ahiromu
ahiromu
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 1868
June 17th, 2012 at 10:38:16 PM permalink
Gambler who kept winning could lose 650000 jackpot

"The company, based in Woking, is refusing to pay Mr Venturi, saying the bets breached the website's terms and conditions, and his winnings amounted to 'unjust enrichment'."

I'm torn about this and think it should have been settled out of court. I know there will be a lot of people here that think the casino should pay every last cent, but I believe some onus is on the player in such an extraordinary situation.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 270
  • Posts: 7089
June 17th, 2012 at 11:55:32 PM permalink
It would certainly be wrong in my view if they don't wind up giving him a substantial amount.
"No, I will weep no more. In such a night To shut me out! ... O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that" - King Lear deciding he has to accept bad Variance
Flynn
Flynn
Joined: Aug 18, 2011
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 85
June 18th, 2012 at 1:24:27 AM permalink
You don't get any money back for "unjust enrichment" of the casino. So yes, they should pay every last cent.
My favorite bet: Double Down!
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 204
  • Posts: 10534
June 18th, 2012 at 1:40:08 AM permalink
I would wonder just what this software flaw was, why no one else was affected by it, why testing did not detect it.
The player did what he was supposed to do and had no way of knowing it was not a streak of luck.
The casino wrote the software and is in a position to bear the loss.
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
June 18th, 2012 at 4:06:05 AM permalink
When a machine mistakenly displays a large payout in a B&M casino, the normal practice is to nullify it.
The casino is not held required to pay anything that was displayed.
This is obviously a software bug, so I don't see it being any different and so the outcome being any different.

He does have a good claim for damages, though.


Quote: FleaStiff

I would wonder just what this software flaw was

Quote:

was charged for only one in six of the 6,670 wagers he placed

So it's not extra aces in the deck, it's more like not removing chips from losing bets on a craps table.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 161
  • Posts: 9446
June 18th, 2012 at 4:49:58 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

I would wonder just what this software flaw was, why no one else was affected by it, why testing did not detect it.


Maybe he was right. Maybe he was unbelievably lucky.

That would certainly explain why no one else was affected by the "bug."
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition.
Tiltpoul
Tiltpoul
Joined: May 5, 2010
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1573
June 18th, 2012 at 6:52:42 AM permalink
Hmmmm... an online casino not wanting to payout bets... why does that sound familiar?

I'm sorry, but while I tend not to agree with some of the Contrarians on here, anybody who would risk .01 in an online casino is taking a risk. I would never trust any website casino, even if they were completely legal in every jurisdiction and there was a government watchdog set up for the players. There's too much risk with computer crashes, server crashes, not to mention bugs and no way to tell if results are truly random.

Say what you will, but no RNG is TRULY random, as there are only a finite system of numbers to work with. In a casino, it's not possible to cycle through those numbers in a player's lifetime, but on a computer, where you can point and click, you'd get through the numbers much faster... I just don't trust it at all.
"One out of every four people are [morons]"- Kyle, South Park
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 161
  • Posts: 9446
June 18th, 2012 at 8:15:59 AM permalink
Tilt -

Your arguments aside, this is a new twist.

This casino is not saying that the customer violated some obscure fine-print terms. They are saying that he, and he alone, cheated. The mechanism for cheating apparently was that he was too stupid to realize that he shouldn't have been so lucky.

The recent story of a guy who withdrew $1.5mil from ATM machines truly IS stupid for not thinking they wouldn't catch up to him.

But this gambler? Is he really supposed to stop and ask why he is so lucky, and be prepared to offer the casino their money back?
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
June 18th, 2012 at 9:16:13 AM permalink
" Hmmmm... an online casino not wanting to payout bets... why does that sound familiar?"

Next you will be saying some politicians are dishonest !
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 204
  • Posts: 10534
June 18th, 2012 at 12:16:05 PM permalink
Quote: P90

So it's not extra aces in the deck, it's more like not removing chips from losing bets on a craps table.


Well that is known as a Refresh Rate programming error and it has been around for over twenty years and any casino hiring such a dumb programmer should be held accountable for it.

I would hold a company liable for making a Refresh Rate error on an xray machine or on a robot that went haywire or on a airplane navigational device.

  • Jump to: