does the wizard care to offer a second opinion on another online vp dispute?

thread here:

player's log here:

short handed summary: 5 dimes casino offerd an 110+% payout video poker deuces-wild bonus machine for low denominations, 5 dimes have rule on point regarding prohibiting bot use, op claims all manual play (no use of bot) on apparent average 20k hands per day, albeit due to simplified rules the optimal strategy is ridiculously easy (hold all deuces or go for natural royal flush). 5 dimes claims bot use is clear and self evident in scrutiny of player's log. 5 dimes confiscates player's entire balance. player claims foul.

i tend to agree the player's log reflects reasonable suspicion. if the wizard is bored, he can certainly render a possible second opinion on this case..

sbr's initial ruling can be found here:

justin7's thoughtful analysis here:

tom_cowley, an extremely respected player advocate, propose a strong rebuttal in defense of the player here:

Why does the Wizard need to offer an opinion? The guy went to Beating Bonus's off the bat, no offense to my co-workers but right there is a sign of guilt.