Suing casino
Quote: 3dfellaI deposited 500 and got 500 bonus. I turned this 1k into 1900 after wagering 900. I have 39100 left to wager instead of 19100 I should have.
Quote: 3dfellagoing to court over 1200
If you are going to court over 1200, then we must assume that this is your theoretical loss from the additional 20,000 wagering requirement. This translates to a 6% house edge.
Now, lets say that you perform your original playthrough requirement of 19,100. You will have a theoretical loss of 19,100*6% = $1,146, with a remaining balance of $1900-$1146 = $754.
If you were to play through the 39,100, then you would go broke.
If this house edge is accurate, then I would say the casino owes you $754, of which $500 was already yours. Also, if this is an accurate house edge, then it would never make sense to play for this bonus anyhow.
Please clarify.
Quote: CrystalMathIf this house edge is accurate, then I would say the casino owes you $754, of which $500 was already yours. Also, if this is an accurate house edge, then it would never make sense to play for this bonus anyhow.
That's the confusing bit -- if the edge is small enough, the difference in theo isn't worth suing for. If the edge is large enough to make the difference worthwhile to litigate (and I question whether even 1200 is worth it given opportunity costs), then the edge on the bonus is negative anyway. The edge needed to be 2.5% or smaller in order to break even on the 500 bonus vs. 20k playthrough amount, and 1.25% or smaller to break even vs. a 40k playthrough. Even at 2.5%, the maximum difference in theo between the first and second requirements is just 500. I don't see how you get to 1200 unless you're right and the edge was far too high in the first place, and then the legal argument would seem a bit strange:
Judge: "You made a bad bet, then found out it was a worse bet, and you're suing for the difference between bad and worse?"
Petitioner: "Yes, Milord."
The game is blackjack btw.
Quote: 3dfellaThis threads getting stupid now.
Ok, suspend me if you want, but..."Forrest? Forrest Gump?"
you should be suspended.Quote: beachbumbabsOk, suspend me if you want, but..."Forrest? Forrest Gump?"
I say play through the $19,200 and attempt to cashout, then you might have a case.
ive been rude to no one except the poster calling me a liar. You insult me again in a public or private forum and you will get a lot more insults.Quote: beachbumbabsWell, you come on here, you ask for advice, you're rude to everyone who has responded (none of whom have been rude to you) and then you call it all stupid. As Forrest's mama told him, "Stupid is as stupid does", which is what I was thinking about when I said the previous. Good luck to you with your IMO frivolous lawsuit. And ignoring any more insulting PM's or comments from you; please don't write me again.
Quote: 3dfellaIm not suing for the difference. Im suing for the EV amount after 20,000 wagering as per the contract or specific performance of the contract. The amount left after 40,000 doesnt come into it. However if it did it would not be a monetary issue but time and effort. There are no costs involved. This threads getting stupid now.
The game is blackjack btw.
If I'm the judge, I make you play through the remaining 19,100 handle before doing anything. I'm not going to award EV amounts after you've already started playing. You made a single 900 bet and won it, and now you're unhappy with the terms? It sounds like you're trying to run a game on the casino after getting ahead. I don't think the court will look favorably on your rejection of the casino's offer of unwinding that single 900 bet and playing for the 500 bonus on 20000 handle. From the sound of it, you and the casino never had a meeting of the minds on the terms (you thought 20k, they thought 40k), so there was never a contract to begin with and you'll lose your specific performance claim. I think the casino's offer is fair -- they're offering what you thought you were getting in the first place, and now you're rejecting those terms.
But I'm not a UK attorney, and if this whole thing is too "stupid now," you can ignore everything I've written and move on with your life.
no I'm not counting my deposit as that will be paid no matter what. As stated I don't need legal advice as I have received some already. Apologies if that sounds rude but I'm getting sick of legal and not the math advice I asked for.Quote: CrystalMathOK. You expect to lose $700 by playing through $19200. This is approximately a 3.5% house edge, which I think is very high for blackjack. If you knew that the game had a 3.5% house edge to begin with, then you were planning on starting with $1000 and losing $700, which would have cost you $200.
I say play through the $19,200 and attempt to cashout, then you might have a case.
Quote: 3dfellano I'm not counting my deposit as that will be paid no matter what. As stated I don't need legal advice as I have received some already. Apologies if that sounds rude but I'm getting sick of legal and not the math advice I asked for.
Quote: CrystalMath
You expect to lose $700 by playing through $19200. This is approximately a 3.5% house edge, which I think is very high for blackjack. If you knew that the game had a 3.5% house edge to begin with, then you were planning on starting with $1000 and losing $700, which would have cost you $200.
It is the sound mathematical advice that you are ignoring.
You are going to have a very, very difficult time using theoretical number produced by you. Every gambler has theoretic numbers and 99.9 percent of them don't work out that way.
If you played out your original $20,000 which you agree would be the minimum to fulfill the obligation as you see it, then you would at least have some current and relative statistics to apply to the rest of it. If you do that I would change your chances from very little to slightly possibly.
ZCore13
in the UK again ambiguity in consumer agreements favours the consumer as such the specific performance on the current balance is not unreasonable but again I don't need legal advice from non attorneys on a math issue. That's why it's getting stupid.Quote: MathExtremistIf I'm the judge, I make you play through the remaining 19,100 handle before doing anything. I'm not going to award EV amounts after you've already started playing. You made a single 900 bet and won it, and now you're unhappy with the terms? It sounds like you're trying to run a game on the casino after getting ahead. I don't think the court will look favorably on your rejection of the casino's offer of unwinding that single 900 bet and playing for the 500 bonus on 20000 handle. From the sound of it, you and the casino never had a meeting of the minds on the terms (you thought 20k, they thought 40k), so there was never a contract to begin with and you'll lose your specific performance claim. I think the casino's offer is fair -- they're offering what you thought you were getting in the first place, and now you're rejecting those terms.
But I'm not a UK attorney, and if this whole thing is too "stupid now," you can ignore everything I've written and move on with your life.
the casino publishes Theoretical house edges on its site which will be used. I don't need legal advice thanks.Quote: Zcore13I work for a Casino (in the U.S.) and I think you have very little chance of winning. If you are going to bring up theoretical numbers of what you believe would have happened, the Casino is going to do the same thing. Their theoretical number, which will be produced by accountants will show that they hold around 20% of every dollar wagered in blackjack.
You are going to have a very, very difficult time using theoretical number produced by you. Every gambler has theoretic numbers and 99.9 percent of them don't work out that way.
If you played out your original $20,000 which you agree would be the minimum to fulfill the obligation as you see it, then you would at least have some current and relative statistics to apply to the rest of it. If you do that I would change your chances from very little to slightly possibly.
ZCore13
Quote: 3dfellain the UK again ambiguity in consumer agreements favours the consumer as such the specific performance on the current balance is not unreasonable but again I don't need legal advice from non attorneys on a math issue. That's why it's getting stupid.
You haven't given anyone enough information to understand the math. The information that's been gleaned results in you playing a losing game in any event, except for that initial 900 win. If you're arguing specific performance, the casino can turn around and argue right back. You need to actually complete the playthrough requirement in order to qualify for the bonus and you haven't done that. What court anywhere is going to award "net present value" of a gambling proposition in mid-play?
Quote: 3dfellathe casino publishes Theoretical house edges on its site which will be used.
And what is that?
Quote: MathExtremistWhat court anywhere is going to award "net present value" of a gambling proposition in mid-play?
A court that understands contract law and anticipatory breach. This casino has told me that no matter what I do they will not pay out at 20,000 unless I reset. The terms are really clear that the wagering requirement is 20,000. In contact law I do not have to fulfill my obligations if one party refuses to fulfill theirs and lets me know their intentions. Imagine you get a job that starts next week and the employer calls you the day before and says you dont have the job. You have a contract but they say screw you! Do you turn up for work? NO! But you can still sue for loss of income.
Does blackjack count 100% toward bonus play through requirements?
It means to lose the £900 accrued and effectively start again. The edge is 0.46 and yes it counts 100%.Quote: CrystalMathWhat does it mean to reset?
Quote: 3dfellaA court that understands contract law and anticipatory breach. This casino has told me that no matter what I do they will not pay out at 20,000 unless I reset. The terms are really clear that the wagering requirement is 20,000. In contact law I do not have to fulfill my obligations if one party refuses to fulfill theirs and lets me know their intentions. Imagine you get a job that starts next week and the employer calls you the day before and says you dont have the job. You have a contract but they say screw you! Do you turn up for work? NO! But you can still sue for loss of income.
I understand detrimental reliance, but the job example is a bad one because you can't actually perform it if it's gone. Here, the clear remedy is to allow you to play through the 19100 and then cash out. Why would the judge need to do anything else?
If I understand the argument, you want the judge to allow you to skip playing the remainder of the 19100 and give you 1400 - 19100*EV, or your current win + bonus minus the expected loss on the remainder of the playthrough. You estimate that at 1200, so I assume you're playing a 1% game or so. If so, the theoretical damages from the bait-and-switch aren't 1200, but the difference between 1400 - 19100*EV and 1400 - 39100*EV, which is on the order of 200 (just like I said at first.)
Edit: you just said the edge was 0.46%. That means you want your 900 win and your 500 bonus minus the theo loss from the rest of 20000 = 1400 - 19100*0.46% = 1312.14. But if you played through the casino's intended 39100 your result would be 1220.14, a difference of 92.
You're arguing over 92 quid, and that's exactly what the casino will tell the judge. How do you respond?
Quote: Zcore13I work for a Casino (in the U.S.) and I think you have very little chance of winning. If you are going to bring up theoretical numbers of what you believe would have happened, the Casino is going to do the same thing. Their theoretical number, which will be produced by accountants will show that they hold around 20% of every dollar wagered in blackjack.
You are going to have a very, very difficult time using theoretical number produced by you. Every gambler has theoretic numbers and 99.9 percent of them don't work out that way.
If you played out your original $20,000 which you agree would be the minimum to fulfill the obligation as you see it, then you would at least have some current and relative statistics to apply to the rest of it. If you do that I would change your chances from very little to slightly possibly.
ZCore13
Further to this: Why arent I surprised that someone who works for a casino believes I have a "slight possibly" chance of success if I follow to the letter the terms sent to me? Its this level of arrogance that sees casinmeisters site littered with complaints and hundreds of players defrauded every year.
No I want specific performance but if the judge wont grant that as he feels unable to compel the casino to do so I want the damages which are not the difference but are the full amount as the casino wont pay it!Quote: MathExtremistI understand detrimental reliance, but the job example is a bad one because you can't actually perform it if it's gone. Here, the clear remedy is to allow you to play through the 19100 and then cash out. Why would the judge need to do anything else?
If I understand the argument, you want the judge to allow you to skip playing the remainder of the 19100 and give you 1400 - 19100*EV, or your current win + bonus minus the expected loss on the remainder of the playthrough. You estimate that at 1200, so I assume you're playing a 1% game or so. If so, the theoretical damages from the bait-and-switch aren't 1200, but the difference between 1400 - 19100*EV and 1400 - 39100*EV, which is on the order of 200 (just like I said at first.)
£92 is £92. Howver at the rate of £1 a hand its two weeks of my life. AND more importantly its not what I was promised. Uk law isnt like US law it costs me nothing to go to court and cases regularly are for less than £100.Quote: MathExtremist
You're arguing over 92 quid, and that's exactly what the casino will tell the judge. How do you respond?
Quote: 3dfellaNo I want specific performance but if the judge wont grant that as he feels unable to compel the casino to do so I want the damages which are not the difference but are the full amount as the casino wont pay it!
Wait a minute, though. If you actually played through the whole 40k, are you telling me you still wouldn't get your money?
The job is still there they just dont want you anymore.Quote: MathExtremistI understand detrimental reliance, but the job example is a bad one because you can't actually perform it if it's gone. Here, the clear remedy is to allow you to play through the 19100 and then cash out. Why would the judge need to do anything else?
Quote: 3dfellaI dont know. I have no reason to think they wouldnt pay out. You seem to be missing the point that that issue is a non starter as the wagering requrement is 20,000. Do you really think they would let me reset if I had lost my original bets? No, and I would have taken it on the chin.
Isn't that what you would have gone to court to argue, though? That you should be allowed to reset? You need to get the court past the notion that you're trying to have it both ways -- if you win, you sue for theo, but if you lose, you'd sue for reset. It seems that the only fair solution is to let you play out the actual 19100 balance and skip the whole theo argument. Or, apply theo to everything -- not just the remainder of the balance -- and give you 500 - 20000*0.46% = 408, but that's far less than you'd get just playing through the 40k.
You have an interesting argument with the time estimate with the win-big-then-grind strategy: 19k vs. 39k is the difference between about 80 and 160 hours at 4 hands/min, unit bets, but then the judge might just say "look, you play it or no deal, I'm not here to evaluate the value of your time." It sounds like you were prepared to spend 10 days at 8 hours/day anyway, so arguing for theo now seems you're trying to get out of the time commitment. If I'm the judge, I tell you just bet bigger and be done quicker. Yes, I know there's more variance but that's not the court's problem at all. You did, after all, start with a 900 bet.
Either way, I think you have the numbers now.
