Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California

    Good News, Bad News

    Seems a fellow won $166 million at a the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Tampa.

    But the Casino is refusing to pay, claiming the slot machine in question malfunctioned.

    The dude is going bananas, he seems to have hit three 7s. But the House says the macine can't pay anything over a lousy $99,000.

    I think they better pay him something.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Isn't this something like a store having to honor posted prices, even if there's a mistake on the sign? The machine is ultimately their responsibility, and if it malfunctioned to the tune of $166 million then they should have to pay up.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    oh i think some LAWYERS can straighten this out...

  4. #4
    This happens surprisingly frequently. The gentleman will probably get a token payout -- probably less than the $99K that is the max possible win on that machine.

    There is an implicit agreement when you play these types of machines, created when you enter the casino or sit at a machine, that you acknowledge malfunctions are possible and that your maximum win is whatever is possible at that specific machine.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLandlord View Post
    This happens surprisingly frequently. The gentleman will probably get a token payout -- probably less than the $99K that is the max possible win on that machine.

    There is an implicit agreement when you play these types of machines, created when you enter the casino or sit at a machine, that you acknowledge malfunctions are possible and that your maximum win is whatever is possible at that specific machine.
    I understand the implicit agreement part, and thus why he won't get the very big, big bucks. But why not the whole $99,000?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    I understand the implicit agreement part, and thus why he won't get the very big, big bucks. But why not the whole $99,000?
    I think it's standard for casinos to argue that that "spin" was a complete machine malfunction -- and therefore, it should be considered as though it never happened.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLandlord View Post
    I think it's standard for casinos to argue that that "spin" was a complete machine malfunction -- and therefore, it should be considered as though it never happened.
    But if it malfunctions and produces a losing spin in place of a winning one, you don't get your quarter back.

    I can understand the argument that the max payout should be $99k, if that is what the machine lists as the max payout, but I have a hard time seeing how they could justify offering much less than that.

    --Jason "question-- does the fact that this is an Indian casino affect the law/jurisdiction here?" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLandlord View Post
    I think it's standard for casinos to argue that that "spin" was a complete machine malfunction -- and therefore, it should be considered as though it never happened.
    That argument isn't very persuasive since the machine's jackpot bells rang and called the attendants to make a payoff. It may have malfunctioned in regard to the $166 mil, but three 7s lined up well enough on the payline to ring the bells. That seems like $99,000.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    That argument isn't very persuasive since the machine's jackpot bells rang and called the attendants to make a payoff. It may have malfunctioned in regard to the $166 mil, but three 7s lined up well enough on the payline to ring the bells. That seems like $99,000.
    Oh, I agree. I'm just stating the defense they've tried to use in the past.

    It seems to me this payout is less costly than the bad publicity (if there is such a thing...)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ashburn, VA
    I saw this a couple days ago and thought, "Why don't they just use that defense all the time? Who actually verifies the casino's telling the truth?"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdenscold View Post
    I saw this a couple days ago and thought, "Why don't they just use that defense all the time? Who actually verifies the casino's telling the truth?"
    In Nevada, the state gaming commission oversees this kind of thing. All the machines are registered and there are inspectors nearby in both Las Vegas and Reno. I imagine the same thing is true in Atlantic City. As for other states, probably the same.

    For Indian casinos, though, I have no idea.

  12. #12
    The guy should sue the Casio if he hasn't already.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by dukefanbrooklyn View Post
    The guy should sue the Casio if he hasn't already.
    Couldn't agree more. Just terrible watches.


Similar Threads

  1. WBB: More Good News?
    By Gargoyle in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 08:48 PM
  2. Good news for Josh
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-10-2007, 12:05 PM
  3. Good news for my son
    By Bostondevil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-22-2007, 11:43 AM
  4. Bad News, Good News
    By dbowen in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-05-2007, 04:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •