[Resolved] Casino Club - robot or no bot?

[The Dude]

However I do have to say that to the outsider looking in, based solely on what was posted in this thread, there was no clear evidence of Bot play (quite the opposite in fact), and it did look initially like CM was going to agree with the casino. So it is understandable that some people got quite upset about this case.

That's the thing. I rarely lay all my cards on the table - especially in public, especially in cases like this.

If people don't realize that - well that's just a bummer for them. There is always more than meets the eye.

 

[classymom]

I have to say I have been reading this thread from the beginning and I am very impressed with the way justice prevailed. I am under the belief we are innocent until proven guilty. I have always had respect for Bryan and Max and the pain they go through trying to decide whos' right. I now have a greater level after the way he has taken all info. and reversed his initial ruling.

 

[kmay87]

I think this is clearly a great result. In my experiences Casino Club have been stuck in their ways for too long, and as soon as the familiar cry of 'bot use' appears, to them it's the end of the matter.

Now, going back about two years, when bots were all the rage, I became a part of it. Quite happy to admit that. It came at a time when the appeal of huge bonuses with little chance of loss was too good for me to turn down. And ultimately it paid off. Not that I'm advocating the use of them, merely stating that for me the money I made in such a short time was frankly phenomenal.

The point here is that Casino Club were hit pretty hard during these times. I wasn't personally involved, but that had huge bonuses with low WR and high +EV with blackjack allowed. They were one of the last casinos to actually recognise and rectify the issue, so I'm guessing that's why recently they've been so uptight about the matter.

A few months ago when I played at CC I suffered a similar fate to other players. I played consistently for three or so hours, kicked out and blocked from logging in. Their support leaves a lot to be desired. Quite why a casino which has a UK phone number answers the phone in German is beyond me. With the risk of being defamatory, I questioned whether they were blocking 'advantage players' as some way of recompensating for what they lost during the bot era.

As far as I was concerned, if/when I was using bots, and it was detected, I accepted that I was in the wrong, and ultimately if the casino decides to void my winnings and keep my deposit, then it's only my fault. Except in this case, I hadn't. Their reasoning for why I must have been using a bot was because it was inconceivable for a player to play perfect strategy blackjack for that time. In terms of health warnings, that probably wouldn't be advised, but we do it anyway. As VWM mentioned earlier, those of us who like to play for hours on end are now going to be concerned of being labeled a bot because of our play.

Is technology which recognises bot play impossible? Certainly casinos have software which flags such accounts, but there would be huge invasion of privacy calls if this was further implemented. As I said, I haven't used bots in over a year, but the technology on those is ever advancing so varying play and wagers is easily controlled. If casinos built this into their download casinos, so long as it was clearly stated in the terms of use, it would be a way around it. Perhaps it's not something we want, but it's bound to come sooner or later.

I know that if I owned a casino, I'd probably advocate the use of bots, so long as a bonus wasn't involved. It gives naive players the belief they can 'beat the casino' when all they are really going to do is lose their money a little slower.

That aside, Casino Club needs to take note of some of the comments mentioned in this thread. Not wanting to go into the details of my own case, as it was satisfactorally resolved, but there are some issues they need to look at before we see yet more questionable bot calls.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As I'm sure you know tracing activity is used in everything from gambling to market trading, horse racing to credit card fraud. Whether we like it or not these traces of activity are exactly how many, many things are discovered in our digital society. Play records are not an inherently illegitimate form of data. As always it's how they are used and what one takes as "satisfactory indicators" that make the difference.

I'll give you a concrete example: a while back I handled a PAB where bot use was claimed and the proof given was a trace where the player was "playing" at about 500 hands per minute. The casino claimed that was sufficient proof that a bot was in use and I agreed with them 100%. Would anybody here claim otherwise? I seriously doubt it. And so, voila!, we have a case where the play records and the conclusions drawn from them were pretty much beyond question.

So yes, it some cases it's as close to "absolute proof" as needs be. In other cases, obviously not. In other words it's a matter of degree.

Frankly I've become convinced that I need bigger, better, stronger, faster tools to analyse these traces and probably a little schooling in how to interpret the results. In other words I want more insight into the traces, not less. Apparently that makes me unpopular with a portion of our audience, so be it. Activity traces are a valid source of data for fraud, or in this case 'bot, detection and I do support their use.



