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.