Should the casino have to pay?

[ericschand]

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3772215&page=1

I've witnessed this happen before, at a casino in Calgary. I was
involved in a charity thing, and was there as a cashier.

A lady was playing the slot machines, and the lights went crazy.
Bunch of people got excited, just out of my view. She had hit
the jackpot.

Then it turned into a big mess. Yelling, screaming, and such.

According to the waitress who I was talking with, machine showed
that the lady had won. Management came out and told her that
she had not won.

It seems that the slot machines "talk" with some computer. Unless
this computer shows a win, you don't actually win. In this case, the
computer did not show the win. So the lady got angry, very angry.
She demanded her money, and they wanted her to go to a room
elsewhere to talk. She didn't want to leave the machine, as it's
the only thing showing her win.

I explained to the waitress, that as a computer guy, I can tell you
that many things can go wrong. Network, computer, software, and
so on. It's not the lady's issue about those problems. She should
get the money. Waitress wasn't sure about the lady getting her
money until I explained all the things that could go wrong. After
that she agreed, slot machine says she won, she wins. The casino
needs to have better standards then.

I don't know the amount in dispute, but do recall the jackpot ticker
was at $17,000 at the beginning of my shift.

ers

[Bobblehead]

I think the casino should pay. It isn't the patron's fault the machine failed. Perhaps if the casino put a bit more money into servicing the slot machine then this wouldn't have happened.


EDIT: Although on page 2 of the story is says the machine was clearly marked that $2500 was the maximum payout. If that is the case, and he wasn't playing with the belief that he had a chance to win the huge jackpot, then perhaps the casino has a case.

[Cowperson]

When I first read the casino case in the USA, I thought the guy was getting hosed.

However, the story reveals at the end that the machine is clearly marked as limited to a $2,500 jackpot and anything over that amount is void. The disclaimer also voids prizes won due to malfunction of the machine.

Harsh, but the casino in this case is within its rights to deny him the prize due to the malfunction.

Cowperson

[sicsun]

Good for her! if it was me i wouldn't leave the slot machine either. I'm gonna have a wild guess and say it happen, at Elbow?

[CaptainCrunch]

They wanted her to go to another room to talk eh?

A room with thick insulation, a baseball fans dream bat collection, a vise, a tub full of acid and several hacksaws.

The sign on the door called it the customer relations office.

I called it fun.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Harsh, but the casino in this case is within its rights to deny him the prize due to the malfunction.

Cowperson

The casino would have to prove it malfunctioned I would assume, not sure if the machine showing a win but the computer system not would qualify as the machine malfunctioning(not this case which was obvious the machine malfunctioned)

Seems in this case they even offered to give him the machine "jackpot" for what was essentially a loosing spin, seems fair to me.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Dan02

The casino would have to prove it malfunctioned I would assume, not sure if the machine showing a win but the computer system not would qualify as the machine malfunctioning(not this case which was obvious the machine malfunctioned)

Seems in this case they even offered to give him the machine "jackpot" for what was essentially a loosing spin, seems fair to me.

A technical report said the slot machine's computer malfunctioned, and incorrectly made it appear as if Hoffman won more than the machine is able to pay out. The slot machine has a disclaimer that says it pays a maximum of $2,500 and warns that malfunctions void all winnings, said Paul Bardacke, Sandia's lawyer.

A machine that has a visible, clearly marked disclaimer that it pays a maximum of $2,500 should be enough.

There was a technical report that indicated the machine malfunctioned.

But the first thing, to me, would be the clear disclaimer of a $2,500 maximum.

Cowperson

[Regorium]

You could easily interpret the maximum payout $2500 to mean that the machine only has 50,000 nickels to spit out before you have to talk to management and make them do the paperwork to get the rest paid out to you via check or other methods.

Pay the 1.6 mil casino, not his problem at all

I wonder how many times the machine malfunctioned causing a winning player to lose. I wonder if the casino will track down the person that was playing in this case to give them money.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Regorium

You could easily interpret the maximum payout $2500 to mean that the machine only has 50,000 nickels to spit out before you have to talk to management and make them do the paperwork to get the rest paid out to you via check or other methods.

I think I'd rather have a cheque at, say, $100 worth of nickels. The 50,000 nickels making up the posted jackpot of $2500 would weigh something in excess of 400 pounds. Then again, slot machine players, as a rule, aren't that good at math.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I wonder how many times the machine malfunctioned causing a winning player to lose. I wonder if the casino will track down the person that was playing in this case to give them money.

How long was this defective machine collecting nickels, how long
were other machines defective? In what ways does the defect
effect winning and losing?

Also, do many slot machines have a disclaimer that you can
only win $1,000 (or $2,500), but with every spin you enter the
bigger jackpot that is collected from every machine? (Which is
what the lady in the casino story above won) If so, he may
have thought he won that one, which wouldn't be unusual.

[To moderators: Can I name the casino in my story? I thought there
was a rule about bad stories, as it could adversely effect the site?]

ers

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Regorium

You could easily interpret the maximum payout $2500 to mean that the machine only has 50,000 nickels to spit out before you have to talk to management and make them do the paperwork to get the rest paid out to you via check or other methods.

IMO, that isn't a reasonable expectation, so would not fly in court.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by ericschand

Also, do many slot machines have a disclaimer that you can
only win $1,000 (or $2,500), but with every spin you enter the
bigger jackpot that is collected from every machine? (Which is
what the lady in the casino story above won) If so, he may
have thought he won that one, which wouldn't be unusual.

[To moderators: Can I name the casino in my story? I thought there
was a rule about bad stories, as it could adversely effect the site?]

ers

That's a progressive slot. I am going to assume that the man in the story, was not at a progressive machine, as they stated in the story "It was stand alone".
I do believe that the progressives talk to AGLC through a network. I am not an AGLC tech, so I have no idea exactly how it all works. I did work at a casino for about 3 years, but all that stuff was not talked about. Very hush hush regarding such things.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I think I'd rather have a cheque at, say, $100 worth of nickels. The 50,000 nickels making up the posted jackpot of $2500 would weigh something in excess of 400 pounds. Then again, slot machine players, as a rule, aren't that good at math.

I think most slots now (either nickel, or penny) will print you out a ticket like you get from a VLT, that you can then go up and cash out with.
The hopper required to pay out large jackpots would have to be huge. Especially for nickel / penny slots.