No offence VWM but don't you see that you are taking the easy road here by saying "oh my god, what might they think?" as some kind of proof that they shouldn't be looking at your activity at all? Surely you see that's just being bombastic for the fun of it.



You do realise that that implies an increased level of invasiveness into your computer don't you? If the casinos have to go to the source to prove their case then then the players are going to have to get comfy with opening up their systems to that level of prodding. And isn't it obvious that that opens up a whole other can of worms, as in serious opportunities for privacy violation? None of this comes for free, there's a price to pay whichever way it's done. Personally I'd rather have the casino looking at my play logs than at the contents of my hard drive. No question!




Again, aren't we going for the bombast button here just a little too quickly. Frankly if a casino presented that as "evidence" in a bot case I'd tell them to try a little harder. Just 'cause something _might_ happen doesn't make it the right thing to get up in arms over.



You've got that right! From what I'm seeing at the PAB end of things some of these casinos are virtually under attack from the bot users. I don't envy them their end of the business at all!

To give another example from MY REAL LIFE. I have a credit card, and it uses these behavioural traces, and I find that an astonishing FIFTY PERCENT of my transactions throw off "false positives", involving them being denied, and then having to be contacted by their fraud department to unlock my card.
To me a 50% "false positive" rate is unacceptable, and I told them, nut they simply blamed the computer, and said common sense and what I tell them is irrelevant.
When casinos start using similar behavioural tracing to spot bots, and given that they will confiscate money, "false positives" need to be eliminated.

500 hands a minute (with constant perfect play) certainly seems 100% the work of a bot, but this case involved 8 hands a minute, easily within the capabilities of a human, along with a good deal of random bet changes and a series of breaks, so despite the 14 hour session, EVERYTHING ELSE points to an adrenalin or coffee fuelled HUMAN player.
While it turned out OK in the end, the fact it went so far seems to indicate that this casino are quite prepared to unjustly confiscate winnings from innocent players so as to be sure to get 100% of the bot players.

As for intrusiveness into my PC - Well, POKER software does it, MICROSOFT does it, iTunes, etc - I don't see much difference in casinos doing something along the same lines. Many casinos already DO "invade the hard drive" upon start up, usually running a checksum on all components found within it's own program folder, but they could just as easily wander the entire drive, we would be none the wiser if they did.

 

[rockycatt]

new member

and i just want to say great read and greater respect for the dillagence
and expertiese

 

[aka23]

I'll give you a concrete example: a while back I handled a PAB where bot use was claimed and the proof given was a trace where the player was "playing" at about 500 hands per minute. The casino claimed that was sufficient proof that a bot was in use and I agreed with them 100%. Would anybody here claim otherwise? I seriously doubt it. And so, voila!, we have a case where the play records and the conclusions drawn from them were pretty much beyond question.

You wrote 500 hands per minute. Is this a typo? I don't think any software can support more than about 40 hands per minute. And most have a max speed from 4 to 25 hands per minute (Chartwell & Orbis slowest, Rival & Playtech fastest).

Perhaps you meant 500 hands per hour? If so, this certainly isn't conclusive evidence of bot play. I can maintain a speed of well over 500 hands per hour (with perfect strategy) for longer periods, and play at 1000+ hands per hour for shorter periods.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You wrote 500 hands per minute. Is this a typo? I don't think any software can support more than about 40 hands per minute. And most have a max speed from 4 to 25 hands per minute (Chartwell & Orbis slowest, Rival & Playtech fastest).

Perhaps you meant 500 hands per hour? If so, this certainly isn't conclusive evidence of bot play. I can maintain a speed of well over 500 hands per hour (with perfect strategy) for longer periods, and play at 1000+ hands per hour for shorter periods.

Perhaps an extreme case to illustrate when you can say 100% that this was no HUMAN player. No casino interface could support this, however a bot that interfaces DIRECTLY with the server, bypassing the user lobby, probably could achieve this - it would play at the maximum speed of the internet and server, however there is NO WAY this kind of speed would get past an audit.

I recall the old "free" Cassava bot, which boasted that it interfaced directly to the server, and could play at considerable speed. This, however, was in the early days, now this ability to play fast would be a distinct disadvantage.

