Mr. Gatorade’s Lies cost me over 70k at Full Tilt

[Josem]

It is annoying that muppets are commenting on this thread and rehashing old, discredited arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
The government was able to find WMD's in Iraq so they should be able to detect Bots....oh , wait a minute...NO THEY DIDN'T.

Why do people think getting the government involved in anything would make it better?

[/ QUOTE ]

...the Govenrment's involvement in online poker would make operators safer and more accountable, in precisely the same way that that the Govenrment's involvement in offline poker made operators safer and more accountable.

Like, ffs, questions of mass destruction is just a moronic analogy with no relevance to the situation. It is self-evidently absurd to suggest that because Governments across the world made a particular mistake on a particular issue that Governments are incapable of regulating other areas.

Don't get me wrong, there can't be many people in the world who are more anti-centralised state authority than me, but this line of reasoning is just plain dumb. Like, really.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are accused of being a bot and have your money taken, what is your course of action???????

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely the question that sites are unable to answer satisfactorily. There is no clear, independent, transparent or accountable procedure. Incidentally, as far as I am aware, no site offers even one of those aspects!

[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply rubbish. The concept of taking $70k from someone, without any sense of natural justice, is clearly and self-evidently unfair.

This was discussed earlier in the thread. It is not only in courts that organisations (and, incidentally, individuals) are required to act fairly.

Claiming otherwise just shows a total ignorance of the issues involved.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with using the judicial system would be the costs.

You'd have to have a large enough amount taken (70K would be enough) to have enough for the lawyers to take their cut so you could get representation in the hearings.

You'd have to have a lawyer since the sites sure would.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also inaccurate. The Nevada Gaming Commission, presumably, does not require complainants to have lost tens of thousands of dollars for it to be worthwhile to complain.

I know that the Victorian Office of Gaming Regulation (or whatever it is called this year) here in my state of Victoria, Australia, can investigate and consider matters much more cheaply than going to a court would.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that an argument can be made that "We can take your money whenever we want, give you no recourse, and not present the evidence against you" is unconscionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds similar to the concepts of natural justice discussed earlier in the thread, which is a fairly basic concept of Anglo-derived common law (and thus is hugely relevant to Australia, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc.)


The concept that an organisation can write terms and conditions and claim the ability to take people's money like has happened in this case - with no transparency, no right of appeal, no independent consideration of the issue - is entirely alien to Western society. I can not think of any other organisation in our community which claims the same right.


[i]edit: various minor word changes - discounted/discredited in opening paragraph, and correction of a word that hit the bad word filter

[El_Hombre_Grande]

For those of you that are discounting government regulation, I agree to a certain extent that no one screws things up better than the government. However, in this instance, if the status of online poker was solidified the contracts that you play at the sites under (yes, there is an underlying agreement) would be on much firmer ground and subject to all types of legal doctrines that would help to inspire fair treatment. For example, the beatme case could end up in court to determine if the seizure was consistent with the T & C's and the laws that govern such transactions with consumers. (It still could, but there are additional obstacles and side issues to deal with, undoubtedly)

That would mean that online poker players would have the same or similiar protections as any other consumers. I don't know how anyone can argue that we are entitled to something less than an honest game when it comes to our online accounts.

Again, I use the Beatme case as an example. I still express no confidence in his/her actual innocence, but to me that is immaterial. These shady kangaroo procedures could convict Mother Theresa.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying the government would prevent sites from arbitrarily stealing money from customers and giving them no recourse. The judicial system would provide at least some recourse if you were wrongfully accused.

[/ QUOTE ]
The judicial system could do a lot more than that. It might well be the site that sues the botter and gets a damage award far in excess of the account balance. The botter could also be prosecuted and imprisoned for fraud. Before you laugh remember that cheating a B&M casino is not a joking matter in many parts of the world.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect as a matter of law. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[jack21221]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying the government would prevent sites from arbitrarily stealing money from customers and giving them no recourse. The judicial system would provide at least some recourse if you were wrongfully accused.

[/ QUOTE ]
The judicial system could do a lot more than that. It might well be the site that sues the botter and gets a damage award far in excess of the account balance. The botter could also be prosecuted and imprisoned for fraud. Before you laugh remember that cheating a B&M casino is not a joking matter in many parts of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, it does cut both ways. But if it's going to be a criminal matter, they'll need to present the evidence against you and give you a chance to defend yourself, then clear the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

If they bring a civil case, they'll still need to show all the evidence and let you tell your side of the story. The standard is a little lower, but to get your money, the site would need to show the specific damages. I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine the site would have a hard time getting more out of a botter than was in their account, except in egregious cases, or if they've just recently cashed out.

The US judicial system is far from perfect, but it's better than the indian tribe.

