BetMGM refuses to pay $3 million won
the woman was betting on their St. Patricks day "Luck O' the Roulette Game"
she got up as high as $11 million - then started losing and decided to cash out at $3 million
she went to the cage to get $100K and they told her that was all they would give her
they claimed the game had a glitch which was why she won so much
her lawyer said they offered her a deal - she could keep the $100K if she signed a confidentiality agreement
and if news of the glitch became public she would have to return the money and pay the company's costs
my take on it: BetMGM sucks big time - yet another online casino horror story
https://www.newsweek.com/woman-claims-mgm-online-casino-refused-payout-3m-win-glitch-1603273
.
Based on the article linked to in the OP, we don't have much information to go on. Here is the pertinent information that we know so far:
- The game in question is called Luck O' the Roulette. This looks to me like double-zero roulette, except instead of a double-zero there is a "Pot." Winning bets on the Pot pay a random amount from 15 to 100 for one.
- The player parlayed $50 to $11,000,000 over five days.
- The player continued playing and lost back $8 million, for a balance of $3 million, at which time she requested a withdrawal.
- BetMGM claimed there was a glitch in the game. They offered to settle the matter for $100,000 if she signed an NDA and the story was never published.
- The attorney of the player argues a regulation requires BetMGM to check the game is working properly every 24 hours and also question if there was a glitch if losing players were refunded losses.
I'd like to withhold judgement until I hear BetMGM's version. Until then, I will say that there are glitches sometimes and there is invariably a rule with gaming machines that malfunctions void all pays and plays. Assuming there was a glitch, I would have advised the player to take the 100K and sign the NDA. If there is evidence of a glitch, I think she should and will lose a lawsuit.
p.s. The image in the article is for sic bo.
Quote: WizardI like topics on player/casino disputes.
Based on the article linked to in the OP, we don't have much information to go on. Here is the pertinent information that we know so far:
- The game in question is called Luck O' the Roulette. This looks to me like double-zero roulette, except instead of a double-zero there is a "Pot." Winning bets on the Pot pay a random amount from 15 to 100 for one.
- The player parlayed $50 to $11,000,000 over five days.
- The player continued playing and lost back $8 million, for a balance of $3 million, at which time she requested a withdrawal.
- BetMGM claimed there was a glitch in the game. They offered to settle the matter for $100,000 if she signed an NDA and the story was never published.
- The attorney of the player argues a regulation requires BetMGM to check the game is working properly every 24 hours and also question if there was a glitch if losing players were refunded losses.
I'd like to withhold judgement until I hear BetMGM's version. Until then, I will say that there are glitches sometimes and there is invariably a rule with gaming machines that malfunctions void all pays and plays. Assuming there was a glitch, I would have advised the player to take the 100K and sign the NDA. If there is evidence of a glitch, I think she should and will lose a lawsuit.
p.s. The image in the article is for sic bo.
In general I agree.
The full brunt of her claim is going to be the regulations that requires inspection every 24 hours. While malfunction voids all pay and plays, most slot machines are for the individual spin. A malfunction that affected every spin for five straight days? Never heard of that.
The point about voiding all pays and play is also part of her case in relation to other players. Did they void all pays and plays for the losing players (since she lost back 8 million this glitch does have losers). Can BetMGM selectively void only the pay and play of winners?
Additionally a glitch of this type and magnitude would be software and if so, why is she the only one who experienced it. Most software glitches will be repeated for anyone who plays. And I question a glitch where a player without changing their strategy suddenly loses $8 million.
Something doesn't sound right. At the very least the actual glitch and how it works must be exposed.
And then you have (if true) a request that she accepts a reduced payment provided she sign an NDA not to reveal the glitch. WHY? ANY GLITCH should be repaired. Not hushed up.
There are some things that don't add up here.
Though, a quick Google search of the game makes it look like there are up to 100X multipliers, so that could explain quick wins.
A good question is, would they return her losses, if she went on a 5 day binge and lost her full account balance and there was a glitch over the 5 days in question that she sat home and played nothing but that one game (would they even notify her)? Are they going to return the losses and not honor the wins of anyone who won or lost spins on that one game?
This is in Detroit, so I am not sure the recourse there (aside from the pending civil action), but I would imagine an online casino that is licensed through the State has some kind of authority to mediate disputes and investigate potential wrongdoings.
https://help.nj.betmgm.com/en/casino-help/roulette/ivyluckotheroulette
(This is from their NJ online casino so the rules may be different in MI).
I mean I bet you this article brought them millions already just from people attempting to find the glitch
A lot of this article doesn’t make sense from my point of view
Quote: drmarioElectronic ‘glitches’ shouldn’t relieve you of the bet that you accepted and paid out winnings for.
I used to say that when I was younger. However, what if the player won $3 billion?
The world is an imperfect place and mistakes do happen.
how about if I take a $100K marker and lose it all
and then I argue that I shouldn't have to pay it because I had a glitch
my mother was just killed in a car crash and I took some sedatives my Dr. gave me and combined them with booze and I was mentally unbalanced
I didn't really know what I was doing
anybody going to respect my glitch?
fat chance
*
snipped from cyberspace...
"
Man Invests $20 In Weird Cryptocurrency, Becomes Trillionaire Overnight
Everyone's talking about cryptocurrency. Due to people making literal stacks of cash after investments into cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Dogecoin, the world of cryptocurrency investment in general has garnered widespread feverish excitement. Most everyone's always game to try to pick up an extra buck when they can. Of course, it doesn't hurt to educate yourself on what kinds of cryptocurrency investments are actually worthwhile, and not equivalent to playing the slot machines at a casino.
Now with all of that being said, the surreal cryptocurrency of the day is a tale about a dude named Christopher Williamson of Georgia. Williamson decided to invest a whopping $20 in a cryptocurrency called Rocket Bunny. Williamson apparently went to bed, drifted off into dreamland, and then woke to discover that he'd miraculously made trillions of dollars overnight. We're talking $183 trillion to be exact. I don't blame the guy for assuming that he was still dreaming. He managed to throw up a series of tweets with a daily status update. Eventually, Rocket Bunny reps killed all the buzz and clarified that it was in fact a display error. A shame, really."
Quote: MrVHer pain was bad, but imagine how this poor guy felt ...
snipped from cyberspace...
"
Man Invests $20 In Weird Cryptocurrency, Becomes Trillionaire Overnight
Everyone's talking about cryptocurrency. Due to people making literal stacks of cash after investments into cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Dogecoin, the world of cryptocurrency investment in general has garnered widespread feverish excitement. Most everyone's always game to try to pick up an extra buck when they can. Of course, it doesn't hurt to educate yourself on what kinds of cryptocurrency investments are actually worthwhile, and not equivalent to playing the slot machines at a casino.
Now with all of that being said, the surreal cryptocurrency of the day is a tale about a dude named Christopher Williamson of Georgia. Williamson decided to invest a whopping $20 in a cryptocurrency called Rocket Bunny. Williamson apparently went to bed, drifted off into dreamland, and then woke to discover that he'd miraculously made trillions of dollars overnight. We're talking $183 trillion to be exact. I don't blame the guy for assuming that he was still dreaming. He managed to throw up a series of tweets with a daily status update. Eventually, Rocket Bunny reps killed all the buzz and clarified that it was in fact a display error. A shame, really."
That is different, if that was genuinely an error with the display, which must be the case (meaning there was never 180 trillion dollars in his account, which would be more than all of the cash in the world). In this case, it appears (again there is minimal details) that the (digital) casino patron genuinely had the 3 million in their account, but there was a claim of an error on the game that they played to win the balance (and that the wins should be voided). If it turns out that this case is just a display error (which seems unlikely since they had the balance available at the physical casino it would be similar, so not a user display issue).