The current bots I found seem VERY cheap, $50 to $200, which is probably why they are becoming so widespread, $200 is a give away IF you are suckered in by the "easy money" promises that are used to sell them.

Maybe the casinos have ALREADY bought the popular bots, and USED them on a "house account" to see how they might catch them. This might explain why CC in this case were so sure, despite the play history being so inconclusive.

If the bots are being developed at this pace, it will soon become nearly impossible to trace them, and maybe this is what Cryptologic had on their mind when introducing a bot version of blackjack, something MG introduced years ago as one of the big selling points of the new Viper lobby.

 

[Rusty]

Well done Bryan and Max I hope the OP has had the decency to thank you and I am certainly happy that the Casino was prepared to review this and understand they may have made a mistake.
I find it a little disingenuous of them to pay and still say they think it was a bot but there you go, we all need our comfort blankets.

Well done Kimss also for your efforts in this and all those that gave constructive arguments.

Personally I think bans on bot play should be thrown out from Casinos T&C's and their bonuses altered to not include BJ or increased WR if they think bot play could be used to gain possible +ev

This is just one case but no doubt there have been and will be plenty more which will just have a negative impact on the Casinos involved.

It also opens up the idea that the software might be being exploited and that is why the Casino is in such a spin.
Such theories may be groundless but they will always come to prominence in such cases.

How such cases impact on future business and costs the Casino or the industry as a whole is impossible to measure but they obviously put the figure at less than the amount they get to keep by shouting "bot!"

The best a bot can do is play perfect strategy which still has a house edge and the Casinos only argument against their use appears to be,
"We take money off humans faster" ...

Does that seem like a reasonable argument to confiscate winnings from a loyal customer who has previously lost like the loser he is supposed to be?

IMO all parties have come to the right conclusion here.

 

[Jufo]

I'll give you a concrete example: a while back I handled a PAB where bot use was claimed and the proof given was a trace where the player was "playing" at about 500 hands per minute. The casino claimed that was sufficient proof that a bot was in use and I agreed with them 100%. Would anybody here claim otherwise? I seriously doubt it. And so, voila!, we have a case where the play records and the conclusions drawn from them were pretty much beyond question.

Did you mean 500 hands per hour? A person familiar with blackjack can easily play 500 hands per hour without many (if any) mistakes. I am shocked to see that you would consider this a conclusive evidence against the player.

 

[SteveCut]

CM wrote:
I don't dictate what the casinos state in their terms and conditions. That's something their lawyers are paid for. I am only concerned whether the terms and conditions are fair, and that the player and casino abides by them. I can always give advice, but it is up to the casino to decide whether or not my advice makes sense.

But the problem is that the people who write these T&C's, be they casino operators or lawyers, don't know what they're doing. This is apparent from this case and also the current GoWild bonus abuse fiasco. Amongst other things they seem to believe:

1) There is such a thing as bonus abuse, (rather than poorly written T&C's).
2) Bots are a problem (rather than poorly constructed bonus schemes).
3) Also, incredibly, many seem to believe the "gamblers' fallacy"!

They do not even seem to understand the nature of their advantage.

Then when (they think) things go wrong they can renege on their obligation to pay by invoking the ludicrous clauses in their T&C's where frequently they give themselves the right to refuse to pay clients for any reason whatsoever, with or without explanation!

Maybe it's time to consider taking a more proactive role regarding T&C's? i.e. do not approve casinos with stupid T&C's. I would suggest that includes "bonus abuse" & bots.

There is so much expertise on this forum that I'm sure we could even go so far as to devise our own "CM approved" T&C's that casinos could adopt? Surely this would help cut down on the fire-fighting actions that Max is being overwhelmed with at present? Also, players would feel safer knowing that their winnings could not be confiscated at the whim of the casino, this would in turn boost business for those honest casinos that would adopt CM's terms?

 

[steinhaug]

As for intrusiveness into my PC - Well, POKER software does it, MICROSOFT does it, iTunes, etc - I don't see much difference in casinos doing something along the same lines. Many casinos already DO "invade the hard drive" upon start up, usually running a checksum on all components found within it's own program folder, but they could just as easily wander the entire drive, we would be none the wiser if they did.

