More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
from the doesn't-seem-right dept
Over the years, we've seen a bunch of stories about people winning computerized games in casinos, only to be told that the prize was a glitch, and the casino wouldn't pay (or wouldn't pay nearly as much). It seems to happen pretty damn frequently. Slashdot points us to the latest example, of a couple who thought they had won $11 million from a slot machine, only to have the award reduced to $1627.82 after the casino, and the state gaming authority, determined that it was a glitch. According to the casino:"The $11 million was what we call a 'reset value.' It's what the jackpot would have been after the prize was claimed."That article notes that a similar situation happened back in March, with a $42 million prize being taken away. Given how frequently this seems to happen, isn't it about time someone got to working on all these "glitches"?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More than $11 million worth of bad publicity
These companies should man-up for their mistakes and pay. If they couldn't afford to pay the full $11 Meg, they should have at least made an offer of a gee-whiz amount (something more than $1500, certainly). Settling up for a million or even a hundred thousand would have been a good move from a PR standpoint.
There should be an industry insurance or bonding system that pays up for glitches like this. Everyone would pay in and agree to abide by certain quality control standards. Payments would stay pretty low as long as a company didn't have any claims, but once they did their premiums would go way up. That would create some incentives to avoid shortcuts that lead to glitches, and it would create some industry watchdog groups who have an interest in keeping quality high.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
House always wins...
If you must gamble, stay with a game with a person. Twenty-One, Baccarat, Poker... At least you have a chance.
Or just hold your money and invest it in other endeavors that better yourself. That's the best way to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A "glitch"? Yeah right...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like Jay said,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casinos and Health Insurance
For exactly the same reasons, your health insurance company has no incentive to come through and pay for a catastrophic sort of illness, but has (for the identical reasons) every incentive to avoid paying out big. A bad run of expensive to treat illness in their insured population could absolutely kill an Insurance company, and the investors would lose their money.
The small payouts are no problem. Of course, people could self fund and make those payments for the most part and do better than they would taking out insurance. So we are sold with the idea that we need health insurance to cover us should disaster strike. But since that doesn't happen so often, it is pretty easy for Insurance companies to make the sell FOR that reason, while in reality NOT coming through should someone really get sick in an expensive way.
Yeah, it's a bummer that customers are the ones liable for the supposed mistakes of game programmers rather than the Casinos. Identically, the customers are the ones liable for any discrepancies in forms and filings for Health Insurance. In either case, nobody is going to care as long as "the house" is winning over all, but should they lose big it is the customer who stands to lose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If the casino cannot hire someone to program correctly, it should be their loss. They can always obtain insurance to cover their a$$es.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
would suggest to me that the prize could be much higher. Like how the powerball has a reset value of $20 mill.
The casino missed out on an opportunity here. Vary publicly call it a glitch and pretend to man up by giving the person the $11mill, then vary quietly fix the glitch. This way you get millions more people coming in hoping to cash in on that now non-existent glitch. They don't even have to give the full amount. A few million would do just fine.
The way it is now, a lot of people won't go believing that even if they did win big, it would be taken away. And how long until the smaller winnings get called glitches and get taken away?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just don't let Google engineering team near it
(Of course I'm being totally sarcastic. This is an open/shut case of theft.) Even if this is a glitch, so what! The Casino lost the bet. If it were me, I'd call the police, report a theft and hire a lawyer to negotiate much better terms of my payout!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reset Value?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...
Also, are they hiring monkeys to programme for them? If it were that hard to deal with errors then it'd be a miracle to boot the average PC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've always been curious...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reset Value?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thought experiment
Everyone understands that the house is responsible for shuffling the deck, but the house can somehow still claim that what the computer game says isn't what it really means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why do you think there isn't? Do you think you're the first to have thought of such a law? Those lobbyists are worth every penny the casinos pay them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: thought experiment
If you've watched the movie "21", though it's not entirely accurate, it's good to show those issues. Please don't take everything said in it to heart.
Basically, casinos do a really good job of shuffling 6 or 7 decks and ensuring that the casino has a LOT to gain before it loses.