I don't know anything about Rocket Bunny or who owns it, but I would imagine any kind of dispute with a (presumably) foreign cryptocurrency company would be even more challenging to settle than a licensed casino in your home State.
Quote: WizardI used to say that when I was younger. However, what if the player won $3 billion?
The world is an imperfect place and mistakes do happen.
‘Digital’ shouldn’t obsolve a company of responsibility. Risk of ruin can be avoided by having digital safeguards in place, they cost money but that’s not a winning argument to me. A physical casino doesn’t lose 3Billion or even 3million on a gaffed game because there are physical people around preventing losses like that from happening.
Quote: drmario‘Digital’ shouldn’t obsolve a company of responsibility.
I agree with that.
In this case, and all cases, I would listen to both sides before rendering judgment. My guiding principle would be whether the casino did their due diligence to ensure their games were performing properly.
They do have a safeguard in place. It's called, dont pay after the fact by claiming there was a glitch.Quote: drmario‘Digital’ shouldn’t obsolve a company of responsibility. Risk of ruin can be avoided by having digital safeguards in place, they cost money but that’s not a winning argument to me. A physical casino doesn’t lose 3Billion or even 3million on a gaffed game because there are physical people around preventing losses like that from happening.
I dont know why they are so paranoid people might find out what the glitch was? Perhaps they are afraid they will have to pay everyone back during the glitch, and who knows how long it been there.
there's a chance there was no gitch and she was a student of EvenBobs
Quote: AxelWolfWhere was the glitch when she gave back 8 million?
That'd be the next 5 days of losing.
Quote: drmarioRisk of ruin can be avoided by having digital safeguards in place, they cost money but that’s not a winning argument to me.
One would think that if a player's winnings over a few days are significant enough to be noticeable on a quarterly report, a phone call from a host offering to send comped takeout food to the player would be made.
Quote: WizardI speculate the game was overpaying the player somehow. For example, paying 2 to 1, instead of 2 for 1, on red/black bets. Still a glitch. Again, based on not knowing much, I think her lawyer has already pointed out two good arguments in her favor.
Not all errors are “glitches”. It seems to me that your example could be human error, which is not a malfunction of the machine or coding. I’d be interested to know what they consider to be a “glitch”. Have to wonder if it’s just a ploy to CYA…
Usually when a casino claims a malfunction voids all pay and play, they don't offer a $100,000 consolation.
In my experience (reading stuff like this) they void ALL pays and plays.
Something doesn't seem right here
Quote: sevenHow will the casino handle it when a player loses against a game with a glitch in favor of the casino?
I'm certain it will involve the player never knowing about it.
Quote: WizardI speculate the game was overpaying the player somehow. For example, paying 2 to 1, instead of 2 for 1, on red/black bets. Still a glitch. Again, based on not knowing much, I think her lawyer has already pointed out two good arguments in her favor.
I have always wanted to be in a scenario like this player was. I think I would be a great expert witness. First, what is the definition of a glitch? Is a software bug a glitch? My argument would be that it is not and I believe I could convince a jury of that. Computer code is just instructions for the computer to follow. If the code was programmed to pay 2 to 1 instead of 2 for 1 I believe I could show that the computer did exactly what it was told to do therefore it is not a malfunction.
They may have programmed the software in an unintended way but it is not a malfunction as the computer performed exactly as instructed.
In both situations, the state Gaming Commissions were less than helpful, and in my opinion, did not come close to following the mission statements on their own websites.
Furthermore, there were violations in State Law in one of the situations, and I did eventually spell that out in writing for the Attorney General's office. When I followed-up and asked what their conclusion was and what steps they had taken, I was told state law prevented them from telling me, even though I had filed the complaint. Go figure..... ).
So, I hope this BETMGM thing is resolved fairly, but I think there is a good chance that BETMGM has the upper hand. I do think the customer has a right to all the facts, and they have to involve a lawyer to have any chance of getting them.
Quote: JohnnyQI have participated in various casino promotions over the years and have seen unfair / unscrupulous / fraudulent practices used by Casinos in 2 different states.
In both situations, the state Gaming Commissions were less than helpful, and in my opinion, did not come close to following the mission statements on their own websites.
Furthermore, there were violations in State Law in one of the situations, and I did eventually spell that out in writing for the Attorney General's office. When I followed-up and asked what their conclusion was and what steps they had taken, I was told state law prevented them from telling me, even though I had filed the complaint. Go figure..... ).
So, I hope this BETMGM thing is resolved fairly, but I think there is a good chance that BETMGM has the upper hand. I do think the customer has a right to all the facts, and they have to involve a lawyer to have any chance of getting them.
The State Gaming Commissions are basically the, "Casino Revenue Protection Squad," in most states. They're not going to do anything.
The AG is also not going to care about anything the casinos do. The casinos make the states a lot of money and some states already shellack them percentage-wise on the cut of revenues they get.
The BetMGM thing will not be resolved fairly. Two casinos beat Phil Ivey in court for funds won on a game that they directly gave to him. Anytime it goes to any level of Government, assuming that they are going to be in the tank for the casinos is a pretty safe bet.
Quote: DRichI have always wanted to be in a scenario like this player was. I think I would be a great expert witness. First, what is the definition of a glitch? Is a software bug a glitch? My argument would be that it is not and I believe I could convince a jury of that. Computer code is just instructions for the computer to follow. If the code was programmed to pay 2 to 1 instead of 2 for 1 I believe I could show that the computer did exactly what it was told to do therefore it is not a malfunction.
They may have programmed the software in an unintended way but it is not a malfunction as the computer performed exactly as instructed.
Yeah, you could show it to someone who posts on this website. Good luck explaining it to some 87 year old who would be at home watching The Young and the Restless if they did not have jury duty that day who is baffled by his/her smartphone and has never used a computer.
I've had conversations with people in my life---largely a mistake, but if there's one thing that human interaction has taught me it is to never underestimate the potential inability of a great many people to grasp rudimentary concepts.
Quote: Mission146Yeah, you could show it to someone who posts on this website. Good luck explaining it to some 87 year old who would be at home watching The Young and the Restless if they did not have jury duty that day who is baffled by his/her smartphone and has never used a computer.
I don't think it would be a problem. They would not need to understand the code if you could just convince them that the code is just instructions and that the computer followed the instructions.
Quote: DRich
I don't think it would be a problem. They would not need to understand the code if you could just convince them that the code is just instructions and that the computer followed the instructions.
Yeah, good luck. You'll have to hope that they would naturally be inclined to believe that, anyway. You're not going to convince a stupid person of anything that they don't already believe, or would be inclined to believe.
Right, I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread, IE, Is a mistake in the programming the same as a "glitch" ? I think the Casino's definition of a glitch would be pretty wide !Quote: DRichI don't think it would be a problem. They would not need to understand the code if you could just convince them that the code is just instructions and that the computer followed the instructions.
I suspect their defense would be that the programming did not do what we intended it to do, therefore, it is a glitch.
That has been my experience.Quote: Mission146The State Gaming Commissions are basically the, "Casino Revenue Protection Squad," in most states. They're not going to do anything.
Probably also completely true, BUT the LAW is the LAW, right ?Quote: Mission146The AG is also not going to care about anything the casinos do. The casinos make the states a lot of money and some states already shellack them percentage-wise on the cut of revenues they get.
At the very least, I hope somehow the casino got the message NOT to run any more fraudulent promotions. IF I ever found them doing the same thing again, I would try to find an attorney.
BUT I also suspect the casino learned not to give me the information again in writing that detailed how they were violating state law !
Quote: JohnnyQThat has been my experience.
Probably also completely true, BUT the LAW is the LAW, right ?
At the very least, I hope somehow the casino got the message NOT to run any more fraudulent promotions. IF I ever found them doing the same thing again, I would try to find an attorney.
