> At 1:30 pm on October 6, 2009, a dozen state and local police converged on Andre Nestor's split-level condo on a quiet, tree-lined street in Swissvale. He was dozing on his living room couch when the banging started. “State police! Open up!” The battering ram hit the door seconds later, splintering the frame and admitting a flood of cops into the house.
> Nestor says he started toward the stairs, his hands over his head, when he came face-to-face with a trooper in full riot gear. “Get on the floor!” yelled the trooper, leveling his AR-15 at Nestor's face. Nestor complied. The cop ratcheted the handcuffs on Nestor's wrists, yanked him to his feet, and marched him into the kitchen.
That seems perfectly reasonable for a non-violent crime.
Read till the end. The government seized all his money, and even though he was acquitted (or never tried), they still kept it. And the IRS is after him too.
If you go against the government, you almost never win, regardless of how innocent you are.
I'm sure that experience was the least of his problems. If it ended there, it might be a good story to tell. The legal headaches which followed were probably worse than a SWAT invasion.
Read about Phil Ivey, who used a similar "hack" to advantage play in Baccarat.
Casinos really can't have it both ways. If they want to make money from people gambling money, they need to assume the risk of losing the gamble through their own incompetence.
If they released a table game with a negative house edge (due to some mathematical miscalculation) and most of the people who played it won money, they would figure out their mistake, pull the game and everyone would keep their winnings. How is this any different?
For those that don't know about the Phil Ivey "hack," here's basically what he is accused of:
A certain card manufacturer had a defect in which there were tiny deviations in the designs on the backs of their cards.
What they would do was the dealer would show all cards face down and Ivey and his accomplice would have the dealer rotate the cards so that the designs were all the same way. Then as they would play, they would have the dealer rotate the numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9 (which are the good cards in Baccarat).
This way they could spot all of the good cards face down based on the designs on the back. Ivey made sure to request a card deck shuffler to ensure the cards weren't rotated during shuffles.
Ivey won tens of millions of dollars doing this and is now being sued by several casinos even though he never touched the cards, didn't have any kind of cheating device, and had the casino agree to every move he did.
It's not, and casinos are starting to see courts routinely deny them the least bit of sympathy when people beat them at their own games. The Borgata in Atlantic City was recently trounced in court while attempting to recoup more than $1 million in winnings from a group of Baccarat players that happened to notice that the pre-shuffled cards they were supposed to be using weren't shuffled at all.
Casinos make more than 90% of their revenue from less than 10% of players. When the exploitation of addiction is both your sole reason for existing and your primary source of income, you will find most people unsympathetic to your complaints.
It's different because normally a casino game is the end result of a number of checks and double-checks to make sure the game is square, the math is correct, and no possible cheats exist that the player can exploit.
A game that had a negative house EV would never make it past development. A slot that had a bug that paid incorrectly would (theoretically) never make it past the gaming lab. A deck of cards would be inspected for manufacturing defects before it got into Phil Ivey's hands.
Naturally problems do happen, and things do slip through once in a great while. This is why every slot in every casino has a small sign that reads
MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS
..it's written into the gaming laws, and that's the end of the story.
Casinos make money by providing games with various house edges to gamblers. Gamblers and casinos know this, and if it is unfair you have the choice to not gamble. Suppose there were a glitch with the machine that caused it NOT to pay out as it should... The casino would be liable to pay back that money to gamblers under numerous gaming laws. Would you then say that they should not have to pay it back as gamblers should assume risk when they gamble? Also, if it were found that the casino knowingly had a glitchy machine out there that did not pay out there would be people going to jail for that.
If there were a vending machine that gave me all of the money it had in it as change after hitting a combination of buttons, and I travelled to every machine in town and did this, I would be stealing. This is no different. If they calculated the house edge wrong and launched the game to players that would be a different story as the players played in good faith and it is the casino's fault that they did it wrong.
There are actually video poker machines in Nevada with a negative house edge. I'm not entirely sure why - except that your upside is limited, you have to play perfectly, and it gets you in the casino.
> Read about Phil Ivey, who used a similar "hack" to advantage play in Baccarat.
So - the slight difference there, and I'm curious whether people see this as a difference without a distinction, but Phil Ivey requested the casino to set up a scenario that would allow him to "hack" and then lied about the reasoning for doing so.