I've yet to hear about huge payouts in the millions. You are against the pit bosses, the dealers, and the guys in the back. If you think about it, it's you versus the establishment.
Trust me, after living in Vegas for years, the odds will never be in your favor.
As I've mentioned before, the best game for it is Baccarat. At least then, the odds are closer to 50% than in Blackjack.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: thought experiment
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Casinos and Health Insurance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gambling used to be Illegal
How to win at Las Vegas
Go there, enjoy the cheap hotels and food. Don't gamble.
That way you beat the house every time.
If you really must gamble - do it on the stock exchange. On average it pays out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inb4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Casinos and Health Insurance
If a business is making a bet, there is every incentive to market the bet as being a good one for the customer, while at the same time making the bet as bad of one for the customer as possible.
The point is that Government/regulation becomes necessary to make betting fair. Somebody has to step in and say, "Sorry bud, but you made the bet, you took the money, you lost, you pay up."
It is totally unreasonable to make the customer liable for the failures of Casinos/Health Insurance companies to do due diligence on their bets. But without regulation and government, the customer due a big payout is almost never going to get a fair shake.
There just are not any market forces that force fairness in betting where the big payouts are so few and far between.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sorry, not trying to be a jerk but it's hard to feel bad for someone who didn't get as much free money as they thought they should. I thought Techdirt was against money for nothing business models?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who would...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow...
In Oklahoma, just like in most states that allow gambling, machines are checked for accuracy with every jackpot of $25,000 or more, so it's not a case of a casino attempting to renege on millions. I realize that to someone outside of the industry, it sounds hokey, but it's what happens every time, and there are very few errors.
In addition, there are signs posted at the entrance and on every single machine. The signs explicitly state that the machines will be checked and any malfunction will be decided in favor of the house. By playing, you agree to this. This isn't just a house rule; as a part of Title 31, it's the law in Oklahoma.
Regardless, these machines are so tightly tracked that there aren't that many errors. The fact that this error is newsworthy shows you how rare an error of this magnitude is. Complain about programming all you want, but there are no perfect programmers, and there is no perfect code, especially not in complicated machines.
About the 'theft', how can you steal something that someone never owned? And how is it stealing when you're following the procedure and rules that you had to agree to before you played?
I'm all for the little guy, but this isn't a case of Little Guy vs. Big Guy. It's Little Whiny Guy vs. Big Fair Guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah, it's always harder than someone who knows nothing about programming would think. But it seems to me that the ones doing this sloppy work are people who know nothing (or at least, not enough) about programming, which is probably how these errors get introduced in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: glitches
and furthermore, the user of the slot machine should know, before taking his first spin, what the maximum jackpot could be, and therefore can't demand the casino to honor sums that exceed that displayed jackpot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This sort of thing not unheard of even though...
The short version is this: If the computers at your bank have a glitch that tells you there is $11M in your checking account, should they have to make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error.
Typically the company manufacturing the gaming device will employ a third party to verify that statistically speaking all the pay tables are correct, that all wins stand a chance of coming up etc. Then the device is submitted to the Nevada gaming commission for approvals. One of the requirements for approval is that you provide them with a firmware listing and the information on where they can set breakpoints after the deal/draw/spin but before the results are processed. This allows them to manipulate the game outcomes and verify that the machine displays properly (e.g. doesn't hide a big winner by intentionally drawing a losing result)
There are generally multiple pay tables in each device. So the house can select whether they want a specific device to pay 89%, 92%, 94% etc. Identical devices sitting side by side can have different pay tables selected, though when I was involved the pay tables weren't changed very often.
Because of the large number of pay tables there are lots of combinations to test, but in general they are all well tested before the machine is approved by Nevada.
So my guess is that the bug was somewhere outside the actual game play code, and from the sounds of the size of the jackpot it may not have been a bug in the gaming device at all. It may have been a bug in the progressive controller (the system that links all the machines together so that they contribute to a common jackpot) or the central control system.
