Betfair Casino bonus problem - bogus PAB - bot use

[Jufo]

Originally Posted by Komodo

First there are a skill factor. Its not that big, but there is one.
Combining that with a bots extreme speed and stamina, then you can abuse every casino out there who make generous offers or promotions.

The skill factor of BJ is absolutely zero as long as you can look at the right spot on a colored chart. If you are able to read, that's good enough. A person who is capable of setting up and configuring a bot on his computer, is probably not completely clueless about BJ strategy.

Originally Posted by Komodo

If they have proof of him using a bot, I think it is a proper reason.

Yes, but there are two things here that are problematic. First, I have seen many cases of casinos accusing players of using a bot when that has not been the case. It seems that they try to use that as an excuse to not pay winnings even if there is no evidence of bot playing.

The second thing is that before this complaint there was another complaint of Betfair confiscating winnings due to "promotional abuse" without explaining what they meant. So it seems that Betfair has taken the direction of making up excuses to confiscate winnings from bonuses. Next time they might say that they are confiscating winnings because "player played too low-house edge games with too little risk and therefore was not playing the bonus in the spirit that it was intended".

Originally Posted by Roar

The rhetorical question that comes to mind is to what extent does the prohibition of 'bots' fulfill the Casinos obligation toward 'Responsible Gambling'?

Does the 'Responsible Gambling' charter, to which BetFair are apparently fully committed, seek to reduce an individuals propensity to loss? To what extent does the prohibition on 'bot' play promote 'Responsible Gambling' and likewise reduce an individuals propensity to financial loss?

That is a VERY valid question! The casinos don't make much money out of responsible players who play carefully. It is the irresponsible players who re-deposit, chase losses and tilt, that makes the revenues for the casinos. Casinos say that they support "Responsible gaming" but at the same time they need plenty of irresponsible gaming to be able to make a profit. If you look at how bonuses work, the value of the bonus increases, the more risky you play it. How can rewarding taking big risks support the principle of responsible gaming? A bot has the advantage that it doesn't re-deposit (hopefully ), chase losses or completely tilt when it hits a losing run, where as people do. That's why using bots would fully support Resposible Gaming.

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

If a site is crazy enough to offer a player the edge. That will only invite players to abuse (take advantage of the bonuses).

So I say if a player can gain a house edge over a Casino because of the bonus structure, then they havent done their accounts right. They deserve to lose. It's not abuse.

I think they know what they are doing. It can be a good business decision to let player win a little bit because he will most likely come back and lose back those winnings plus much more. Bonuses can be used to get people addicted to playing and winning, so that they will come back much more than they would otherwise. Advantage players are just a small unfortunate side effect of this business plan.

[Komodo]

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

Not Betfair specifically.

Im talking more of players taking the playthrough to the letter and being labeled a bonus abuser.

If a site is crazy enough to offer a player the edge. That will only invite players to abuse (take advantage of the bonuses).

I dont see a bonus as a money making method. Only as a way to extend play.

Most of us realize that bonuses are there as incentives to play.

I consider it entrapment if a player is given an edge over the house.

That's not how bookmakers and casino's work, nor has it been for 100's of years. Why change now?

A BookMaker makes the "books". They are only accountants, keeping the house edge to maintain profits.


So I say if a player can gain a house edge over a Casino because of the bonus structure, then they havent done their accounts right. They deserve to lose. It's not abuse.

As for the bot thing, they should be extinct if bonuses were set up right. Who wants to lose quicker without getting the pleasure of playing the games.

Your missing the main point here. To have a few adavantage players who plays with optimal strategy and take part in a promotion is not a big deal for a casino.
To have 1500 players who signs in a and complete the wagering with bots is.

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

That's not how bookmakers and casino's work, nor has it been for 100's of years. Why change now?

A BookMaker makes the "books". They are only accountants, keeping the house edge to maintain profits.

As for this sentences, I dont know what you are talking about.
There has always been casino games and bookmaker odds that has been possible to beat for players who know what they are doing.