He claimed that he was "superstitious" and that's why he wanted the exact cards and shuffling machine that would allow him to win.
It's not as though he happened on this by accident and simply allowed the casino to continue making a mistake, he arranged the scenario and misrepresented his intentions in doing so.
Personally, I think if you have to lie in order to take advantage of a vendor error, your moral highground starts to crumble beneath your feet.
True, as a professional gambler, he wants to find every legitimate edge.
But if you go to them repeatedly with a sophisticated attack and take them for $22m, you have to know they're going to sue you. That's part of what they consider their legitimate edge.
If I was at a poker table and there was someone who could read the backs of the cards I would probably think they were cheating me.
Three friends and I found a broken slot machine an a Casino a few years ago the night before Thanksgiving. It was an older style slot where coins actually still paid out and the darn thing would just spit out more money they you it was supposed to. Obviously we were blown away. We would put twenty bucks in, play one or two times, and then hit payout and get between $50 and $100. So we started cashing out. A lot.
So here's the sketchy part... The machines only hold so much coin, so we kept having to have the attendent call to get the machine filled. I had seen enough movies to know how Casinos feel about this sort thing, so I would go to the bathroom and stuff the cash in my sock. The attendent started to make comments like, "wow, lucky night, huh?". This really spooked us so we eventually took off.
The four of us came in two cars so when my one friend was dropping me off at my house, we looked at other, and then took off back to the casino. When we got there there was someone else playing the machine; doing what we were doing but at a smaller scale. We probably sat and waited three hours for him to finish as he gave us a nod as he walked off.
We cashed out a few more times and then took off around 6am with a great story to tell the family at Thanksgiving dinner.
Slot machines are programmed with a table of payouts based on a rate, typically between 80 and 99%, such that the statistical expected payout overtime will be compounded at that rate. In some jurisdictions (e.g. Vegas), it is legal for the casinos to program a machine at greater than 100%. They do this to attract the players, who will attempt to find the winning machine on the floor. Random numbers still work, so not every payout wins, but over the course of the day you can get a payout. So you may have just walked away from free cash.
Source: I used to work in casino gaming (I wrote the Megapot server used for multi-casino progressives in France)
As I read the story, I shook my head in disbelief. How stupid could these people be? Hitting the same machine again and again and again, in sequence?
And once again, talking did them in. If Kane had kept it a secret and just did the Vegas circuit, hitting one casino per day for about $10K, he could still be milking the bug.
Hindsight fools me into believing that I too would've chosen more wisely in a similar situation. But consider how oblivious the director of surveillance was before he watched Kane quickly win multiple jackpots.
Perhaps someone else is exploiting a similar bug slightly less aggressively (but still far more than you or I might consider 'safe'), and won't be caught. That person may not be so stupid after all.
As programmers, we sure have a good position in society. If someone uses our buggy code to steal credit cards, the evil criminals are blamed. If someone uses our buggy code to win infinite money from a casino, the evil users that figured out the bug are blamed. If our autopilot software decides that a pilot is trying to land an A320 when he's trying to climb and the plane crashes into a forest, the pilot goes to prison, not the programmers!
And, we get this complete autonomy and immunity without any education or certification!
With great power comes great responsibility, folks.
I like your point, but you've drawn the wrong conclusion.
Those with power are the ones that make the rules. Programmers aren't the ones with power, it's the casinos or the plane manufacturers with power, so it's their rules as to who the losers are. If, somehow it was in the casino's best interest that the programmer was made the villain then I'm sure a reason would have been found.
Case in point Goldman Sachs screwing over Sergey Aleynikov, a programmer that served time because Goldman didn't want his expertise in a competitors company.
> If our autopilot software decides that a pilot is trying to land an A320 when he's trying to climb and the plane crashes into a forest, the pilot goes to prison, not the programmers!
And, we get this complete autonomy and immunity without any education or certification!
True, but flight software itself goes through very rigorous FAA certification processes. I'd rather have that than be told that the programmers who made the software have Ph.D's!
>If our autopilot software decides that a pilot is trying to land an A320 when he's trying to climb and the plane crashes into a forest, the pilot goes to prison, not the programmers!
