112%? Not in hell can you expect to walk away with that. Besides the variance can be adjusted by using smaller value coins?

Jufo, what am I walking away with? I lost over 7k at that game. When I was playing that game my thinking was, yes they know the player has a +ev, but the player only collects on a royal flush and 4 deuces, extremely rare hands. Many players would go bust before they see a profit.

The only coin value ranged from 5 cents to 25 cents, not a big range. I figured yes it was a gamble, but I will keep a proper bankroll and give it a shot. That's what we strive to do here, right? So you say I can't expect to walk away with this 112% edge. I don't see how we can be successful in gambling if we use our logic and tools available to us to determine when we have an edge, but then submit to the mercy of the casino who you seem to believe has the right to retroactively cancel all the action on a specific game except for the profitable action, which it keeps.

Quote: clarkacal

Jufo, what am I walking away with? I lost over 7k at that game. When I was playing that game my thinking was, yes they know the player has a +ev, but the player only collects on a royal flush and 4 deuces, extremely rare hands. Many players would go bust before they see a profit.

The only coin value ranged from 5 cents to 25 cents, not a big range. I figured yes it was a gamble, but I will keep a proper bankroll and give it a shot. That's what we strive to do here, right? So you say I can't expect to walk away with this 112% edge. I don't see how we can be successful in gambling if we use our logic and tools available to us to determine when we have an edge, but then submit to the mercy of the casino who you seem to believe has the right to retroactively cancel all the action on a specific game except for the profitable action, which it keeps.

That's the business of online though, you never know when an online casino is going to stiff you. Unless it was a glitch or something they weren't aware of I would never expect to get paid on a 12% player advantage. Are you sure on your math though? That seems ridiculously high for them to offer. I know they have +EV games and I also know they've stiffed people in the past but 112% seems pretty insane to offer.

If it was on JoB or some other game with a reasonable amount of variance I would agree.

This was called "Royal Jackpot Deuces Wild", and the only paying hands were 4 deuces for 12500 coins and Royal w no deuces for 55000. With this sky high variance I did not suspect I was taking advantage, just thought it was another 5dimes gimmick. To lend support to my claim of innocence, I am down over 7k on this game. It was far from easy money.

Quote: clarkacal

If it was on JoB or some other game with a reasonable amount of variance I would agree.

This was called "Royal Jackpot Deuces Wild", and the only paying hands were 4 deuces for 12500 coins and Royal w no deuces for 55000. With this sky high variance I did not suspect I was taking advantage, just thought it was another 5dimes gimmick. To lend support to my claim of innocence, I am down over 7k on this game. It was far from easy money.

If it was truly a 12% player advantage then you knew you were taking advantage albeit with a lot of variance. I'm not faulting you for that, I take advantage of online casinos daily, but you have to know you don't always get paid. I'd go to SBR and file a dispute. If that doesn't work raise hell over at CasinoMeister, he's corrupt and on the take, but once in a while he comes thru. I don't believe WOO mediates casino disputes anymore so not much you'll gain here. SBR is your best bet since 5 Dimes has a great rating with them. If SBR doesn't come thru then I don't think you'll ever see a dime.

Actually, reviewing the thread again, I don't think you really have a claim. I forgot the original details about the message that they say wasn't meant for you. You played a game, you lost money, they sent a message saying it was going to be refunded then claim they accidentally sent it. You don't have a lot to work with here. A day ago you were still down $7k and okay with that, just because they sent you this message doesn't change anything.

5 Dimes is ripping some players off here, the ones that won on the game. Rogue casinos do this all the time, losers still lose and winners get fucked. Unfortunately you don't have a strong claim and I don't see anyone mediating and changing that.

Jim, believe it or not I am relatively new to videopoker and online gambling and can promise you I didn't feel I was taking advantage. Like I said, I just thought it was another 5dimes gimmick. I'm pretty sure casinos are loaded with table games that hold higher than their theoretical edge, and I felt 5dimes was working off of a player's lack of bankroll management.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to get Wizard involved on my behalf, I just come here often and wanted to hear WoV forum members' take on the situation.

BTW, enjoyed reading your piece on Vegas nightlife, very informative.