Believe it or not, that very simple looking poker/keno/9 line game is actually a very complex bit of software with extremely strict functional requirements. Some jurisdictions will take a machine being evaluated for approvals and hook it up to an outlet that is randomly switched on and off, put a bunch of credits in and let it play for several days. When not waiting for human input they can play hundreds to thousands of games every second. It has to play the games continuously and record all the outcomes properly, and it has to continue to do so no matter how many times the power is interrupted or where in the code it is executing at the time the power went away. All the while they can be standing there inserting bills or coins into the machine, even while the power is constantly cycling. If you get to the end of a few days of that and your accounting is off by a penny, you failed, you have to fix the bug and resubmit and pay another $5K to $50K to resubmit the device for approvals.
It's not always as simple as it seems, then when you throw in communication protocols and coordinating with a progressive controller and and a central control system, mistakes are possible.
I'm not sure I see it as a major problem. Sometimes there are glitches. The casinos can buy their central control systems from one place, their progressive controllers from another and their gaming devices from a dozen different manufacturers. Should they be held responsible for every glitch along the way? Is it any different than the bank computer glitch that puts millions in your checking account?
In the end, people should gamble for one reason and one reason only. Entertainment. It's like going to a movie or a Broadway show, you pay your $10 or you $100 or $1,000, you sit down and you watch the show. If you don't like how it ended, oh well, you *got* your entertainment. If it doesn't feel like it was worth the price of admission, don't go back again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow...
IF you operate in the Casino industry, have to take the good and the bad... The customers know this just as well but the Casino's can cry about it the Customers just have suck it apparently...
Glad i just play Poker... no machines, no interest to the Casino except the rake... so the Casino has only the vested interest in fair play amongst the players not themselves...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow...
It's as though you were playing poker with six decks, and when everyone showed their hands, there were thirty aces on the table. Obviously, there's been an error, and the player with the winning hand didn't actually win anything.
In some cases, the player didn't win the bet. They lost the bet but thought they won, and now they are sad. I bet Dewey was sad, too, when he thought he won. Unfortunately, when the ballots were checked, he lost.
In this case, the player did win the bet, but not for as much as they thought they did. The analogy in the comment below is a very good one:
If the computers at your bank have a glitch that tells you there is $11M in your checking account, should they have to make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If the computers at your bank have a glitch that tells you there is $11M in your checking account, should they have to make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error?
Remember, there is a limit to liability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone who gambles on machines in casinos deserves to lose
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: House always wins...
If you can't see the cards the dealer is dealing from (IE a 6 deck clear shoe, or hand dealt) don't play that table.
On the other hand, if they shuffle with an electronic shuffler, then place the shuffled deck into a clear shoe, it might still be stacked, but you have a better chance than a continuous shuffle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
so a casino has not only no incentive to fix a glitch
OH well when fewer people start gong cause they know the crooks are really gaming them...you will see this change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More to it?
"An initial prize of $1,627.82 was shown, but then the somewhat schizophrenic machine flashed up the letters CURRENT before flipping up $11,600,600.01, then switching between the two figures."
This changes things somewhat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Every game you see in a casino is software written by a developer somewhere. I wish software engineers were all perfect but they're not, and mistakes are made. We do a lot of development testing on our games. Then we send them to our QA department and test them a LOT more. Then we send them to multiple state jurisdictional labs who each do more testing. And yet some things fall through the cracks.
@Danny, you only hear about it in the news when there's a big prize. If a glitch occurs on smaller prizes they usually just give it to the patron because there's no need to generate bad will over a small sum of money. $11M and $42M are not small sums of money.
@Paul, casino games are one of the most highly regulated things we do in this country. There are a lot of rules and independent agencies in place to protect players from getting screwed by unscrupulous casinos. Most of the laws in place favor the patron. A few of those rules are in favor of the casino, including "malfunction voids all pays and plays." You can't just protect the patron.
@The software engineers reading this, that $42M dollar prize was actually $42,949,673 which (in pennies) is a number you should all be familiar with, 2^32-1. It looks like someone under-flowed an unsigned int and displayed it as the prize. Should that happen? No. Does it happen? Yes, and it's a malfunction. Did the player win $42M? No. Did they deserve $42M? No.