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

I consider it entrapment if a player is given an edge over the house.

And as I said earlier. The bonus doesnt automatically give the player an edge since you still have to know how to play these games with optimal strategy.
90-95% of the players wont play with optimal strategy without bot help.

Originally Posted by Jufo

The skill factor of BJ is absolutely zero as long as you can look at the right spot on a colored chart. If you are able to read, that's good enough. A person who is capable of setting up and configuring a bot on his computer, is probably not completely clueless about BJ strategy.

Lets take a more complicated example than blackjack then.
Can you play optimal strategy in casinoholdem without assistance or strategy calculators?
About zero chance!
That game can easily be programmed into a bot as well.

[Roar]

Originally Posted by Komodo

Maybe you think poker bots and superusers should be allowed too???
After all it just saves time and effort since the games are beatable and most players will lose their money anyway?

Betfair rigthfully dont allow bots for bonus wagering.
You can make a hundred other post and explain how much you love the bots if you want, but it doesnt change the fact that it is prohibited.
If OP did use a bot he deserve to lose his money.
To state that bot use is not an advantage is just ridiculous.

Komodo the issue I am raising is whether the BetFair 'bot' prohibition is legitimate in the context of their commitment and obligation to 'Responsible Gambling'.

I understand the obligation to 'Responsible Gambling' is voluntary and therefore BetFair is in no way legally obliged to adhere to 'Responsible Gambling' principles. But I could be mistaken. It maybe the case that BetFair is complelled to practice 'Resonsible Gambling' to retain it's licence to operate under the Maltese LGA.

If that is the case then I believe an arguable case exists that the prohibition of 'bot' play offends the terms and conditions of the Maltese LGA regulations.

You are convinced that 'bot' play offers a player the means and opportunity to wager at his best.

Logically, the prohibition of 'bot' play would then work in the opposite direction and impose a directly detrimental effect on the players best financial interests. Artificially ensuring the player makes less than optimal wagers in the Casino can hardly be described as best 'Responsible Gambling' practice.

>>

[Komodo]

Originally Posted by Roar

You are convinced that 'bot' play offers a player the means and opportunity to wager at his best.

Logically, the prohibition of 'bot' play would then work in the opposite direction and impose a directly detrimental effect on the players best financial interests. Artificially ensuring the player makes less than optimal wagers in the Casino can hardly be described as best 'Responsible Gambling' practice.

You are completely out of line here and its probably pointless to discuss this issue further.

[Komodo]

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

Its the bonus system that needs to be changed.

Open for abuse by both the site and player.

I dont see the point of using a bot if the casinos did their sums right and stopped offering off the wall bonuses.

Its more like the definition of abuse that should be more clearly defined.
As it is now, the casinos can use that term pretty much as they please.
In my opinion abuse is creating multiple accounts or doing all the play with a robot etc.
Abusing is not playing with optimal strategy and making some money as some casinos interpret it too be.

[GaryWatson]

Originally Posted by Komodo

As for this sentences, I dont know what you are talking about.
There has always been casino games and bookmaker odds that has been possible to beat for players who know what they are doing.

No, one beats a proper bookmaker. You find a good bet on, say a football game. Take your odds from the bookie, the price will go down for the next person.

Unless the bookie is gambling, he will lay off the bet with another bookie who has taken more bets for the other side. They always stay ahead of the game.

The problem is some bookies are gamblers by nature and do not lay off their bets. That is where the problem lies.

To put it into a casino perspective, some of the smaller casinos are not doing their homework on bonuses. Out comes the vague term, bonus abuse to cover the arse up they made.

Betfair is pretty stable financially, but some sites are not, some are just outright greedy.

The playthrough should be set in stone.

Betfair & other large sites can afford to offer a few extra incentives because they have the volumes to cover it but if a playthough is not enough to maintain their advantage, it is open to abuse.

It's only really those who are out to exploit bonuses who are taking the playthrough to the letter. Most see a $250 bonus as $250 bonus, they dont need a calculation which will tell them if they play so many games, they will be 2.1 % ahead, or whatever.