Quote: JimMorrison

Actually, reviewing the thread again, I don't think you really have a claim. I forgot the original details about the message that they say wasn't meant for you. You played a game, you lost money, they sent a message saying it was going to be refunded then claim they accidentally sent it. You don't have a lot to work with here. A day ago you were still down $7k and okay with that, just because they sent you this message doesn't change anything.

5 Dimes is ripping some players off here, the ones that won on the game. Rogue casinos do this all the time, losers still lose and winners get fucked. Unfortunately you don't have a strong claim and I don't see anyone mediating and changing that.

In the chat, read about why they are not refunding me losses. They say it is because I am ahead, therefore I'm a pro. You don't think discriminating based on whether you are winning or losing is unfair?

Imagine you played in an online poker tourney and you placed 4th. The winner was later determined to be cheating (a la UB awhile back) and 2nd place got moved up to first, etc. Not you though. You have won plenty of money on the site so they will keep you at 4th place and collect the difference in prize money between 3rd and 4th for themselves. Seem fair?

Quote: clarkacal

Jim, believe it or not I am relatively new to videopoker and online gambling and can promise you I didn't feel I was taking advantage. Like I said, I just thought it was another 5dimes gimmick. I'm pretty sure casinos are loaded with table games that hold higher than their theoretical edge, and I felt 5dimes was working off of a player's lack of bankroll management.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to get Wizard involved on my behalf, I just come here often and wanted to hear WoV forum members' take on the situation.

BTW, enjoyed reading your piece on Vegas nightlife, very informative.

Very rarely will you find positive games at reputable online casinos. They are very, very different than regular casinos. Very shady and if you give them any opening not to pay they won't. It's a nonstop battle. I've been doing it a long time and I still get ripped off thousands every year, just a cost of doing business. Sucks though.

It doesn't hurt to file a dispute with SBR, they really are your best bet. I just don't think anything will come of it since you never were expecting to get your losses back til they accidentally sent you the message. Take a shot with SBR, maybe you can settle for a percentage of losses or something.

Glad you liked the article, thanks!

Quote: clarkacal

In the chat, read about why they are not refunding me losses. They say it is because I am ahead, therefore I'm a pro. You don't think discriminating based on whether you are winning or losing is unfair?

Imagine you played in an online poker tourney and you placed 4th. The winner was later determined to be cheating (a la UB awhile back) and 2nd place got moved up to first, etc. Not you though. You have won plenty of money on the site so they will keep you at 4th place and collect the difference in prize money between 3rd and 4th for themselves. Seem fair?

I totally don't think it's fair but that's online casinos for you. They are very shady for the most part.

Online poker is a whole different thing, can't compare the two. Online pokersites for the most part are on the up and up, most online casinos aren't so much. Biggest difference probably is because a poker site profits off the rake. When you win at an online casino you are actually beating them and they'll accept that for small amounts if they have to but not for big amounts. And they aren't going to refund losses unless forced to by someone like SBR who can fuck with their sportsbook rating.

They got hit on that game, sent the email to the people who gave it the heaviest action. Unfortunately you weren't running a bot and didn't beat the game and shouldn't have gotten the message. Once they figured that out there was no way they were following through and giving you your losses back. They're only refunding losses in the case of winning players.

Another option you have is to charge back all your deposits if you used a credit card to deposit. If you used Neteller or Moneybookers you're screwed.

I initially deposited WU. No way I'm redepositing what I've cashed out after this fiasco, don't like that option at all.

OK so you agree it's unfair, but I understand what you're saying, that it's to be expected. I'm just going to try my best to fight it, and I am a member at SBR and pursuing it there.

Quote: clarkacal

Jufo, what am I walking away with? I lost over 7k at that game. When I was playing that game my thinking was, yes they know the player has a +ev, but the player only collects on a royal flush and 4 deuces, extremely rare hands. Many players would go bust before they see a profit.

The only coin value ranged from 5 cents to 25 cents, not a big range. I figured yes it was a gamble, but I will keep a proper bankroll and give it a shot. That's what we strive to do here, right? So you say I can't expect to walk away with this 112% edge. I don't see how we can be successful in gambling if we use our logic and tools available to us to determine when we have an edge, but then submit to the mercy of the casino who you seem to believe has the right to retroactively cancel all the action on a specific game except for the profitable action, which it keeps.