BUT I also suspect the casino learned not to give me the information again in writing that detailed how they were violating state law !
No, the law is not the law. The law is only the law when you have someone with the authority to do so who chooses to uphold the law. That's going to happen for casinos when there is some sort of casino-player dispute, but it's not going to happen the other way---when the proper resolution to the dispute would favor the player. The only exception to this is probably the State of Nevada and maybe anything (in other states) for which there is video surveillance. I tend to think that the GC's would give some degree of respect to undeniable visual evidence of an incident, but I might be giving them too much credit.
The casino did not get the message and will almost certainly run another, 'Fraudulent,' promotion at some point in the future. At best, they will have gotten the message to improve their disclaimers a bit in the small print.
Quote: Mission146Yeah, good luck. You'll have to hope that they would naturally be inclined to believe that, anyway. You're not going to convince a stupid person of anything that they don't already believe, or would be inclined to believe.
Part of the problem is you don't get to just testify. There are court rules.
Your testimony pertaining to the situation could be blocked (not expert testimony or other reasons that the defense can lodge).
You don't get to soliloquy on the stand. Your attorney has to bring out your testimony through questioning.
It's a whole different world in court
Quote: JohnnyQRight, I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread, IE, Is a mistake in the programming the same as a "glitch" ? I think the Casino's definition of a glitch would be pretty wide !
I suspect their defense would be that the programming did not do what we intended it to do, therefore, it is a glitch.
I am by no means a computer expert, in fact, I'm basically a troglodyte when it comes to all things technological. That being said, my understanding is that a, 'Glitch,' can refer to any malfunction or error in the colloquial sense. I tried to find if there is an accepted legal definition of a, 'Glitch,' and couldn't find it if there is one.
In that sense, I would think that a mistake in the programming that causes the programming to do something that it was not intended to do might qualify as a glitch, but there are other possibilities. One other possibility, and this is just one that I am aware of being theoretically possible, is that there was some sort of communication glitch from the player's device to the casino software that somehow caused these results. If that was the case, then it's entirely possible that only this particular player was affected.
I'm wondering if the game has a, "Play for fun," mode, and if so, if that "Play for fun," mode is rigged so that the player wins. Maybe the glitch is that the game thought that the player was somehow playing the play for fun mode as opposed to the real money mode.
Another concern of mine, depending on the exact nature of the glitch, is that the casino might attempt to argue (or might threaten to argue if it goes to trial) that the player discovered the problem, knew about the problem and deliberately exploited it. I don't think I would put it past them to make that argument if it was even minimally conceivable.
Quote: Mission146
Another concern of mine, depending on the exact nature of the glitch, is that the casino might attempt to argue (or might threaten to argue if it goes to trial) that the player discovered the problem, knew about the problem and deliberately exploited it. I don't think I would put it past them to make that argument if it was even minimally conceivable.
See, here's a reporter already taking that angle:
https://www.casino.org/news/betmgm-sued-over-3m-glitch-after-five-day-roulette-session/
Quote: Mission146See, here's a reporter already taking that angle:
https://www.casino.org/news/betmgm-sued-over-3m-glitch-after-five-day-roulette-session/
Well, am I mistaken or does the article divulge a new piece of information.
According to the article the woman was PAID $100,000 as a preliminary payment towards the full amount.
Upon returning the next day for the balance they had apparently "discovered" the glitch but offered to let her keep the $100,000 if she didn't divulge it.
I suppose they will try to make her pay the $100,000 so this is either going to be recoupment of $100,000 or a reward of $3 million
Quote: darkozWell, am I mistaken or does the article divulge a new piece of information.
According to the article the woman was PAID $100,000 as a preliminary payment towards the full amount.
Upon returning the next day for the balance they had apparently "discovered" the glitch but offered to let her keep the $100,000 if she didn't divulge it.