And while that $11,000,600 reset prize was a glitch (it should have been only $600) it was the reset value, not the award value. It is what the NEXT jackpot winner would have won, assuming nobody in the casino noticed the error and shut the machines down before then. The machine very clearly indicated to this player that they won $1627.82 and that the next prize was $11M. They only assumed they won $11M because the number was bigger. That's hardly the casinos fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Banks don't "sell" bets
It remains that this is unfair. It also remains that glitches in a bank's system cannot be compared to a slot machine.
When you transfer funds between accounts or to another user, the transfer of those funds is the functionality the bank is selling to the customer. If a glitch failed to transfer the funds, or transfered too much money, then this behavior isn't consistent with the product the bank is selling to the customer, i.e. the ability to accurately transfer funds.
In this case, the business is selling bets. The casino chooses to purchase machines from other businesses. One assumes that the machine claims that the customer *could* win 11 million dollars (at least I haven't heard otherwise).
Then the machine indicates a payoff of 11 million. This is consistent with what a user certainly hoped for when they put money into the machine. Then AFTER the fact, the business does not pay due to a fault either in configuring the machine, or in the machine itself.
Now, I have a number of problems with this. 1) How is it the customer's responsibility to insure that a machine that claims to have a possible payout of 11 million actually does? 2) If such a machine paid out 11 million because of some fault, how can one prove that it wouldn't have given the pay out of 11 million without that fault? 3) If someone needs to cover the obligation due to an error in the programming, how is it that the business that sold the machine to the casino escapes any liability?
I could go on. I don't gamble via casinos, lotteries, etc. I gamble by buying insurance. It is the same game, placing a bet, and hoping the house will pay if they lose. My In-laws lost that bet and went bankrupt when my mother-in-law got cancer. All perfectly "legal" and consistent with the law of the land, and the fine print in the contracts.
Forgive me if I find the fact that the process in this case is "legal". It once was legal to simply shoot an American Indian if you wanted to. Doesn't make it right or moral.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: glitches
And furthermore the gaming authority should require Casino's to program their slot machines to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Non comparable scenario, you have not entered an agreement with the bank that if you give them something they give you the chance to win $11M. With the casino you have and it should not be your problem if they messing up rigging the game in their favor
And let’s take the reverse of the situation, if their machines are making mistakes in the customers favour you can bet your last dollar they are making a lot more mistakes the other way around...and not heard of any casinos chasing people down to tell them the $11 dollars they thought they just won should have been $11 million and did they want it is in check or cash?
So basically any equipment failure is to the casinos favour....
So if your bank has a glitch that TAKES $11m out of your account, should they make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe then the vendors will start actually developing quality products.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: glitches
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More than $11 million worth of bad publicity
I would say lose and you would not notice this. So by that logic all the money that was spent could have been a winner but due to a glich it said that you lost. By not owning up to the payment is the same as telling some one at the black jack table sorry the card shuffler glitched and gave you the last 3 black jacks so we are taking the winnings back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$11 million worth of bad publicity
Now this is a strategy that's not going to fly, but: howabout from now on, in Colorado, anytime a slot machine player has a turn and DOESN'T win, take that dang machine on down to the Gaming Commission to be checked out.
It's only fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Anyone who gambles on machines in casinos deserves to lose
I'm not a gambler - but if you are going to play, even casino machines have much better odds than large lotteries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think that should be allowed and the casinos would stand up for those glitches and make certain they don't happen at all :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casinos are still run by the mob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not free
[ link to this | view in thread ]
B.S!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pay up - too bad for the casino
its their responsibility, and nobody elses, to keep their own machines in working order
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Next, get your facts. The casino didn't claim that the machine malfunctioned. It seems like many of you think that the casino said, 'Oh, hell, that's a ton of money! Let's get out of it! Error! Error!'. That's not what happened.
The casino said, 'Oh, it's a jackpot over $25,000. Let's turn the machine over to the Gaming Commission, as state law requires, after which we will pay out however much the Commission tells us to.'. And they did. So how evil is the casino now?
Yes, any equipment failure over $25,000 is ruled in the casino's favor. Don't like it? Gamble elsewhere. And remember, any error under $25,000 is decided in favor of the player, making this policy not as evil as you seem to think.
And last, the player agreed to the rules before playing the game. The rules included machine examinations by the Gaming Commission for large wins. So really, we're talking about someone who played by the rules, lost, and now wants to whine about the rules. And this is who you're arguing in favor of?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Banks don't "sell" bets
You're wrong in your comparison of the signs to EULAs. These signs are different from EULAs in many ways. One difference is that you can read the sign before you put down any money, which you can't do with a EULA. Another large difference is that most EULAs attempt to reduce what your rights are under the law, while these signs simply explain the law. Not casino policy. The law.
Next, the machine did not indicate a payout of $11 million. It indicted a payout of about $1,500 and then showed what the next payout would be. The player saw the two different numbers, and assumed that the larger number was the payout.
It's also important to know that the business didn't claim that the machine malfunctioned. The casino received a claim for an amount over $25,000. Per law, they turned the machine over to the Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission determined the correct payout, and the casino paid it.
To be clear, the machine was not examined for an error because the casino wanted to challenge the payout. The machine was examined for an error because the law requires it. Even if there were no question about the correct payout, the machine still would have been turned over to the Gaming Commission for inspection prior to the claim being paid.
Yes, the casino has very limited liability in these cases. Why? Because a large liability isn't necessary. Nobody is hurt if someone loses a jackpot, or receives a smaller amount than they would have liked. Errors in a casino are not like errors in a vehicle, a bank, or in an operating room. Errors in a casino don't cause harm for a player, so there simply isn't any reason to create large liabilities for the casinos.
Yes, any equipment failure over $25,000 is ruled in the casino's favor. Don't like it? Gamble elsewhere. And remember, any error under $25,000 is decided in favor of the player, making this policy relatively benign.
And last, the player agreed to the rules before playing the game. The rules included machine examinations by the Gaming Commission for large wins. So really, we're talking about someone who played by the rules, lost, and now wants to whine about the rules. And this is who you're arguing in favor of?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $11 million worth of bad publicity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: pay up - too bad for the casino
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More than $11 million worth of bad publicity
There is... it is called Errors and Omissions Insurance. I have it for my IT consulting business. There is no reason the same type of insurance couldn't cover Casinos and other financial or gaming institutions. Obviously the premiums would reflect the amount of risk involved for the type of industry it is used for. Mine is super cheap for the type of coverage.
ie: $10M coverage costs me $2500/month. A casino may be required to have insurance on $500M for the big players in Vegas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
casinos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUK'EM!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Was there a jackpot max on this-- i.e. is the max possible win $1,000,000 and they are claiming an $11M jackpot should be valid? OR is this an $11M machine that said they just won $11M?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Casinos
But they are in business and paying out occasionally brings in all the other customers who pay in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: casinos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow...
> the good and the bad...
Yep. Which is why I've always thought that card-counting should not only be legal (which it is, per the Nevada Supreme Court), but a casino shouldn't even be able to kick you out for doing it.
If they offer a game to play, they shouldn't be able to tell people they can only play it as long as they don't play very well. If a person who uses nothing other than their own god-given talents and the brain they were born with can beat the casino at its own game, then the casino should have to bear that loss.
If the player is using trickery or computers or some other outside aid, that's one thing, but if it's just their own innate skill, then the law should require the casino to honor any winnings and bar them from blacklisting such people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
> in the casino's favor. Don't like it? Gamble
> elsewhere.
Or, more reasonably, advocate to get the law changed so that it's not always in the casino's favor anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
And last, the player agreed to the rules before playing the game.
"""
C'mon Rose, be realistic. No one reads the EULA, and frankly there shouldn't even be one for slots. You put your money in, and you -might- win some money back, simple as that for the end-user.
Now if they very plainly state the maximum jackpot for the machine somewhere on the "front" of each machine, then I think the casino's liablility should be limited to THAT amount, not necessarily $25k. Yes yes, I know, laws, rules, blah blah blah, but as has been pointed out already in the comments, all of that is stacked WELL in favor of the casino.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: casinos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...