Prison is probably the least of the pilot's problems!
It struck me how the cooperation of the casino often comes up in these stories. Here, the trick ended up relying on the casino enabling the Double Up option on request. There was a story making the rounds a few months ago on HN about a famous poker player who took a casino for millions of dollars (playing a different game) by relying on a subtle asymmetry in the back sides of their cards, and that scheme required the casino to cooperate by providing a dealer who spoke Mandarin and allowed the cards to be turned around ahead of time.
I wonder why casinos don't just refuse any sort of unusual request related to the game. Sure, it sounds like an innocent request that won't affect the payout. But how sure are you about that? Wouldn't it be safer to just set the rules and never change them on request?
I assume the answer is ultimately that legitimate high-rollers sometimes have crazy requests, and you make more money from accommodating them than you lose from cheaters. But the response from the casinos (getting this guy thrown in jail, suing the poker player I mentioned above) seems to say that they aren't really comfortable with that tradeoff.
It's nice to see a real life example of the prisoner's dilemma going against the Nash Equilibrium:
>Prosecutors had a weak hand, and they knew it. As a December 3, 2013, trial date approached, the Feds made Kane and Nestor separate but identical offers: The first one to agree to testify against the other would walk away with five years of probation and no jail time.
>The old gambling buddies had one more game to play together. It was the Prisoner's Dilemma. Without speaking, they both arrived at the optimal strategy: They refused the offer. A few months later, the Justice Department dropped the last of the charges, and they were free.
>The concept was proven in 1995, when one of the GCB's own staffers, Ron Harris, went bad. Harris modified his testing unit to covertly reprogram the EPROMs on the machines he was auditing. His new software commanded the machine to trigger a jackpot upon a particular sequence of button presses—like a Konami Code for cash.
This is actually a really interesting story that I saw on one of those "Vegas's Biggest Criminals" type shows. This Ron guy was given the job and created a device that would plug into the slot machine and check for tampering. He programmed it to check the device, mark it as clean, then insert his own code. This code allowed him to instantly win jackpots. He would have to bet a specific combination to open the jackpot. For example he had to bet 1 credit, bet 3 credits, bet 4 credits, bet 1 credit etc. I believe the sequence was like 50 steps long. He would obviously have friends play the machine to win.
Benefits to this system was that his team could spread out among many machines. If the casino wanted to check the machine, they would send Ron in and the machine would come up as clean (he developed the software to check it). The sequence was so long that it would take someone a lot of work to recognize it, and no one was likely going to stumble upon it by accident. It was really genius, however I can't remember how he got caught.
As much as I hate how casinos deal with people who find loopholes in their games, sitting down and winning "seventh jackpot in an hour and a half" is pretty silly.
Everything in moderation... But I guess you can't really expect that from a gambling addict.
Maybe this is a moral failing on my part, but I am still trying to figure out what was "wrong" about this. They found a bug. They exploited it. They asked other casinos to enable a function that allowed them to exploit it, but it was still a valid configuration for the game.
To me this sounds like IGT should have lost their shirts, but instead the NGC, local police and the IRS can recoup the loss from the individual and emerge unscathed?
I still cant see how this is wrong. But then again I think if you are good enough to count cards in blackjack you should be able to profit as well...
I worked on online casino software for several years and we had a number of bugs like this. They would usually involve someone writing a client to hit our API directly and fiddling with the xml messages. The operators would usually catch the issues within hours, turn off the game and often deny the players their winnings, if it was a legitimate win. Several people wound up in jail for exploits.
In the early days of the company it was a fairly significant problem with incidents pretty frequently. The lack of QA and a release process really bit them a few times as well. A game was put into production with the result hard coded to a win. Goes to show that just because a company makes software that deals with money and is financially successful it does not mean they are at all competent. It took 9 years for them to turn things around and transform the company into a highly effective dev shop, at least by industry standards. I am proud I was part of that. Unfortunately the industry had some major problems in 2009-2010 and they ended up having to find a buyer who even more unfortunately does not appreciate or understand developers or software development.
We did integrations with many other gambling software companies and not a single organization was what I consider competent. I would love to see a new company with serious technical chops break into the world of online gambling and school the crusty behemoths. Hard to do however because of the network effects and importance of reputation and deal making.
The article is missing the most interesting part, for me at least: how the bug worked. Not from the outside (the article has the sequence of steps to exploit the bug), but from the inside. What change in the control flow the "Double Up" feature did which caused it to remember the previous payout and multiply it by the new denomination?
It will be interesting to see what happens to casinos in the coming years.
Most people under 40 don't play slot machines, which account for a large portion of casino's revenue. Free-to-play games such as Candy Crush are far more interesting to younger players.
Vegas casinos will be fine, because gaming isn't the leading source of revenue for them. However, regional casinos depend on slots for revenues. As gambling become legal in more and more states those regional casinos will also have more competition.
These guys did this all wrong. They could have kept this going indefinitely if they found a team of people who all agreed to go in and play these machines at random times, at random casinos and never together. Better yet, rotate the people so they never go to the same casino within 6 months of their last visit so they don't get flagged for winning a jackpot every month.
Just send someone in, play for a bit and then win a jackpot and leave. $1.8k to $10k jackpots so ~$6k/casino per session per person.
You could easily get everyone to an annual $50-100k/year salary with very little play and be under the radar forever.
You would have to use people you trust since it's naturally a greedy endeavor.
I'm sure there are holes in my system, but those would be filled with a group of 10 people analyzing and iterating on it every week quite easily.
That bug probably wouldn't have existed if the code had been written in a functional language where state management was an inherent part of the whole deal.
Then again, some of these video poker systems look like a glorified Sega Genesis, and probably run under similar hardware, too.
[+] [-] colmvp|11 years ago|reply
> Nestor says he started toward the stairs, his hands over his head, when he came face-to-face with a trooper in full riot gear. “Get on the floor!” yelled the trooper, leveling his AR-15 at Nestor's face. Nestor complied. The cop ratcheted the handcuffs on Nestor's wrists, yanked him to his feet, and marched him into the kitchen.
That seems perfectly reasonable for a non-violent crime.
[+] [-] discardorama|11 years ago|reply
If you go against the government, you almost never win, regardless of how innocent you are.
[+] [-] thornofmight|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gexla|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blahblah7777|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmmayer1|11 years ago|reply
Read about Phil Ivey, who used a similar "hack" to advantage play in Baccarat.
Casinos really can't have it both ways. If they want to make money from people gambling money, they need to assume the risk of losing the gamble through their own incompetence.
If they released a table game with a negative house edge (due to some mathematical miscalculation) and most of the people who played it won money, they would figure out their mistake, pull the game and everyone would keep their winnings. How is this any different?
[+] [-] 6thSigma|11 years ago|reply
A certain card manufacturer had a defect in which there were tiny deviations in the designs on the backs of their cards.
What they would do was the dealer would show all cards face down and Ivey and his accomplice would have the dealer rotate the cards so that the designs were all the same way. Then as they would play, they would have the dealer rotate the numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9 (which are the good cards in Baccarat).
This way they could spot all of the good cards face down based on the designs on the back. Ivey made sure to request a card deck shuffler to ensure the cards weren't rotated during shuffles.
Ivey won tens of millions of dollars doing this and is now being sued by several casinos even though he never touched the cards, didn't have any kind of cheating device, and had the casino agree to every move he did.
[+] [-] downandout|11 years ago|reply
It's not, and casinos are starting to see courts routinely deny them the least bit of sympathy when people beat them at their own games. The Borgata in Atlantic City was recently trounced in court while attempting to recoup more than $1 million in winnings from a group of Baccarat players that happened to notice that the pre-shuffled cards they were supposed to be using weren't shuffled at all.
Casinos make more than 90% of their revenue from less than 10% of players. When the exploitation of addiction is both your sole reason for existing and your primary source of income, you will find most people unsympathetic to your complaints.
[+] [-] joezydeco|11 years ago|reply
A game that had a negative house EV would never make it past development. A slot that had a bug that paid incorrectly would (theoretically) never make it past the gaming lab. A deck of cards would be inspected for manufacturing defects before it got into Phil Ivey's hands.