I suppose they will try to make her pay the $100,000 so this is either going to be recoupment of $100,000 or a reward of $3 million
I would be shocked if this actually goes to trial. She was paid $100,000 which they later offered to do by way of settlement in exchange for an NDA. I don't know if there was any exact wording, or what it might have been, but the article then went on to say that she would forfeit the $100,000 in the event that the glitch became public knowledge. I don't know if that means because of something she did, or in general. If in general, then that's obviously a BS condition anyway.
I have found the rules for this Roulette game:
https://help.wv.betmgm.com/en/casino-help/roulette/ivyluckotheroulette
This Roulette game introduces something called a, "Pot," bet, which is represented by a multiplier relative to the bet amount.
Anyway, I think I have figured out the game from this screen.
1.) This game features a, "Pot Bet," which if bet on and hit, will award the player a multiplier ranging from 15x (15-FOR-1) to 100x (100-FOR-1). In addition to the regular Roulette wheel, there is a secondary random element that decides the multiplier for the pot bet.
2.) The sum of the multipliers appears to be 870, which divided by 24 different possible multiplier spots, would result in an average multiplier of 36.25.
3.) The average multiplier of 36.25 would reflect a payout of 36.25-FOR-1, or 35.25-TO-1, as expected.
Given this average multiplier, we do: (35.25 * 1/38) - ( 1* 37/38) = -0.04605263157
This game has a stated RTP (See Rules Screen Above) of 95.39%, so that corresponds correctly with what I did above.
4.) When not bet, the Pot effectively functions as 00.
THEORIES:
In one of the interviews that I have seen, the Plaintiff states that she was playing most of the numbers on the Roulette game. If we assume that the casino is telling the truth and that there was a glitch, then I think the following circumstances are possible:
*The Pot Bet was being paid out even on non Pot Bet wins, perhaps in addition to other wins. In other words, all straight number wins would get the multiplier treatment as well as what they would have won anyway.
*When the Pot Bet was won, it would treat all numbers as if they had won on the Pot Bet. My problem with this theory is that it doesn't seem like it should take five days of constant play to get to 11M under those conditions. You're pretty much winning ($5,000 * Pot Multiplier) every time the pot hits in that scenario and incorporating a fairly low variance strategy on your other spins. On the other hand, it would explain why she would choose to cover a ton of individual numbers.
*There was a problem with the Pot multiplier in that it was somehow not behaving randomly AND in the player's favor.
Those are the ones that I can think of, but I would definitely be interested in hearing more possibilities since we understand how the game works.
We can hope that her play log would come out in court documents. It should be pretty trivial to piece together what happened if we could see her results log.
Quote: Mission146I would be shocked if this actually goes to trial. She was paid $100,000 which they later offered to do by way of settlement in exchange for an NDA. I don't know if there was any exact wording, or what it might have been, but the article then went on to say that she would forfeit the $100,000 in the event that the glitch became public knowledge. I don't know if that means because of something she did, or in general. If in general, then that's obviously a BS condition anyway.
I have found the rules for this Roulette game:
https://help.wv.betmgm.com/en/casino-help/roulette/ivyluckotheroulette
This Roulette game introduces something called a, "Pot," bet, which is represented by a multiplier relative to the bet amount.
Anyway, I think I have figured out the game from this screen.
1.) This game features a, "Pot Bet," which if bet on and hit, will award the player a multiplier ranging from 15x (15-FOR-1) to 100x (100-FOR-1). In addition to the regular Roulette wheel, there is a secondary random element that decides the multiplier for the pot bet.
2.) The sum of the multipliers appears to be 870, which divided by 24 different possible multiplier spots, would result in an average multiplier of 36.25.
3.) The average multiplier of 36.25 would reflect a payout of 36.25-FOR-1, or 35.25-TO-1, as expected.
Given this average multiplier, we do: (35.25 * 1/38) - ( 1* 37/38) = -0.04605263157
This game has a stated house edge (See Rules Screen Above) of 95.39%, so that corresponds correctly with what I did above.
4.) When not bet, the Pot effectively functions as 00.