Well that is why all casinos are installed via Virtual PC! Since I'm on a developer machine, I have learned the last years that very little software should be installed not to bog down the system, so naturally any Casino is in virtual mode! I know 3Dice ensured they had a tiny footprint, however I never trust anyone theese days when it comes to software. But yes, they may install whetever they like - they do it anyway - however all goes into vmWare and virtual machines!

better safe than sorry!

 

[RobWin]

I'll give you a concrete example: a while back I handled a PAB where bot use was claimed and the proof given was a trace where the player was "playing" at about 500 hands per minute. The casino claimed that was sufficient proof that a bot was in use and I agreed with them 100%. Would anybody here claim otherwise? I seriously doubt it. And so, voila!, we have a case where the play records and the conclusions drawn from them were pretty much beyond question.

That is 8.33 hands played per second, I don't see how that is even possible with the fastest servers, the fastest software and the fastest connection...you can't even say "BJ" 8.33 times per second !!

Surely you meant per hour Max...

Even that amount played per hour should work out to one hand being played every 7.20 seconds which does seem feasable...if my math is correct here or close at least !

 

[Zoozie]

500 hands/hour is just a semi-fast human playing. I can maintain over 500hands/hour at video-poker for hours. And here I can do click several cards in every hand. 500 hands/hour is not impressive.

 

[maxd]

Yes, sorry, I've looked back at the case and it was a sustained rate of 500/hr over some number of hours. Related data supported the conclusion.

I've corrected my post to indicate the error.

(Proof reading suffers after hours on the box. )

 

[Rusty]

Yes, sorry, I've looked back at the case and it was a sustained rate of 500/hr over some number of hours. Related data supported the conclusion.

I've corrected my post to indicate the error.

(Proof reading suffers after hours on the box. )

Even though that was a simple genuine error on your part Max you still obviously considered 500 hands per hour to be strong evidence as that is what you put forward as conclusive proof originally (agree 100% with casino).
Others do not see this as evidence at all.
I am not saying you are wrong or that "related data" did not show something out of the ordinary but I think it does prove just how subjective an opinion on the bot or human debate is even for someone who is trying to be neutral and objective.
I expect to see this issue crop up again soon.

 

[maxd]

No question, the subjectivity of all of this is certainly one product of this whole issue. I for one am now convinced that judging these case by what "seems reasonable" isn't sufficient.

In the first place it's obvious that skilled and dedicated players are capable of play patterns that well exceed what casual analysis might deem as "reasonable". In other words better data or more expertise are necessary to make these calls.

And secondly the scale of bot usage and the corresponding frequency of "false positives" demands better of us.

Either that, or as some have suggested, the issue of bot detection needs to be taken off the table entirely. From what we've heard and seen from the casinos though I seriously doubt whether that is an option.

 

[aka23]

Yes, sorry, I've looked back at the case and it was a sustained rate of 500/hr over some number of hours. Related data supported the conclusion.

I've corrected my post to indicate the error.

(Proof reading suffers after hours on the box. )

It is ridiculous to think 500 hands per hour is "sufficient proof that a bot was in use." And I'm shocked that you wrote that nobody here would think otherwise. A skilled BJ player who has memorized strategy tables would probably consider 500 hand/hr on the slow side. In the hours of play calculator on my site, I assume that a player who lists his skill as "Medium" can maintain 600 hands/hr. I assume players who list their skill as "High" can maintain 900 hands/hr (if the software supports higher speeds).

I don't have a problem with confiscating winnings when there is valid evidence of bot use (and terms restrict bot use). However, some of the methods of detecting bot use listed in this thread are not meaningful.

 

[maxd]

It is ridiculous to think 500 hands per hour is "sufficient proof that a bot was in use."

When it goes on for hours, when the breaks are totally regular and of fixed duration, when it is completely incongruous with the player's established play patterns, etc ... these are all good reasons used to call such play into question.

IMO, it is "ridiculous" to immediately assume the worst of us and show such scant respect for our efforts.
Mistakes made? Ya, some. Deserving of that kind of off-hand contempt? I think not.

... some of the methods of detecting bot use listed in this thread are not meaningful.

So we are discovering. Live and learn. See previous post.