You see thats the point. The strategy was to bet big then small. If I bet big it ruins the whole strategy. I would not take this offer on to bet big. I was hoping Id get some maths help here to support that but unfortunately not. Thanks to all the helpful pmers and the genuine folks who posted and did try to help. Best to leave it there I think.Quote: MathExtremistYes, I know there's more variance but that's not the court's problem at all. You did, after all, start with a 900 bet.
Either way, I think you have the numbers now.
Quote: 3dfellaYou see thats the point. The strategy was to bet big then small. If I bet big it ruins the whole strategy. I would not take this offer on to bet big. I was hoping Id get some maths help here to support that but unfortunately not.
I gave you exactly the theoretical figure you're looking at (1314.12) and the differences between your conditional theo results and the conditional results under the casino's offer (92). If you wanted something else, you haven't been clear on what that was. And if what you want is something you can't compute by yourself, respectfully, you shouldn't be attempting this type of advantage play.
I didnt ask for an Ev figure, of course I can calculate this myself. I asked for " some ideas about how to best present this arguement to a judge. I need the judge to understand that my strategy is a two tier approach of bet big first then grind out for the win. " Is it any wonder I get frustrated?Quote: MathExtremistI gave you exactly the theoretical figure you're looking at (1314.12) and the differences between your conditional theo results and the conditional results under the casino's offer (92). If you wanted something else, you haven't been clear on what that was. And if what you want is something you can't compute by yourself, respectfully, you shouldn't be attempting this type of advantage play.
I was looking for help with ROR and two tier bust outs etc - I think that was pretty clear.
Quote: 3dfellaI was looking for help with ROR and two tier bust outs etc - I think that was pretty clear.
That was not clear at all.
Bet per hand 1: Chance of bust 0%, EV = -159.17
Bet per hand 10: Chance of bust 0.9%, EV = -157.10
Bet per hand 100: Chance of bust 39.5%, EV = -120.95
Bet per hand 400: Chance of bust 66.5%, EV = -81.07
The EVs listed above are relative to your current 1900 balance.
So even if you were to complete the wagering requirement betting 100 a hand and playing ~350 hands (~350 hands and not 391 hands because of extra wagering due to doubles and splits) you would be likely to not bust.
Quote: CrystalMathThat was not clear at all.
Agreed, and I also don't see why ROR information is relevant to the claim for relief.
Well thats fair enough and Ill accept it as I was trying not to be overtly revealing about advantage play but I certainly didnt ask for an EV calc with "how to best present this arguement to a judge" and a fair few people have pmed me and they understood it just fine.Quote: MathExtremistAgreed, and I also don't see why ROR information is relevant to the claim for relief.
Its relevant because I need to show that its impossible to bust at £1 a hand. Im dealing with a layman in the judge and it has to be spelt out.
Quote: Jufo81If you were to wager 39,100 from 1900 balance on Blackjack with 0.46% house edge, the result would be:
Bet per hand 1: Chance of bust 0%, EV = -159.17
Bet per hand 10: Chance of bust 0.9%, EV = -157.10
Bet per hand 100: Chance of bust 39.5%, EV = -120.95
Bet per hand 400: Chance of bust 66.5%, EV = -81.07
The EVs listed above are relative to your current 1900 balance.
So even if you were to complete the wagering requirement betting 100 a hand and playing ~350 hands (~350 hands and not 391 hands because of extra wagering due to doubles and splits) you would be likely to not bust.
Thanks, this is they type of thing I need. However I need to show why the chance of bust is what it is. Simply showing my numbers and saying its true wont be enough.
Quote: 3dfellaWell thats fair enough and Ill accept it as I was trying not to be overtly revealing about advantage play but I certainly didnt ask for an EV calc with "how to best present this arguement to a judge" and a fair few people have pmed me and they understood it just fine.
Its relevant because I need to show that its impossible to bust at £1 a hand. Im dealing with a layman in the judge and it has to be spelt out.
It's not impossible, just exceedingly unlikely. But even if it was impossible, I don't think it's relevant. You seem to want to argue that your time is worth something, and I understand that it really will take you a long time to play 19100 hands at £1 each (let alone 39100 hands at £1 each) but really it's your choice to play that way. You're not asking for fair compensation for your time, you're asking the court to allow you to skip putting in that time altogether. That's not a fair remedy.