THEORIES:
In one of the interviews that I have seen, the Plaintiff states that she was playing most of the numbers on the Roulette game. If we assume that the casino is telling the truth and that there was a glitch, then I think the following circumstances are possible:
*The Pot Bet was being paid out even on non Pot Bet wins, perhaps in addition to other wins. In other words, all straight number wins would get the multiplier treatment as well as what they would have won anyway.
*When the Pot Bet was won, it would treat all numbers as if they had won on the Pot Bet. My problem with this theory is that it doesn't seem like it should take five days of constant play to get to 11M under those conditions. You're pretty much winning ($5,000 * Pot Multiplier) every time the pot hits in that scenario and incorporating a fairly low variance strategy on your other spins. On the other hand, it would explain why she would choose to cover a ton of individual numbers.
*There was a problem with the Pot multiplier in that it was somehow not behaving randomly AND in the player's favor.
Those are the ones that I can think of, but I would definitely be interested in hearing more possibilities since we understand how the game works.
We can hope that her play log would come out in court documents. It should be pretty trivial to piece together what happened if we could see her results log.
With the scenarios that you describe it would have been hard for her to lose back $8 million.
Quote: DRichWith the scenarios that you describe it would have been hard for her to lose back $8 million.
Not if they finally fixed it and she kept playing in the hopes that the error would start happening again.
In any case, I'd think that losing the eight million back would have been the part that took the longest amount of time.
Quote: Mission146Not if they finally fixed it and she kept playing in the hopes that the error would start happening again.
This strikes me as highly plausible.
Fix the glitch, let the players lose it back, hope they deposit new funds to chase that amazing streak they had that one afternoon, dispute anyone who attempts to cash out and let them give us a 96% loss rebate to close the matter.
I don't know that's what happened; I'm not trying to impugn anyone's reputation; I'm just saying it sounds plausible.
Quote: darkozWizard,
Usually when a casino claims a malfunction voids all pay and play, they don't offer a $100,000 consolation.
They would be smart to. These things often lead to a lawsuit, where legal expenses alone will amount to much more than that.
I couldn't find any definition of "malfunction" where I'd expect it, in the Definitions section of Michigan "Lawful Internet Gaming Act".
In some states the gaming commission sets the rules, but I didn't see any rules on the site of the Michigan Gaming Control Board.
*Generally* speaking, there are two ways to describe a malfunction:
(1) A device doesn't operate the way it's expected to operate.
(2) A device operates contrary to its programming or construction.
Let's say that the game paid certain wagers 50-1 when it was supposed to pay only 35-1 (standard roulette rules), because it was programmed incorrectly. In that case there was a malfunction according to definition 1 (didn't act according to expectations) but not definition 2 (acted contrary to programming, because it did act according to programming, it was just programmed wrong).
I strongly suspect that the resolution of this case will hinge on the dichotomy between those two definitions.
Incidentally, I have an article about slot machine malfunctions. I don't cover the BetMGM case yet, because there's not nearly enough information.
From what I know about betmgm and their accounts, I am guessing it was a simple mistake that was overlooked by someone making $12 per hour. I am thinking about how machines used for slot tournaments can payout like 120% or something; this machine could have been put on some setting like that. And trying to cut corners in quality control meant they didn't catch it in time.
My prediction is a settlement much closer to $3 million than $100,000.
On the other hand, she has a much better chance of getting that 3 million because she lost the 8 milion.
She might have played it perfectly actually…
So, why the demonstrated casino interest in an NDA and suppressing disclosure of the "glitch?" How does disclosure of this (presumably one-time) glitch injure the casino? Does this glitch possibly still exist on other online casino versions of this game, or other games from the game developer?
Quote: gordonm888So, why the demonstrated casino interest in an NDA and suppressing disclosure of the "glitch?" How does disclosure of this (presumably one-time) glitch injure the casino? Does this glitch possibly still exist on other online casino versions of this game, or other games from the game developer?
Not paying out winning bets is a very bad look for a casino.