I wasn't trying to say in my post that you shouldn't be reimbursed. If they void all wagers on that game because of "malfunction" (malfunction being having too generous paytable) then it should apply equally to both winning and losing players. However, you mentioned being ahead and I'd assume you got ahead from a different game than this particular one, because otherwise they could say that the profits you already cashed out should be void as well and they could simply substract the 7K loss from your previous winnings.

I was trying to say that 112% return is so large that you should expect to run into problems with such a large edge. So their action shouldn't be a complete surprise to you, even though I agree they are taking wrong action. The best way you can make them pay is to pressure them with publicity as that is the only thing they care about.

Quote: Jufo81

I wasn't trying to say in my post that you shouldn't be reimbursed. If they void all wagers on that game because of "malfunction" (malfunction being having too generous paytable) then it should apply equally to both winning and losing players. However, you mentioned being ahead and I'd assume you got ahead from a different game than this particular one, because otherwise they could say that the profits you already cashed out should be void as well and they could simply substract the 7K loss from your previous winnings.

I was trying to say that 112% return is so large that you should expect to run into problems with such a large edge. So their action shouldn't be a complete surprise to you, even though I agree they are taking wrong action. The best way you can make them pay is to pressure them with publicity as that is the only thing they care about.

I just think that 112% isn't as big of a deal in that game as you think it is. In fact, if you had a bankroll of $50 betting 25 cents a hand in this game I would feel pretty comfortable being the house myself.

Quote: clarkacal

I just think that 112% isn't as big of a deal in that game as you think it is. In fact, if you had a bankroll of $50 betting 25 cents a hand in this game I would feel pretty comfortable being the house myself.

If you lost 7K in that game in one day, then I have a feeling that you were bankrolled enough to handle the variance of that game, at least with .25 bet per round.

Quote: Jufo81

If you lost 7K in that game in one day, then I have a feeling that you were bankrolled enough to handle the variance of that game, at least with .25 bet per round.

No it was over a period of about 3 months. Never got a royal. But why is it nefarious for me to make sure I'm properly bankrolled?

.....

Quote: gofaster87

Do you mind if I ask what the rest of the pay schedule was for that game?

0's. Only paying hands were 4 deuces and Natural Royal Flush

.....

Quote: gofaster87

That makes more sense. You lost $7000 and didnt hit deuces? I guess that would be about right since deuces in this instance should come up every 3600 hands(on average) or so and you played 5600 hands. Ive known people that only play deuces and not hit them for a month or so of consistent play.

No, I think I hit the deuces about 7 times, which was below avg. for the # of hands I played. Not hitting a royal though you can't overcome.

.....

Hmmm new thread about 5 Dimes at SBR and it's pretty damning. I would without a doubt consider them a rogue casino at this point.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry/1077979-5-dimes-takes-back-32k-casino-winnings.html

I still don't think that means Clark should get reimbursed on his winnings, unfortunately variance wasn't kind to him, but there seems to be quite a few winners that 5 Dimes is trying to stiff.

I read the thread, very interesting. 390% is a pretty obvious shot, not sure it means he shouldn't be paid though.

I filed a complaint through sbr and will post any updates. The staff seemed pretty interested and said they were getting several complaints about 5d.

I'm probably biased but I feel like I have a better case than this guy. I wasn't taking a shot, didn't think I was taking a shot, and I LOST. Very unreasonable to confiscate winnings from other players but not reimburse losses on the same game.

Quote: clarkacal

I read the thread, very interesting. 390% is a pretty obvious shot, not sure it means he shouldn't be paid though.

I filed a complaint through sbr and will post any updates. The staff seemed pretty interested and said they were getting several complaints about 5d.

I'm probably biased but I feel like I have a better case than this guy. I wasn't taking a shot, didn't think I was taking a shot, and I LOST. Very unreasonable to confiscate winnings from other players but not reimburse losses on the same game.

I agree it's unreasonable to confiscate winnings and not reimburse losing players but it happens all the time. I have never heard of a losing player successfully getting reimbursed. I hope you're the first but I don't see it.

As for taking a shot, they offered the game, they set the paytable, he took advantage of it. Personally I would have played knowing there was a reasonable chance of not getting paid. My guess is he knows that too but he's raising enough stink about it and it's coming on top of other 5Dimes problems that he might get paid. Without a doubt he should be paid, anyone who plays a game that the casino offers and wins at it should be paid but these are unregulated and often unscrupulous places that will screw you every chance you get.

Quote: JimMorrison

I agree it's unreasonable to confiscate winnings and not reimburse losing players but it happens all the time. I have never heard of a losing player successfully getting reimbursed. I hope you're the first but I don't see it.

As for taking a shot, they offered the game, they set the paytable, he took advantage of it. Personally I would have played knowing there was a reasonable chance of not getting paid. My guess is he knows that too but he's raising enough stink about it and it's coming on top of other 5Dimes problems that he might get paid. Without a doubt he should be paid, anyone who plays a game that the casino offers and wins at it should be paid but these are unregulated and often unscrupulous places that will screw you every chance you get.

It really is scary then, thinking you could play a game with no chance of collecting winnings, only being able to lose. Pretty sweet deal for the casino though.

Sounds like you've had some real horror stories with these sites...

Quote: clarkacal

It really is scary then, thinking you could play a game with no chance of collecting winnings, only being able to lose. Pretty sweet deal for the casino though.

Sounds like you've had some real horror stories with these sites...

Yeah it's a very corrupt business. I would never play online casinos for fun, too much risk of bullshit involved. I do it strictly for profit and only in +EV situations. I also know a certain percentage has to be written off to non-paying assholes. It sucks for sure but it's still profitable for me.

Quote: clarkacal

It really is scary then, thinking you could play a game with no chance of collecting winnings, only being able to lose. Pretty sweet deal for the casino though.

This is also often the situation with casino bonuses. You deposit, take a bonus and lose, fair enough. You manage to win and complete the (usually very heavy) playthrough, they accuse you of "abusing" their bonus and only return your deposit. So this situation is quite common and experienced advantage players take the risk of nonpayment into account in their EV calculations.

The funny thing is that had you not got that message by accident, you would be happy with your current situation.

Quote: Jufo81

The funny thing is that had you not got that message by accident, you would be happy with your current situation.

I was never happy, I'm down over 7k on that game.

Turns out there is quite a stir about this at some other forums too, so I probably would have found out play was being cancelled on certain games through some other channel.

I'm not sure how i feel about this. The game obviously had its pay table mis set by a gargantuan amount. There was no real chance the player could ever lose after any reasonable number of hands. The player stopped playing at a time when he just surmised that he would not be paid if the amount owed him by the casino was higher, or else he would have continued infinitely. It seems he was able to make a few thousand an hour pretty safely. Let's say the table was even more in the players advantage, that the player had won a million dollars that night Or 10 million dollars. Does anyone here think that the casino should pay the $10 million? Let me ask another hypothetical..... let's say you are playing online roulette and the first 4 spins are 00. You next bet a dollar on 00 and it wins. Again. Now you bet $10 on 00. And it wins. Again.. So there is something wrong with the program and you have identified the result will always be 00. How long and for how much money do you think you should be 'allowed' to play this obviously flawed game?
Someone implied there is some arbitration type occurrence that can occur. I think if I was an arbitrator for the guy who did not get paid his 32k on the flawed VP machine, I would have the casino give him $1000 and a letter of apology.
Can you chime in, Wiz, if you were the arbitrator, what would you rule?

Quote: SOOPOO

I'm not sure how i feel about this. The game obviously had its pay table mis set by a gargantuan amount. There was no real chance the player could ever lose after any reasonable number of hands. The player stopped playing at a time when he just surmised that he would not be paid if the amount owed him by the casino was higher, or else he would have continued infinitely. It seems he was able to make a few thousand an hour pretty safely. Let's say the table was even more in the players advantage, that the player had won a million dollars that night Or 10 million dollars. Does anyone here think that the casino should pay the $10 million? Let me ask another hypothetical..... let's say you are playing online roulette and the first 4 spins are 00. You next bet a dollar on 00 and it wins. Again. Now you bet $10 on 00. And it wins. Again.. So there is something wrong with the program and you have identified the result will always be 00. How long and for how much money do you think you should be 'allowed' to play this obviously flawed game?
Someone implied there is some arbitration type occurrence that can occur. I think if I was an arbitrator for the guy who did not get paid his 32k on the flawed VP machine, I would have the casino give him $1000 and a letter of apology.
Can you chime in, Wiz, if you were the arbitrator, what would you rule?

You must be talking about Tackleberry who turned the $50 into 32k on a 390% payout game. Yeah I agree, he knew he was getting away with something, but a casino doesn't refund players when they get drunk and double down on a 14, or when they pick up their don't bet after a point has been established.