Moreover, the ROR on 19100 hands at £1 each vs. 19550 hands at £2 each (for a total of £39100) is very close, so that's not a good mathematical argument in any event.
again, you dont get it.Quote: MathExtremistIt's not impossible, just exceedingly unlikely. But even if it was impossible, I don't think it's relevant. You seem to want to argue that your time is worth something, and I understand that it really will take you a long time to play 19100 hands at 1 each (let alone 39100 hands at 1 each) but really it's your choice to play that way. You're not asking for fair compensation for your time, you're asking the court to allow you to skip putting in that time altogether. That's not a fair result.
Moreover, the ROR on 19100 hands at $1 each vs. 19550 hands at $2 each (for a total of 39100) is very close, so that's not a good mathematical argument in any event.
THE ISSUE IS BREACH OF CONTRACT - 20,000 V 40,000 WAGERING REQUIREMENT. END OF STORY. I WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THIS ON IF THE TERMS THEY HAD SENT ME REFLECTED WHAT I RECEIVED. THAT IS THE POINT. NOTHING ELSE IS RELEVANT TO MY REASONS FOR BRINGING THIS CASE. I KNOW YOU DONT WANT TO SEE IT BUT I AM NOT CLAIMING FOR THE DIFFERENCE I AM CLAIMING FOR WHAT I WAS PROMISED WHICH WAS THE RELEASE OF MY FUNDS AFTER 20,000. ALL I NEED TO SHOW IS WHAT MY FUNDS WOULD BE.
Quote: 3dfellaThanks, this is they type of thing I need. However I need to show why the chance of bust is what it is. Simply showing my numbers and saying its true wont be enough.
We're back to "if you can't compute this yourself, you shouldn't be running this play." If you're ultimately going to rely on numbers you found on the Internet, and you can't explain or verify them yourself, they are not going to be credible to the court. You'll have to hire an expert to testify on your behalf and there goes your £92.
In my unsolicited opinion, your best course of action is to drop the suit and play 19550 hands at £2, eat the £92 difference in theo, and stop wasting time with the legal battle.
bollocksQuote: MathExtremistWe're back to "if you can't compute this yourself, you shouldn't be running this play." If you're ultimately going to rely on numbers you found on the Internet, and you can't explain or verify them yourself, they are not going to be credible to the court. You'll have to hire an expert to testify on your behalf and there goes your £92.
In my unsolicited opinion, your best course of action is to drop the suit and play 19550 hands at £2, eat the £92 difference in theo, and stop wasting time with the legal battle.
Quote: 3dfellaagain, you dont get it.
THE ISSUE IS BREACH OF CONTRACT - 20,000 V 40,000 WAGERING REQUIREMENT. END OF STORY. I WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THIS ON IF THE TERMS THEY HAD SENT ME REFLECTED WHAT I RECEIVED. THAT IS THE POINT. NOTHING ELSE IS RELEVANT TO MY REASONS FOR BRINGING THIS CASE. I KNOW YOU DONT WANT TO SEE IT BUT I AM NOT CLAIMING FOR THE DIFFERENCE I AM CLAIMING FOR WHAT I WAS PROMISED WHICH WAS THE RELEASE OF MY FUNDS AFTER 20,000. ALL I NEED TO SHOW IS WHAT MY FUNDS WOULD BE.
-1 for yelling.
I already told you what your funds would be, at least theoretically, and then you went off-topic and started talking about RoR and whatnot. That's totally irrelevant. But I'm not going to argue your case for you, so good luck in court.
-100 for spouting absolute shite and making up answers to questions you werent asked.Quote: MathExtremist-1 for yelling.
I already told you what your funds would be, at least theoretically, and then you went off-topic and started talking about RoR and whatnot. That's totally irrelevant. But I'm not going to argue your case for you, so good luck in court.
bollocks again
Quote: 3dfella-100 for spouting absolute shite and making up answers to questions you werent asked.
bollocks again
That's an ironic critique coming from someone who's never testified in front of a court about gambling before.
That is precisely what was behind the presumably never-to-be-answered question about who regulates those casinos.Quote: 3dfellaIts relevant because I need to show that its impossible to bust at £1 a hand. Im dealing with a layman in the judge and it has to be spelt out.
testifying before a court does not provide you with the wealth of knowledge that a contract law solicitor has nor does it qualify you to read posts because you have failed at displaying an ability to do either. Congratulations on your ability to calculate EV, you must be very proud. And to think its not as if that information is easily found.Quote: MathExtremistThat's an ironic critique coming from someone who's never testified in front of a court about gambling before.
Its the UK gambling commission who do not get involved in individual disputes, incredibly.Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is precisely what was behind the presumably never-to-be-answered question about who regulates those casinos.