In that respect, the bonus system is, in many cases poorly designed. As the bonuses increase, so does the bonus abuse claims. Thats not good for anyone. They should do their sums and eliminate the issue.

As for the bots, keep the bonuses, just take a way the edge by increasing the playthrough, bonus and bot abuse becomes irrelevant.

[Komodo]

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

To put it into a casino perspective, some of the smaller casinos are not doing their homework on bonuses. Out comes the vague term, bonus abuse to cover the arse up they made.

You are dead wrong here.
They know perfectly well the exact EV for every promotion they send out.
What they dont know is how many players who will participate.
What messes things up for them with these promotions is when 1500 bot players signs up and takes advantage of the generous offer.

[GaryWatson]

Originally Posted by Komodo

You are dead wrong here.
They know perfectly well the exact EV for every promotion they send out.
What they dont know is how many players who will participate.
What messes things up for them with these promotions is when 1500 bot players signs up and takes advantage of the generous offer.

We will need to agree to disagree. I am not disputing your argument for the bots but I am on the bonus structure.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by Roar

Komodo the issue I am raising is whether the BetFair 'bot' prohibition is legitimate in the context of their commitment and obligation to 'Responsible Gambling'.

I understand the obligation to 'Responsible Gambling' is voluntary and therefore BetFair is in no way legally obliged to adhere to 'Responsible Gambling' principles. But I could be mistaken. It maybe the case that BetFair is complelled to practice 'Resonsible Gambling' to retain it's licence to operate under the Maltese LGA.

If that is the case then I believe an arguable case exists that the prohibition of 'bot' play offends the terms and conditions of the Maltese LGA regulations.

You are convinced that 'bot' play offers a player the means and opportunity to wager at his best.

Logically, the prohibition of 'bot' play would then work in the opposite direction and impose a directly detrimental effect on the players best financial interests. Artificially ensuring the player makes less than optimal wagers in the Casino can hardly be described as best 'Responsible Gambling' practice.

This is utter nonsense. Responsible gambling is about not losing more than you can afford to lose. It does not mean that you should not lose any money, or not play games in a losing manner

If Rupert Murdoch goes to a casino, and loses $100,000, that is not irresponsible for him because he is a billionaire.

By your clearly ridiculous argument, it's irresponsible to offer any other games to the player than blackjack, because they all have higher house edges, and that will make the player lose faster.

The only reason someone has a bot is because they don't want to gamble, they just want to profit from the bonus. There's nothing wrong with trying to profit from a bonus, if the casino doesn't like it they should change the bonus so that it's no longer profitable, and there's no way they can only demand players who lose.

But they can ban bots, and it makes sense for them to do so, because it's easy to identify, and those players clearly have no interest in gambling, only in bonus hunting.

Of course if betfair hadn't said "No bots allowed", then it would be unreasonable of them to complain, because the bot doesn't give a player an advantage, it plays the same strategy that a human would do. But as they have, then it's a fair cop. Casinos are entitled to implement whatever rules they wish, and providing they are clear and umabiguous, it's acceptable (e.g., 'No bonus abuse' is wishy-washy and meaningless, whereas 'No bots' is quite clear and nobody can be in any doubt as to what it means)

It's no different to saying "you must not play roulette at all having taken a bonus", that's the rule, and if you break it, you lose your bonus.

[GaryWatson]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

The only reason someone has a bot is because they don't want to gamble, they just want to profit from the bonus.

Of course if betfair hadn't said "No bots allowed", then it would be unreasonable of them to complain, because the bot doesn't give a player an advantage, it plays the same strategy that a human would do. But as they have, then it's a fair cop.

That about sums the thread up.

Originally Posted by thelawnet

Casinos are entitled to implement whatever rules they wish, and providing they are clear and umabiguous, it's acceptable (e.g., 'No bonus abuse' is wishy-washy and meaningless

This is the target for most players. Frustration gets in the way. Bonus arguments are getting far too common, and unfortunately some are justified.