 

[aka23]

When it goes on for hours, when the breaks are totally regular and of fixed duration, when it is completely incongruous with the player's established play patterns, etc ... these are all good reasons used to call such play into question.

IMO, it is "ridiculous" to immediately assume the worst of us and show such scant respect for our efforts.
Mistakes made? Ya, some. Deserving of that kind of off-hand contempt? I think not.


So we are discovering. Live and learn. See previous post.

In your original post, you did not mention that the play went on for hours, there were no breaks, or other issues. You only mentioned the rate of play and implied that 500 hands per hour alone was sufficient proof of bot use. I do respect your efforts and have defended them on other forums. However, I will correct an error, if I see one. I'd expect others to do the same to me.

 

[The Dude]

In your original post, you did not mention that the play went on for hours, there were no breaks, or other issues. You only mentioned the rate of play and implied that 500 hands per hour alone was sufficient proof of bot use. I do respect your efforts and have defended them on other forums. However, I will correct an error, if I see one. I'd expect others to do the same to me.

Just jumping in here on a Sunday evening...Max is under no obligation to state exactly what we deem as "exact" proof of bot play. You either trust us, or you don't - it's as simple as that. I think we go to great lengths to make sure what is fair is fair. Most of what we do is pretty transparent - and when it's not, we have our reasons.

The track record is pretty damn good at Casinomeister. And like in this situation, we had to relook at a number of things.

It's pretty sad that we have to be defended elsewhere. It really goes to show what a thankless job Max has - mine as well.

Further derailment...

I ought to change the PAB rules stating that 50% of any winnings recouped are donated to charity. Do you think anyone would PAB?? I think they would drop substantially.

 

[aka23]

Just jumping in here on a Sunday evening...Max is under no obligation to state exactly what we deem as "exact" proof of bot play. You either trust us, or you don't - it's as simple as that. I think we go to great lengths to make sure what is fair is fair. Most of what we do is pretty transparent - and when it's not, we have our reasons.

The statement that triggered the discussion was:

"I'll give you a concrete example: a while back I handled a PAB where bot use was claimed and the proof given was a trace where the player was "playing" at about 500 hands per hour (sustained). The casino claimed that was sufficient proof that a bot was in use and I agreed with them 100%. Would anybody here claim otherwise? I seriously doubt it. And so, voila!, we have a case where the play records and the conclusions drawn from them were pretty much beyond question."

The quote was an example to show a case where proof of bot use that was "pretty much beyond question" and specifically asked if anyone here would here would disagree that the information in the statement was sufficient proof of bot use? This instance certainly doesn't sound like a matter of trusting that there were valid reasons beyond what was listed. If it was, then there would be no point to listing the example at all.

In any case, it's a moot discussion, as it's become clear that there was indeed additional information. I'll drop the discussion.

 

[Jufo]

Just jumping in here on a Sunday evening...Max is under no obligation to state exactly what we deem as "exact" proof of bot play. You either trust us, or you don't - it's as simple as that. I think we go to great lengths to make sure what is fair is fair. Most of what we do is pretty transparent - and when it's not, we have our reasons.

Well, Max made a clear statement in post #150 that playing BJ 500 hands per hour was clear proof of bot use, which a number of forum members since then pointed out that this is not the case. I don't really see the need to get defensive about correcting this simple fact.

 

[just play]

I ought to change the PAB rules stating that 50% of any winnings recouped are donated to charity. Do you think anyone would PAB?? I think they would drop substantially.

I actually think this is a good idea. Not 50% but maybe a percentage, or whatever the person wants to donate. Twenty dollars even, can go a long way for some charities.

 

[mercy]

That's an interesting concept, maybe should be part of the process, as Max and Bryan do a tremendous service for the gambling community, it could be a pay it forward system.

After all, without them the op would receive nothing.

 

[Pinababy69]

I ought to change the PAB rules stating that 50% of any winnings recouped are donated to charity. Do you think anyone would PAB?? I think they would drop substantially.

Bryan, while 50% is way over the top (IMO)....I like the idea, and am in agreement with Just Play and Mercy. It might be something to look at in the future. Even a very small amount from each and every PaB'er could make a huge difference in the long run. I'd like to see a discussion, maybe even a poll on this, to see how others feel.