Naturally problems do happen, and things do slip through once in a great while. This is why every slot in every casino has a small sign that reads
..it's written into the gaming laws, and that's the end of the story.[+] [-] specialp|11 years ago|reply
If there were a vending machine that gave me all of the money it had in it as change after hitting a combination of buttons, and I travelled to every machine in town and did this, I would be stealing. This is no different. If they calculated the house edge wrong and launched the game to players that would be a different story as the players played in good faith and it is the casino's fault that they did it wrong.
[+] [-] ojbyrne|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattzito|11 years ago|reply
So - the slight difference there, and I'm curious whether people see this as a difference without a distinction, but Phil Ivey requested the casino to set up a scenario that would allow him to "hack" and then lied about the reasoning for doing so.
He claimed that he was "superstitious" and that's why he wanted the exact cards and shuffling machine that would allow him to win.
It's not as though he happened on this by accident and simply allowed the casino to continue making a mistake, he arranged the scenario and misrepresented his intentions in doing so.
Personally, I think if you have to lie in order to take advantage of a vendor error, your moral highground starts to crumble beneath your feet.
[+] [-] RockyMcNuts|11 years ago|reply
http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/sport/2014-05-13/phil-ive...
It's kind of a gray area.
True, as a professional gambler, he wants to find every legitimate edge.
But if you go to them repeatedly with a sophisticated attack and take them for $22m, you have to know they're going to sue you. That's part of what they consider their legitimate edge.
If I was at a poker table and there was someone who could read the backs of the cards I would probably think they were cheating me.
[+] [-] bradly|11 years ago|reply
So here's the sketchy part... The machines only hold so much coin, so we kept having to have the attendent call to get the machine filled. I had seen enough movies to know how Casinos feel about this sort thing, so I would go to the bathroom and stuff the cash in my sock. The attendent started to make comments like, "wow, lucky night, huh?". This really spooked us so we eventually took off.
The four of us came in two cars so when my one friend was dropping me off at my house, we looked at other, and then took off back to the casino. When we got there there was someone else playing the machine; doing what we were doing but at a smaller scale. We probably sat and waited three hours for him to finish as he gave us a nod as he walked off.
We cashed out a few more times and then took off around 6am with a great story to tell the family at Thanksgiving dinner.
[+] [-] dmayle|11 years ago|reply
Source: I used to work in casino gaming (I wrote the Megapot server used for multi-casino progressives in France)
[+] [-] bmmayer1|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discardorama|11 years ago|reply
And once again, talking did them in. If Kane had kept it a secret and just did the Vegas circuit, hitting one casino per day for about $10K, he could still be milking the bug.
[+] [-] PhantomGremlin|11 years ago|reply
I'd hit one casino per day for $1000, no more. No IRS paper trail that way.
I could probably manage to survive in Vegas on $250,000 tax free per year, working a few hours a day, 5 days a week.
[+] [-] wdewind|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scobar|11 years ago|reply
Perhaps someone else is exploiting a similar bug slightly less aggressively (but still far more than you or I might consider 'safe'), and won't be caught. That person may not be so stupid after all.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jrockway|11 years ago|reply
And, we get this complete autonomy and immunity without any education or certification!
With great power comes great responsibility, folks.
[+] [-] josho|11 years ago|reply
Those with power are the ones that make the rules. Programmers aren't the ones with power, it's the casinos or the plane manufacturers with power, so it's their rules as to who the losers are. If, somehow it was in the casino's best interest that the programmer was made the villain then I'm sure a reason would have been found.
Case in point Goldman Sachs screwing over Sergey Aleynikov, a programmer that served time because Goldman didn't want his expertise in a competitors company.
[+] [-] jschmitz28|11 years ago|reply
True, but flight software itself goes through very rigorous FAA certification processes. I'd rather have that than be told that the programmers who made the software have Ph.D's!
[+] [-] Mvandenbergh|11 years ago|reply
Prison is probably the least of the pilot's problems!
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
I wonder why casinos don't just refuse any sort of unusual request related to the game. Sure, it sounds like an innocent request that won't affect the payout. But how sure are you about that? Wouldn't it be safer to just set the rules and never change them on request?
I assume the answer is ultimately that legitimate high-rollers sometimes have crazy requests, and you make more money from accommodating them than you lose from cheaters. But the response from the casinos (getting this guy thrown in jail, suing the poker player I mentioned above) seems to say that they aren't really comfortable with that tradeoff.