[Wahoo73]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, because there would be investigations. The DOJ would be able to just confiscate your funds for absolutely whatever reason they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect as a matter of law. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh21: This statement is correct only if you also presume a jurisdiction that would bring higher legal principles to bear upon the site TOS. I live in the U.S. and as much as I might like to believe that the power of America reaches everywhere - the facts are that it does not both physically and legally - and so if we're talking about the 3rd world jurisdiction of Wallaboomba then the risk to the player will be according to the practices there regardless of what the major national jurisdictions would want otherwise.

I agree with your statement completely in the context of major jurisdictions and I think there are more than a few instances of site TOS wording that would be struck down due to higher legal precepts.

However, even if we allow a context of say the state of Nevada and a major LV strip casino online site, there are still major problems involving policeability where the online game is concerned. The online game as it exists right now is NOT policeable in any real way above and beyond a "he said she said" level (as in the recent 2+2 threads). Real policeability means that the gaming authority has the ability to know what is true and what is not true such that they can sort through complaints and accusations from any entity involved - site, player, other, etc.

Here is a short list of complaints that are impossible to police at present:

1) Player complains that the site is skewing the shuffle.

A site can know they are shuffling honestly but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m shuffle and what is possible with a software shuffle where that software runs on a secure sever entirely under the control of the operator.

2) Player complains that the site is hinting house players.

A site can know they are properly containing all sensitive game information (i.e. all card info) but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m game and what is possible with a client/server setup where the client/server software and the internet connection between them is entirely within the control of the site operator.

3) Player complains that another player is using restricted software help (bots, trackers, calculators)

The other player can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

4) Player complains that other players are colluding.

The other players can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

Note that citing motive is not a reasonable defense against these accusations (i.e. the typical "The house has zero motive to cheat" argument posed many times here in 2+2 threads)

Items 3&4 can be resolved by striking all TOS wording that forbids those actions in the first place thus rendering the complaints as meaningless (popular? probably not. doable? yes very easily). The gaming authority doesn't have to lift a finger in these cases; problem solved.

Items 1&2 are much more serious and cannot be resolved with changes to the TOS because they have to do with that actual game mechanics themselves.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect as a matter of law. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh21: This statement is correct only if you also presume a jurisdiction that would bring higher legal principles to bear upon the site TOS. I live in the U.S. and as much as I might like to believe that the power of America reaches everywhere - the facts are that it does not both physically and legally - and so if we're talking about the 3rd world jurisdiction of Wallaboomba then the risk to the player will be according to the practices there regardless of what the major national jurisdictions would want otherwise.

I agree with your statement completely in the context of major jurisdictions and I think there are more than a few instances of site TOS wording that would be struck down due to higher legal precepts.

However, even if we allow a context of say the state of Nevada and a major LV strip casino online site, there are still major problems involving policeability where the online game is concerned. The online game as it exists right now is NOT policeable in any real way above and beyond a "he said she said" level (as in the recent 2+2 threads). Real policeability means that the gaming authority has the ability to know what is true and what is not true such that they can sort through complaints and accusations from any entity involved - site, player, other, etc.

Here is a short list of complaints that are impossible to police at present:

1) Player complains that the site is skewing the shuffle.

A site can know they are shuffling honestly but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m shuffle and what is possible with a software shuffle where that software runs on a secure sever entirely under the control of the operator.

2) Player complains that the site is hinting house players.

A site can know they are properly containing all sensitive game information (i.e. all card info) but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m game and what is possible with a client/server setup where the client/server software and the internet connection between them is entirely within the control of the site operator.

3) Player complains that another player is using restricted software help (bots, trackers, calculators)

The other player can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

4) Player complains that other players are colluding.

The other players can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

Note that citing motive is not a reasonable defense against these accusations (i.e. the typical "The house has zero motive to cheat" argument posed many times here in 2+2 threads)

Items 3&4 can be resolved by striking all TOS wording that forbids those actions in the first place thus rendering the complaints as meaningless (popular? probably not. doable? yes very easily). The gaming authority doesn't have to lift a finger in these cases; problem solved.

Items 1&2 are much more serious and cannot be resolved with changes to the TOS because they have to do with that actual game mechanics themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

I would like to add one thought. Another aspect of heavy regulation is that there is an added assurance of a fair game. Only nuts really think live casinos cheat players in today's environment. Sure, every game against the house is -EV, but I have no doubt that the roulette wheels, the blackjack deck are not rigged or stacked in any way other than the odds offered are simply less than one to one.

Heavy regulation could bring this type of assurances to the online games that it does not necessarily enjoy, at least to the same extent as Vegas.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect as a matter of law. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh21: This statement is correct only if you also presume a jurisdiction that would bring higher legal principles to bear upon the site TOS. I live in the U.S. and as much as I might like to believe that the power of America reaches everywhere - the facts are that it does not both physically and legally - and so if we're talking about the 3rd world jurisdiction of Wallaboomba then the risk to the player will be according to the practices there regardless of what the major national jurisdictions would want otherwise.

I agree with your statement completely in the context of major jurisdictions and I think there are more than a few instances of site TOS wording that would be struck down due to higher legal precepts.

However, even if we allow a context of say the state of Nevada and a major LV strip casino online site, there are still major problems involving policeability where the online game is concerned. The online game as it exists right now is NOT policeable in any real way above and beyond a "he said she said" level (as in the recent 2+2 threads). Real policeability means that the gaming authority has the ability to know what is true and what is not true such that they can sort through complaints and accusations from any entity involved - site, player, other, etc.

Here is a short list of complaints that are impossible to police at present:

1) Player complains that the site is skewing the shuffle.

A site can know they are shuffling honestly but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m shuffle and what is possible with a software shuffle where that software runs on a secure sever entirely under the control of the operator.

2) Player complains that the site is hinting house players.

A site can know they are properly containing all sensitive game information (i.e. all card info) but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m game and what is possible with a client/server setup where the client/server software and the internet connection between them is entirely within the control of the site operator.

3) Player complains that another player is using restricted software help (bots, trackers, calculators)

The other player can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

4) Player complains that other players are colluding.

The other players can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

Note that citing motive is not a reasonable defense against these accusations (i.e. the typical "The house has zero motive to cheat" argument posed many times here in 2+2 threads)

Items 3&4 can be resolved by striking all TOS wording that forbids those actions in the first place thus rendering the complaints as meaningless (popular? probably not. doable? yes very easily). The gaming authority doesn't have to lift a finger in these cases; problem solved.

Items 1&2 are much more serious and cannot be resolved with changes to the TOS because they have to do with that actual game mechanics themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

El_Hombre_Grande: Well it seems you're making my case for me here.

[ QUOTE ]
As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly; you've simply stated my point with different words. It's not possible to collect evidence against an online site for items 1&2; they are in fact quite IMMUNE to getting caught in the act. They can in fact hint a house player at will on the other side of the planet and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

In contrast, a live b&m operator is not even close to being IMMUNE but you seem to be trying to suggest that the security aspects are the same for both environments; they most definitely are NOT. An online poker server has plenary god-like power over the entire game quite unlike a live dealer who does NOT.

Compare the ability of a human dealer being able to select the exact composition of the first 30 cards, to the ability of software to do the same.

Compare the ability of a human dealer to then privately/secretly communicate/hint a house player, to the ability of a poker server that has a secure encrypted connection/conversation with each player at the table.

The facts are that right now any online site can hint a house player at will and there is zero chance of getting caught - they are 100% IMMUNE. The same cannot be said for the live game. The live game has a very acceptable level of policeability; the online games does NOT.

[ QUOTE ]
B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. But do not attempt to treat the security aspects of the online game and the live game as equals, for doing so makes you appear uninformed at best or biased at worst.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have the "welcoming" issue backwards here; it matters little what any operator "wants" or "welcomes"; what I am telling you is that the serious gaming authorities will say "NO" to the current online game as it exists right now and if they do not agree to police it then that game CANNOT legally be offered in that jurisdiction; what part of this do you not understand? Gambling is legal in many places; but this does not mean that all games get approved.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hand histories are certainly a record of what happened; but they have zero power to prove that a site skewed the deck or hinted a house player. Consider the power of each site to create as many prop accounts as desired. Now describe how you plan on proving hints spread across many accounts over many months/years.

So when a jurisdiction like Nevada asks a large online site what their plan is to prove they're not skewing shuffles or hinting players and the site responds with "We can't prove our honesty; everone will just have to trust us", you're saying the gaming authority will just say "Ok, we trust you to be honest as long as you cross your heart and hope to die - step on a tack break your mothers back"

[ QUOTE ]
As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same issues with players as with sites but compounded an a scale equal to the player population. In a live setting the players are visible to one and all (including house cameras). On the internet, player behavior is entirely shrouded in privacy other than their actual actions within the game. Live operators have the right to refuse play to anybody for any reason but they cannot confiscate money unless there is hard eyewitness evidence of cheating the mechanics of the game; such evidence is impossible to collect online. You'd probably never see a situation where a major gaming jurisdiction would approve terms and conditions that allowed a site operator to confiscate account funds for any reason; close the account and return the money? yes. close the account and keep the money? no.

[ QUOTE ]
Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]
Consensus does not matter to major gaming authorities; they're not trying to win a popularity contest; their job is to effectively police gambling games. If an operator cannot show them how to do that then the game will NOT be approved. What you want, what I want, what the online site wants is not important.