The law requires that the machine be inspected by the Gaming Commission with any win over $25,000. So yes, it does only happen when someone wins a big prize. Smalls wins aren't checked.
It's also important to know that the casino did not claim that the machine malfunctioned. The casino received a claim for an amount over $25,000, and turned the machine over to the Gaming Commission, as they are required to do by law. The Gaming Commission examined the machine, determined the correct payout, and the casino paid it.
To be clear, the machine was not examined for an error because the casino wanted to challenge the payout. The machine was examined for an error because the law requires it. Even if there were no question about the correct payout, the machine still would have been turned over to the Gaming Commission for inspection prior to the claim being paid.
Last, there are signs explaining this policy posted at the entrance and on every single machine. The signs explicitly state that the machines will be checked and any malfunction will be decided in favor of the house. By playing, you agree to this. This isn't just a house rule; it's the law.
So you see, not so evil. More like an unpopular call by a ref in a game with a team you hate and an likely underdog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: pay up - too bad for the casino
Simple, right? This isn't about hating the casino and wanting them to pay out, this is about honesty. This 'winner' is not being honest because they are fully aware of the max payout and to demand more than the max, to sue over it.. that won't fly in court.
I hope this dose of reality has changed your mind. Not liking the casino is not justification for letting this woman defraud them. She is fully aware of what her max payout would have been, its up there on the machine itself in big letters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You would boycott a casino that failed to give out millions from a machine with a ten thousand dollar grand prize?
I hope you aren't part of the legal system and never sit on a jury. You aren't interested in the law or the truth, you are interested in punishing the casino for something that is not their fault in any way. Glitches happen and this one is perfectly obvious.
Your words make you look like a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
programming
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: casinos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
One difference is that you can read the sign before you put down any money, which you can't do with a EULA.
Another large difference is that most EULAs attempt to reduce what your rights are under the law, while these signs simply explain what the law is. Not casino policy. The law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...
I don't know about that. It seems more like a call by a ref who's working for your opponent. I mean how objective is the gaming commission, really? Whose interests are they out to protect, the gambler's? I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: casinos
AC on this occasion because I'm an insider.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Similar cases
There was a case in New Mexico about 12 years ago where a person hit a large wide-area jackpot and didn't get paid because it was ruled there was a malfunction. Note, it wasn't the casino that made the decision, nor were they responsible for the payment. These wide-area jackpot games like Megabucks are leased to casinos for a share of the drop, and the owner of the game is responsible for paying jackpots. The owner skims off an additional 5% to fund it. In this case, the owner of the game, a large slot machine manufacturer, declared the machine had malfunctioned and refused to pay. Because of the bad publicity, the casino paid the player, even though they had no obligation to and had not collected the jackpot fund. The slot manager committed suicide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slot machines etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...
* though my sympathy for anyone who gambles is limited at best
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slot machines etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slot machines etc.
"Yes, how could there possibly be a pattern to a math-based game? It must be a scam."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i hit over 1 million tuesday night
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's really not right that the mechanisms behind these machines are so opaque. But what do the casinos care...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Indian Casions in Calif
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Indian Casions in Calif
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: GLITCH
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Few lesser-known facts about new casino
New casino which you have picked has the gambling licenses, certifications permit through the higher authority of casino world like gambling commission.
For more information: https://www.thebaynet.com/community/entertainment/few-lesser-known-facts-about-new-casino.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What do you need to do in order to have a great time at an online casino? First, choose an honest gaming club that is guaranteed to pay. If you have walked around a bunch of sites looking for information about the best gambling establishments, but still have not found the information you need, you should visit the portal rich palms casino. Only here you will find a rating of reliable casinos offering instant payouts, a huge selection of machines and an attractive bonus system. When compiling the list, we applied innovative methods of obtaining an objective assessment, and therefore we can guarantee users the reliability of the information offered. Using the data provided, you will be able to make the right decision, which will make your real money gambling comfortable, efficient and simple. Still in doubt? Go for it - and let Lady Fortuna be on your side!
[ link to this | view in thread ]