I was playing a different game and I promise I never believed I was taking a shot. My case and Tackleberry's have been submitted to sbr for arbitration.

I was referring to the 'tackleberry' situation. My comment was in regards to that situation, not yours. According to the thread, 5dimes will not let the 'tackleberry' case go to arbitration, that's why I was asking for opinions from our forum memebers, and the Wiz most prominently. I gave my opinion in my previous post.

Quote: SOOPOO

I'm not sure how i feel about this. The game obviously had its pay table mis set by a gargantuan amount. There was no real chance the player could ever lose after any reasonable number of hands. The player stopped playing at a time when he just surmised that he would not be paid if the amount owed him by the casino was higher, or else he would have continued infinitely. It seems he was able to make a few thousand an hour pretty safely. Let's say the table was even more in the players advantage, that the player had won a million dollars that night Or 10 million dollars. Does anyone here think that the casino should pay the $10 million? Let me ask another hypothetical..... let's say you are playing online roulette and the first 4 spins are 00. You next bet a dollar on 00 and it wins. Again. Now you bet $10 on 00. And it wins. Again.. So there is something wrong with the program and you have identified the result will always be 00. How long and for how much money do you think you should be 'allowed' to play this obviously flawed game?

You have to make the distinction between a true flaw (a "malfunction" which voids all pays and plays) vs. an improperly calculated game. The example with roulette where the game itself is actually broken should void the results -- just as if the player always made a bet on a specific inside number and the program was rigged to display one plus that number.

But if the casino offers a game that is operating *according to the rules*, the casino should honor the results, even if the rules yield +EV for the player. Example - suppose on the roulette wheel 0 and 00 are both intentionally replaced by red 7s, but each spot still has 1/38 chance of appearing. Now 7 has a huge player advantage (+184%), and if the player bets that, they'll be up quite a lot in a few hours. That's the way it works in regulated environments -- a Vegas casino doesn't get to call back all its bets when it accidentally puts in a +EV table game for a week and gets killed. They didn't do their homework, that's their fault.

I understand and basically agree with everything you said. But let's enter the real world. If the game accidentally was programmed to say 'royal flush - pays $1' "pair of jacks or better" pays $4000, and you could accumulate millions in a short while. Should the casino just decide to pay out the millions and go bankrupt? Do i take your response that no matter how much money was won on the +390% EV game the casino should pay it all out, with absolutely no limit?

Quote: SOOPOO

I was referring to the 'tackleberry' situation. My comment was in regards to that situation, not yours. According to the thread, 5dimes will not let the 'tackleberry' case go to arbitration, that's why I was asking for opinions from our forum memebers, and the Wiz most prominently. I gave my opinion in my previous post.

I agree with the ME post above. Human errors, including posting a 100%+ pay table, are the casino's fault, and they should honor all losses as a result. In every game I've seen that has an electronic component in Vegas there is a sign that says "malfunction voids all pays and plays," which I'm fine with.

However, sometimes there is a gray area between human and machine failure. There is a good example of such a difficult situation in the case of a jackpot dispute at the Fiesta Henderson.

In the tackleberry situation I definitely take the player's side. It reminds of a recent case where Caesars Palace put in a $25 100.76% deuces wild game. A high roller beat it to the tune of six figures before Caesars realized their error. They honored the wins, but the bad sports that they are, tresspassed the player in retaliation.

Quote: Wizard

I agree with the ME post above. Human errors, including posting a 100%+ pay table, are the casino's fault, and they should honor all losses as a result. In every game I've seen that has an electronic component in Vegas there is a sign that says "malfunction voids all pays and plays," which I'm fine with.

However, sometimes there is a gray area between human and machine failure. There is a good example of such a difficult situation in the case of a jackpot dispute at the Fiesta Henderson.

In the tackleberry situation I definitely take the player's side. It reminds of a recent case where Caesars Palace put in a $25 100.76% deuces wild game. A high roller beat it to the tune of six figures before Caesars realized their error. They honored the wins, but the bad sports that they are, tresspassed the player in retaliation.

Thanks for your response. What do you mean 'tresspassed the player in retaliation?'

