Casino royal pain in the butt.

**Fragony** · 10-20-2006, 13:52

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Yes this happened four blocks away from my house actually...

Kewl, how did it turn out? Did the cheap pricks pay her?

**Soulforged** · 10-21-2006, 03:58

Originally Posted by Fragony

Kewl, how did it turn out? Did the cheap pricks pay her?

Well they're still dealing with it. This will rarely reach trial.

About the legal part: The law in the province states that the amount won has to be proportional to the amount played in a row following the game standards and regulations (wich is set by the Lotery of Buenos Aires in this case). Since in this case she played 5 centavos (wich is related to the peso in the same way a cent is related to a dollar) she cannot win 35 million pesos, it seems the maximum she's entitled to is 2500 pesos, wich was the first offer the company made to the woman.

Originally Posted by holybandit

If the machine is mis-programmed than that is the casino's fault and should give the money to the winner, and try again next time (Maybe hire better programmers)

I disagree. Is totally unreasonable to pay based on the amount displayed on the machine. By this logic if the machine fails at some point and shows such a big quantity of money that would make the company break, if payed, that could end with enterprises from one day to another just like that. I find the rule of proportionality to be more reasonable.

**Mooks** · 10-21-2006, 04:30

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I disagree. Is totally unreasonable to pay based on the amount displayed on the machine. By this logic if the machine fails at some point and shows such a big quantity of money that would make the company break, if payed, that could end with enterprises from one day to another just like that. I find the rule of proportionality to be more reasonable.

Youve convinced me. Bravo

**Fragony** · 10-21-2006, 09:41

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I disagree. Is totally unreasonable to pay based on the amount displayed on the machine. By this logic if the machine fails at some point and shows such a big quantity of money that would make the company break, if payed, that could end with enterprises from one day to another just like that. I find the rule of proportionality to be more reasonable.

A casino is a place for gambling, that works both ways. If the machine gives a one in a million chance insane amount of money, well, chance is their business. They should pay.

**Major Robert Dump** · 10-21-2006, 11:54

bogus. a business venture goes both ways. if you cant afford the rissk of failure then you dont deserve to be in business anyways. what the casino needs to do is pay this sap her money and sue whoever is responsible for the machine malfunctioning. if a lube shop puts out a sign that says "oil change 20 dollars" and an oil change is actually 40 dollars, its not the customers fault. if they dont pay this lady they deserve to be ruined.

boohoo, an enterpise that makes mad profit off of peoples spending indescretions (people who are usually drunk, i might add) might face some hard times because of their own indescretions. waaaaaaaaaah! waaaaaaaah!

**Soulforged** · 10-21-2006, 17:05

Originally Posted by Fragony

A casino is a place for gambling, that works both ways. If the machine gives a one in a million chance insane amount of money, well, chance is their business. They should pay.

That's your opinion, fine by me. I think it's unreasonable. The gambling, however goes one way, from the people to the casino, the casino only invests and saves as far as capital goes.

Originally Posted by MRD

bogus. a business venture goes both ways. if you cant afford the rissk of failure then you dont deserve to be in business anyways. what the casino needs to do is pay this sap her money and sue whoever is responsible for the machine malfunctioning. if a lube shop puts out a sign that says "oil change 20 dollars" and an oil change is actually 40 dollars, its not the customers fault. if they dont pay this lady they deserve to be ruined.

And I suppose you know the difference between an error, and not even a substancial one, but just nominal (the machine showing more than the person should win), and a voluntary act like you described. The consequences cannot be the same you would be breaking a simple principle of justice.

Besides there's lot of things to consider. We're talking about Argentina here, not the first world. If there's a thing that marks Argentina's history is the constant failure of enterprises outside agriculture. Now, you tell me that the progress of a society should be sacrificed for the luxury of only one person.

If it's still an error I think no company should pay in the industry of gambling and if there's no damage, this includes prosperous countries like USA. Just go back in your own history, I think that the industry of gambling is one of the pillars that helped the USA to rise from economic depression. Just imagine if their prosperity had been ruined by ocasional mistakes.

**Redleg** · 10-22-2006, 12:49

Originally Posted by Soulforged

And I suppose you know the difference between an error, and not even a substancial one, but just nominal (the machine showing more than the person should win), and a voluntary act like you described. The consequences cannot be the same you would be breaking a simple principle of justice.

What some don't realize is that if the slot machine has a malfunction (since most are computerized in the United States the casino has a record of everything that happens) and the casino determines that the machine did indeed malfunction then they are not obligated to pay. This is especially true in Oklahoma where the Indian Casino's have signs on thier machines that state they will not pay if the machine malfunctions. It's been awhile since I have been to Las Vegas but I believe this policy is consistent even there.

Now one casino in Oklahoma has gotten itself in some media trouble for claiming machines were malfunctioning and not paying the jackpot. Last I heard this casino was not forced by the gaming commission to change its ways, but when they made the news in Dallas - because of the number of drunk Texans that go to Oklahoma to gamble - the casino has made a better effort not to have so many malfunctions.

**Soulforged** · 10-23-2006, 02:11

Originally Posted by Redleg

What some don't realize is that if the slot machine has a malfunction (since most are computerized in the United States the casino has a record of everything that happens) and the casino determines that the machine did indeed malfunction then they are not obligated to pay. This is especially true in Oklahoma where the Indian Casino's have signs on thier machines that state they will not pay if the machine malfunctions. It's been awhile since I have been to Las Vegas but I believe this policy is consistent even there.

Thanks for adding to my point Red :cheers:. I was checking for sarcasm...

Really is it that weird that we're on the same side?...

**Samurai Waki** · 10-23-2006, 02:59

If you can't handle the pointed bias towards the Casino Industry, then you shouldn't play. In this day and age, Casinos are Regulated heavily by the Bureau of Gambling Control in the US. There is a set limit that any Lottery Machine can hand out, if for some reason it goes over that amount, usually by a bug in the progamming, then it is not the Casino's fault for this. It is automatically assumed, that the player won the highest set amount. Usually with Lottery Machines, the highest amount is around 2500-4000 USD.

There are only a few games that have no set limit a player can win within 24 hours; Roulette and Craps and maybe another one. I think this is a fair offer. If you don't play the big games, don't expect to win big prizes.

Having said that; I am against gambling, as a businessman I prefer slow and methodical, you can win big once or twice in your life, but if you wish to make a sustainable income (or beyond) it takes time and patience.

**Redleg** · 10-23-2006, 23:26

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Thanks for adding to my point Red :cheers:. I was checking for sarcasm...

Really is it that weird that we're on the same side?...

I have absolutely no problem supporting someone who is correct in their arguement, no sarcasm intended.

No its not all that weird - in many areas most people will find some sort of consensus if they do not allow themselves to be bogged down by the idealogue of the area.