Quote from: dooglus on July 11, 2014, 04:17:48 PM

Quote from: Haves on July 11, 2014, 03:03:00 PM

If you play fair you can be sure to be treated fair! Like all the player who got their money back from the unfair bets they lose during this time.

I don't think that's the case.

Player "Arrogant" was playing a Martingale strategy.

I don't have the exact details, but it's something like this:

--
He lost bets 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6 playing 'lo'. The 0.2 bet should have won.

The house refunded the incorrect 0.2 bet only.
--

"Arrogant" ends up massively down on the deal, but if the casino wasn't (unintentionally) running a rigged game, he would never have made the bigger bets, since he was resetting on wins.

How is that fair?

The house argues "you made a losing 1.6 bet; that bet was fair; we won't refund it".
He argues "I only made the big bets because all my small bets lost; the small bets shouldn't have lost; refund the big bets".

Who is in the right here?

I think it's really difficult at this point. If you go this way you would also have to take away the profit some players made by bets they shouldn't have won.

And yes we could discuss these even more here in the forum, but if we see it a realistic way there are two opportunities to handle it another way. Dean could pay 10000 out of his own pocket to an site abuser, which I guess is also for him a lot of money, or the investors could pay for it. Both ways it will definitly hurt/destroy the site.
So I would prefer the pragmatic solution Dean provided. Why would we let an abuser destroy the site just because it seems "fair" for some people?