Quote: SOOPOO

I understand and basically agree with everything you said. But let's enter the real world. If the game accidentally was programmed to say 'royal flush - pays $1' "pair of jacks or better" pays $4000, and you could accumulate millions in a short while. Should the casino just decide to pay out the millions and go bankrupt? Do i take your response that no matter how much money was won on the +390% EV game the casino should pay it all out, with absolutely no limit?

If the casino put the game on the floor being aware of the bizarre payouts, and the game behaved properly with respect to those payouts, then that's not a malfunction. It's a +EV game, but it's not working improperly. It'd be no different than if the casino posted a promotion for blackjack that said "all blackjacks pay 10-1", or in my prior example of replacing zeroes with sevens on the roulette wheel.

However, if the paytable on the machine read normally but the game improperly paid out $4000 for high pairs and $1 for royals, that's a malfunction and the results should be voided.

If I offered you a bet at 10-1 odds that you couldn't predict the face of a single six-sided die, and you took the bet repeatedly and took all my money, should you be forced to give it back because I was stupid about the odds?

Quote: SOOPOO

Thanks for your response. What do you mean 'tresspassed the player in retaliation?'

Casinos are private property. To be "trespassed" means being formally notified that you are not welcome on property and are subject to removal and possible arrest by local police if you violate the order. Basically, it sounds like Caesars said "we recognize that we owe you the money so here it is, but you're no longer welcome at our casino."

Quote: SOOPOO

Thanks for your response. What do you mean 'tresspassed the player in retaliation?'

The player was told he was not allowed on any Harrah's property. I think an exemption was later granted to let him play in the WSOP at the Rio. There is a thread at another forum about it here.

Quote: Jufo81

The funny thing is that had you not got that message by accident, you would be happy with your current situation.

Quote: clarkacal

I was never happy, I'm down over 7k on that game.

So you don't agree with Wiz's signature? "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet." :p

I recall a bit similar case where Boss Media casino had a botched payout in a Blackjack side bet (it paid 4:1 if player's both initial cards were larger or equal to dealer's upcard). Some guys turned a modest deposit into five figures in that game in a matter of hours, the casino noticed quickly and confiscated winnings. The players didn't mind too much, they knew they took a free shot and it just didn't work out for them.

Quote: Jufo81

Quote: Jufo81

The funny thing is that had you not got that message by accident, you would be happy with your current situation.

Quote: clarkacal

I was never happy, I'm down over 7k on that game.

So you don't agree with Wiz's signature? "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet." :p

I absolutely agree with it. Had I won, it gets confiscated, when I lose play stands. That's not gambling or making a bet, that's being cheated.

Quote: clarkacal

Quote: Jufo81

So you don't agree with Wiz's signature? "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet." :p

I absolutely agree with it. Had I won, it gets confiscated, when I lose play stands. That's not gambling or making a bet, that's being cheated.

True but you only know it now in retrospect.

Quote: Jufo81

True but you only know it now in retrospect.

You raise a really good question here. We refer to tables, learn perfect strategies, ask advice, all to gain a razor thin advantage. Yet these percentages and strategy tables never account for the possibility that you aren't playing a fair game. It happens a good bit though. I played in a BJ game on a casino boat and later found out some tens were removed, I made a +ev sports bet with an individual I later found out would try just about anything to squirm out of a bet, and then this.

Quote: clarkacal

You raise a really good question here. We refer to tables, learn perfect strategies, ask advice, all to gain a razor thin advantage. Yet these percentages and strategy tables never account for the possibility that you aren't playing a fair game. It happens a good bit though. I played in a BJ game on a casino boat and later found out some tens were removed, I made a +ev sports bet with an individual I later found out would try just about anything to squirm out of a bet, and then this.

Yes I know what you are talking about because when you factor in computer based RNG games with virtual cards, you lose even the last quarantee of fairness which comes from physical cards and seeing the shuffle in person. For example regarding this 112% payout game it would take me quite a big leap of faith to be convinced that I will end up getting true odds for those royals and there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it if this wasn't the case.

Quote: clarkacal

Yet these percentages and strategy tables never account for the possibility that you aren't playing a fair game.

Or worse, as you found out, that you aren't playing against a fair opponent.

If the casino in question had the use of the Wizards service, I dare say they would of avoided this mess.
Instead they think they can save a few dollars by not needing someone like him.
Well now they pay. Through the nose.

If they don't pay, they need to blacklisted, no argument. The guy beat them fair and square.