[+] [-] josu|11 years ago|reply
>Prosecutors had a weak hand, and they knew it. As a December 3, 2013, trial date approached, the Feds made Kane and Nestor separate but identical offers: The first one to agree to testify against the other would walk away with five years of probation and no jail time.
>The old gambling buddies had one more game to play together. It was the Prisoner's Dilemma. Without speaking, they both arrived at the optimal strategy: They refused the offer. A few months later, the Justice Department dropped the last of the charges, and they were free.
[+] [-] giarc|11 years ago|reply
This is actually a really interesting story that I saw on one of those "Vegas's Biggest Criminals" type shows. This Ron guy was given the job and created a device that would plug into the slot machine and check for tampering. He programmed it to check the device, mark it as clean, then insert his own code. This code allowed him to instantly win jackpots. He would have to bet a specific combination to open the jackpot. For example he had to bet 1 credit, bet 3 credits, bet 4 credits, bet 1 credit etc. I believe the sequence was like 50 steps long. He would obviously have friends play the machine to win.
Benefits to this system was that his team could spread out among many machines. If the casino wanted to check the machine, they would send Ron in and the machine would come up as clean (he developed the software to check it). The sequence was so long that it would take someone a lot of work to recognize it, and no one was likely going to stumble upon it by accident. It was really genius, however I can't remember how he got caught.
[+] [-] vinhboy|11 years ago|reply
Everything in moderation... But I guess you can't really expect that from a gambling addict.
[+] [-] S_A_P|11 years ago|reply
To me this sounds like IGT should have lost their shirts, but instead the NGC, local police and the IRS can recoup the loss from the individual and emerge unscathed?
I still cant see how this is wrong. But then again I think if you are good enough to count cards in blackjack you should be able to profit as well...
[+] [-] d4vlx|11 years ago|reply
In the early days of the company it was a fairly significant problem with incidents pretty frequently. The lack of QA and a release process really bit them a few times as well. A game was put into production with the result hard coded to a win. Goes to show that just because a company makes software that deals with money and is financially successful it does not mean they are at all competent. It took 9 years for them to turn things around and transform the company into a highly effective dev shop, at least by industry standards. I am proud I was part of that. Unfortunately the industry had some major problems in 2009-2010 and they ended up having to find a buyer who even more unfortunately does not appreciate or understand developers or software development.
We did integrations with many other gambling software companies and not a single organization was what I consider competent. I would love to see a new company with serious technical chops break into the world of online gambling and school the crusty behemoths. Hard to do however because of the network effects and importance of reputation and deal making.
[+] [-] cesarb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samsolomon|11 years ago|reply
Most people under 40 don't play slot machines, which account for a large portion of casino's revenue. Free-to-play games such as Candy Crush are far more interesting to younger players.
Vegas casinos will be fine, because gaming isn't the leading source of revenue for them. However, regional casinos depend on slots for revenues. As gambling become legal in more and more states those regional casinos will also have more competition.
[+] [-] GigabyteCoin|11 years ago|reply
What was he thinking winning 8 jackpots in under 2 hours? He of all people should have known that was impossible and incredibly suspicious.
He could have made millions and probably got away with it if he just spaced out his winnings between a few years rather than a few hours.
[+] [-] rodly|11 years ago|reply
Just send someone in, play for a bit and then win a jackpot and leave. $1.8k to $10k jackpots so ~$6k/casino per session per person.
You could easily get everyone to an annual $50-100k/year salary with very little play and be under the radar forever.
You would have to use people you trust since it's naturally a greedy endeavor.
I'm sure there are holes in my system, but those would be filled with a group of 10 people analyzing and iterating on it every week quite easily.
[+] [-] Scuds|11 years ago|reply
That bug probably wouldn't have existed if the code had been written in a functional language where state management was an inherent part of the whole deal.
Then again, some of these video poker systems look like a glorified Sega Genesis, and probably run under similar hardware, too.
[+] [-] j_s|11 years ago|reply
Use a Software Bug to Win Video Poker? That’s a Federal Hacking Case
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5638894
[+] [-] jredwards|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smaili|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeformed|11 years ago|reply