"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.
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.
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.
I would wonder just what this software flaw was
So it's not extra aces in the deck, it's more like not removing chips from losing bets on a craps table.Quote:
was charged for only one in six of the 6,670 wagers he placed
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."
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.
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?
Next you will be saying some politicians are dishonest !
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.