BetMGM refuses to pay $3 million won
Quote: FinsRuleHow unbelievably stupid do you have to be to lose 8 million playing roulette?
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…
It's almost amazing to me because, as ridiculous as it seems, that would make (in my opinion only) the following two statements the most likely scenario:
1.) She did not realize she was winning because of some form of mispays.
AND:
2.) She dropped eight million before she noticed that the reason she was winning so much was no longer the case, or in the alternative, simply decided to quit.
Quote: gordonm888I would think that if people heard about a glitch (that has presumably been fixed) it would increase the amount of money subsequently pumped into the game? With the House Advantage now firmly restored, wouldn't that be in the best interest of the casino?
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?
In addition to what TomG said about a non-paying casino, I would also add that glitches, in terms of player perception, are just generally not good. They could create a perception that the software is generally not to be trusted as well as the notion that other/future glitches might work against the player.
And, if there were a glitch that was working AGAINST players, I would NOT expect that BetMGM would compensate impacted players appropriately. They should, of course, but I don't think they would.
If it was me I would have been very conservative and ramped up slowly. And used some of the money on other negative EV bets.
There is no way of knowing the correct answer since there are just way too many factors and unknowns. You always take the risk that others will find out and burn it out and make a killing while you sat there and made very little. Online You have no idea who else knows about it while you are mid-play. You really have no idea how long or what will make the casino take notice. We don't know if the casino would have reacted the same way for much less at the time she went to cash out. perhaps they would have only offered her a small percentage of that amount. It's obvious running an account up that high is going to get noticed. Running it up as high as possible may have been the correct play, hoping for a nice settlement.Quote: SOOPOOThe real question is…. if the glitch is found by a single player and ONLY a single player….. what is the ‘safe’ amount you can take advantage before the casino would ‘notice’ and try not to pay you? If the player won around $200 a day and cashed out around $1000 a week, would this ever be figured out? What if you chose $500 a day and $3000 a week? What if you didn’t take advantage of the glitch and lost $3k two days a week but used the glitch and won 4K the other 5 days? Etc…. What is the best way to milk this glitch rather than killing it and ending up in court trying to get paid?
If it was me I would have been very conservative and ramped up slowly. And used some of the money on other negative EV bets.
One might just have to figure out what would make them happy and go for that amount.
The nature of the glitch. He said MGM didn't provide much info, only that it was based on a "combination of bets". He plans to get the details during discovery.
Malfunction does not void all plays? He thinks the "malfunction voids all plays" doesn't apply in this case because Michigan regulations require the casino to check the games every night, and the player played for five of six days, so they weren't doing their due diligence, which constitutes fraud. I'm skeptical that this is a winning argument, but I'm not a lawyer, so we'll see. In his favor, in the case of a jury trial, a jury is going to by sympathetic to the player, because every juror could imagine themselves as the player, wanting to get paid, and no one will imagine themself in the position of the casino.
Player never up $11 million. I suggested to him that if there were really a glitch in the game, then how did the player plummet from $11 million to $3 million? He said she was never up to $11 million, rather that the total of her losing bets was $8 million, and the total of her wins was $11 million, for the $3 million profit. I think he said that her high point was $3.2 million. I know, this isn't what the press said, which quotes the player as saying that she was *up* $11 million. I don't know which version is the truth.
MGM is clueless about the effect on them. The attorney echoed the sentiment from this thread, that paying the player would be great publicity, and denying the payment is gonna cost them, because who wants to play at a casino where you think you won't get paid if you win big? He floated the idea of a settlement with MGM, but MGM's guy just suggested $100,001 ($1 more than the player has already been paid).
My impression is that the attorney's understanding of gaming math (and how games are programmed) is a bit weak, and that might hurt his chances. I hope he does some study before the case goes much further. I offered my assistance, and for an expert witness, referred him to Eliot Jacobson.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
The nature of the glitch. He said MGM didn't provide much info, only that it was based on a "combination of bets". He plans to get the details during discovery.
this part intrigues me very much so because i used to be obsessed with roulette - even more so how combining and placing "combined" bets at a lower cost could be used to create equal bets to achieve the same results as another bet
what im saying most likely has nothing to do with what this "glitch" is though because combining bets really doesnt change anything IMO
can someone explain the 2 for 1 vs 2 to 1 argument here im confused at that concept because its the first time ive seen it
Quote: heatmapQuote: MichaelBluejay
The nature of the glitch. He said MGM didn't provide much info, only that it was based on a "combination of bets". He plans to get the details during discovery.
this part intrigues me very much so because i used to be obsessed with roulette - even more so how combining and placing "combined" bets at a lower cost could be used to create equal bets to achieve the same results as another bet
what im saying most likely has nothing to do with what this "glitch" is though because combining bets really doesnt change anything IMO
can someone explain the 2 for 1 vs 2 to 1 argument here im confused at that concept because its the first time ive seen it
2 to one means the initial wager isn't part of the win.
So bet $10 and win, you get paid $20 (2x your wager) plus you get handed back your initial $10 wager. On an electronic game it would say you got paid $30.
2 FOR 1 means the initial wager is considered part of the payout. Any even money wager is essentially two for one. So if you bet one, you receive back two if you win, the initial wager plus the one you won.
Quote: heatmap
can someone explain the 2 for 1 vs 2 to 1 argument here im confused at that concept because its the first time ive seen it
Overpaying a winning bet by 1 unit.
Red/Black, for instance, is usually 1 to 1 (or 2 for 1).
Paying as 2 to 1 (3 for 1) would be an overpay.
In a "to 1", the prize is awarded along with the original wager being returned.
In a "for 1", the original wager is taken, and a separate payout is made to the player.
"To 1" is common in table games; "for 1" is common in video poker, video blackjack, video roulette...
Quote: MichaelBluejayI talked to the lawyer today who's handling the case.
Thank you! This is outstanding.
Quote:I offered my assistance, and for an expert witness, referred him to Eliot Jacobson.
Yes, Eliot would do an outstanding job. I would like to think I would too, but I guess some things I already said that cut MGM's way might get discovered and used to negate my testimony in court.
Doesn’t anyone know why everyone I click post photo it shows my picture and they when I hit post it says canceled in a pop up
Quote: ExpectedvalueHere is a major major glitch. I was able to play this for 6 days straight with no sleep basically. Finally they shut it down but I was paid in full with never a question asked. To go along with drich it wasn’t necessarily a glitch but it was programmed wrong. Anyone that knows this game will do the math and see what I’m talking about.
Doesn’t anyone know why everyone I click post photo it shows my picture and they when I hit post it says canceled in a pop up
i apologize but are you quoting the article... she stayed up for however many days ... and are you questioning how she stayed up for 6 days?
... or are you saying you were able to exploit the game yourself and you stayed up for 6 days?
Quote: ExpectedvalueHere is a major major glitch. I was able to play this for 6 days straight with no sleep basically. Finally they shut it down but I was paid in full with never a question asked. To go along with drich it wasn’t necessarily a glitch but it was programmed wrong. Anyone that knows this game will do the math and see what I’m talking about.
Do tell what the glitch/error/malfunction was.
Here is my best guess on what the glitch is.
Usually these errors occur when a programmer adds to an existing program and forgets to subtract an established standard.
Luck o the roulette is double zero roulette with 38 pockets all the same except the double zero pocket is a luck o the Irish pocket
If the ball lands on any normal number payout is 35:1 for the usual 5.26% house edge.
If the ball lands on the Irish wager, the payout is variable dependant on an RNG which picks a multiplier for that given spin. Some multipliers will be for less than 35:1 (as low as 15:1) while some are as high as 100:1. The wheel has some 20:1, 30:1, 40:1, 45:1 etc all the way up to 100:1.
So when wagering on the Irish bet if the ball lands then you are giving up the fixed 35:1 payout for a gamble at a better payout with the likelihood of getting a worse payout
We know she did NOT win eleven million and then lose back eight like first reported. Rather she won eleven million in wagers while losing eight. Her play would have looked like a normal graph of a gambler with highs and lows except instead of continually dropping lower and lower, it rise higher and higher. I.e. instead of the casino having a 5.26% edge, something went wrong that skewed the edge towards the woman. But not in a way where she could manipulate the game for a straight eleven million dollars like the newspapers got wrong.
Finally according to the casino the glitch is a combinatorial issue. I think people are assuming making combination of wagers that weren't programed correctly but I doubt that. That probably would have been caught easily.
Based on the above, here is the DarkOz theory as to the glitch.
The programmer took existing software for a double zero wheel and added the code for the luck of the Irish pocket. The pocket which normally pays 35:1 as a double zero. AND HE FORGOT TO DELETE/ALTER THE 35:1 PAYOUT FOR THAT SPECIFIC POCKET.
That's my guess of course. But it would mean whenever she hit the luck of the Irish pocket she was paid 35:1 plus the luck of the Irish (at whatever the multiplier was.)
In essence a combination of two payouts. The previously programed payout for that pocket and the extra Irish bet.
That would explain the wins vs losses and how she gradually increased her bankroll through a player edge
Anyway, we shall see if my guess is correct. But having experience with software (back in my film days) it's always altering established software that causes these oversights. The extra wager is being concentrated on and the programer forgets to balance the software by removing the necessary code being replaced.
One of my theories was that the pot bet was:
Quote:*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.
But, it might have only been the zero that was getting its normal pay as well as the multiplier. That especially makes sense now that her attorney has stated that she was never actually up to eleven million.
I wonder if she was covering so many numbers as, well, cover, or if she didn't know why she was winning.
If Darkoz theory is correct, then they would have discovered the glitch on one of the occasions (I would think) that she hit the 100x multiplier as her total payout would exceed 100x, which should never happen. Other pays would also correspond to amounts that shouldn't be possible.
I do wish we had the logs, then we wouldn't have to theorize. If we could see what bets she made, result and winning payouts, then it would be easy to figure out what happened.
this link has the most info of any that I've seen
from the article:
"According to the complaint, BetMGM’s Jeremy N. Kolman wrote April 12 that the malfunction “resulted in certain win amounts being multiplied when transferred from the onscreen balance to the patron’s wallet. This resulted in an inaccurate and inflated amount being awarded to Ms. Davis’s wallet despite Ms. Davis not actually winning that amount in the game.”'
https://www.playmichigan.com/michigan-woman-claims-betmgm-owes-3-million-luck-roulette-complaint-not-filed/
.
Quote: lilredrooster................
this link has the most info of any that I've seen
from the article:
"According to the complaint, BetMGM’s Jeremy N. Kolman wrote April 12 that the malfunction “resulted in certain win amounts being multiplied when transferred from the onscreen balance to the patron’s wallet. This resulted in an inaccurate and inflated amount being awarded to Ms. Davis’s wallet despite Ms. Davis not actually winning that amount in the game.”'
https://www.playmichigan.com/michigan-woman-claims-betmgm-owes-3-million-luck-roulette-complaint-not-filed/
.
The article says BetMGM sent a spreadsheet showing she was being overpaid about 2.5% of the time.
That's awfully close to the house edge of single zero roulette and precisely what her edge would be if my theory above is correct.
I'm standing behind my Darkoz glitch theory.
Quote: darkozI'm standing behind my Darkoz glitch theory.
referring to yourself in the third person
the bacc genius who has been relegated to the Betting Systems area loves to do that - I can't bring myself to write his name
writing or speaking in that manner is certainly one of most horrible examples there is of the butchering of the English language
.
unJon disagrees with certain of your judgmental sentiments.Quote: lilredroosterreferring to yourself in the third person
the bacc genius who has been relegated to the Betting Systems area loves to do that - I can't bring myself to write his name
writing or speaking in that manner is certainly one of most horrible examples there is of the butchering of the English language
.
Article of evidence letter from MGM:
"The results of MGM's investigation are reflected in the attached spreadsheet detailing Ms. David's play history. The spreadsheet identifies Miss Davis' rounds of play, the "correct wallet" (Item G), and the "wrong wallet", (column K) that resulted from the malfunction.
The first malfunction resulted on Miss Davis' 28th turn when she wagered $8.70 (column F), won $12.25 (column I) but due to the game malfunction was credited an additional $33.24 (Column M) for an incorrect account balance of $87.94 (column N).
This error continued to occur throughout Miss Davis' gameplay resulting in the inflated balance to her account. Absent this error, Miss Davis'account would have gone to zero Approximately around her 368th turn and she would not have been able to continue playing without depositing additional funds"
The spreadsheet in question was not supplied in the complaint
Quote: darkozThe article says BetMGM sent a spreadsheet showing she was being overpaid about 2.5% of the time.
That's awfully close to the house edge of single zero roulette and precisely what her edge would be if my theory above is correct.
I'm standing behind my Darkoz glitch theory.
Yeah, but it says that her wins were multiplied, not doubled. Even if doubled, doubling the wins on a single number pay would well more than cover the House Edge.
I wonder how many BetMGM players do not have the appropriate amount of their winnings transferred to their wallet? If any, I wonder if any will be compensated or if the site is investigating that?
Actually, I don't wonder. The site is almost certainly not investigating that (opinion only), would not compensate them even if they were and did find it (again, opinion), so the only recourse would come by way of a player discovering the error for themselves.
Quote: Mission146Yeah, but it says that her wins were multiplied, not doubled. Even if doubled, doubling the wins on a single number pay would well more than cover the House Edge.
Remember the pot bet is a variable multiplier.
I would not expect her wins to simply be doubled.
Quote: darkozRemember the pot bet is a variable multiplier.
I would not expect her wins to simply be doubled.
Double would be right if the average was still 35.
Quote: DRichDouble would be right if the average was still 35.
Talking long term yes.
But individual spins no.
If she got the 15x multiplier added to 35:1 she gets a 50:1 payout.
40x multiplier gets her 75:1 when adding the 35:1 on top.
Individually the spins are "multiplied" even if overall they are simply doubled.
Quote: ExpectedvalueDoesn’t anyone know why everyone I click post photo it shows my picture and they when I hit post it says canceled in a pop up
Are you doing "Choose file" successfully
to get the image from your device up to the server?Quote: OnceDearAre you doing "Choose file" successfully
There are size limitations I believe as well as file type.
He should check those issues first
Quote: Mission146How the hell does that even happen?
I'd look for a typo involving = vs +=.
No, that is NOT what authentication means. Authentication, as the word suggests, refers to verifying something's authenticity, meaning whether it's authentic, so in this case, meaning whether it's the actual, original software, not some modified version. The attorney thinks that authentication means verifying that the software operates properly. I think this misunderstanding is gonna cost him.Quote: Complaint, p. 2All game software must be designed to allow a gaming authentication tool to validate the gaming software to verify that it performs as expected.
The relevant statute is:
Absent of any other definition of "authentication" in the statute (I couldn't find one), we have to presume that "authentication" means what it usually means, especially since the usual definition is what's suggested in other places where statutes mention "authentication".Quote: Michigan 432.632aAll internet game software used to conduct internet gaming must be designed with a method to permit the validation of software using a gaming authentication tool or other method approved by the board.
Similarly:
No, 432.637 does NOT say that the operator must report any malfunction, only that it must report failed *authentication* (i.e., software being modified). Again, the statute:Quote: Complaint, p. 6Defendant never notified the Gaming Board of any malfunction or error of the game within 24 hours of noticing the error, as required by Michigan Administrative Rule 432.637...
If MGM had a duty to report a malfunction, it must be in some other section of the code, because 432.637 requires only reporting of failed authentication. Also, even *if* MGM had some obligation to report, that's between MGM and the Control Board, and has nothing to do with the player. If MGM didn't follow the regulations then that doesn't mean the player should get paid.Quote: Michigan 432.637An Internet gaming platform must, at least once every 24 hours, perform a self-authentication process on all software...to ensure there have been no unauthorized modifications. If there is an authentication failure, the internet gaming platform must immediately notify the internet gaming operator, internet gaming platform provider, and the board within 24 hours.
Similarly:
No. Again, the statute requires authentication, not a general check of "functioning properly."Quote: Complaint, p. 6By leaving the game on its platform...Defendant was representing...that [the game]...was checked every day to ensure that it was functioning properly, and that it was on the platform in compliance with Michigan Rules.
Yeah, but the whole point of the malfunction is that the player was OVERPAID on certain bets. Like I say in my article on slot malfunctions, if a craps dealer misspoke and said you won $500 when you actually won only $50, you're not entitled to the $500 just because the dealer misspoke. If a game tells you that you won more than you legitimately won, that's just the machine equivalent of the dealer misspeaking.Quote: Complaint, p. 6Defendant further represented...that it would pay all bets that it lost.
Then there's this head-scratcher:
andQuote: Complaint, p. 5Defendant [MGM] profited from Plantiff's losses because when a player loses a bet, the house keeps the money the player wagered. In accordance with the typical betting procedures, Defendant kept money that Plaintiff wagered when she lost on a play.
Quote: Complaint, p. 6Over the course of the five days, the Defendant claims the malfunction resulted in an overpayment to Plaintiff of approximately $4,107.979.71 [sic]. However, Defendant benefited from this error because Plaintiff continued to wager high amounts under the belief that the game was functioning properly...
(face palm) Earlier, the Complaint admitted that the player deposited only $50, so that's the maximum actual benefit that MGM could have received, and the most the player could have suffered as a loss, except not even that, because MGM paid the player $100k.Quote: Complaint, p. 7Because [the player played a horked game], she has suffered a loss of $3,188,616.42
I conclude that MGM doesn't owe the player, and that the lawsuit will fail.
I notified the attorney about where I think he went wrong about the definition of "authentication".
Quote: MichaelBluejay...I conclude that MGM doesn't owe the player, and that the lawsuit will fail.
You would have made a good lawyer.
quote - MichaelBluejay
"I conclude that MGM doesn't owe the player and that the lawsuit will fail"
I seem to remember you indicating that you worked for some casinos or worked on behalf of some casinos
if I'm mistaken about this I apologize
but if I'm correct then that has to be considered when assessing your above remark
I would question the objectivity re this issue of a person whose livelihood comes from casinos
not saying you're wrong - just saying that it's something that should be considered
you've made a number of points
but before a conclusion is drawn we need to hear all the points made by her attorney
.
Quote: drmarioI like stories like these but truly believe that BetMGM should have to pay up. Electronic ‘glitches’ shouldn’t relieve you of the bet that you accepted and paid out winnings for.
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.
you have a point no doubt.
but what if anyone won $19,000
should a casino be easily able to declare there was a glitch there too and refuse to pay even on a (relatively) small amount
if the answer is yes - then casinos have an awful lot of power
.
Quote: lilredroosteryou have a point no doubt.
but what if anyone won $19,000
should a casino be easily able to declare there was a glitch there too and refuse to pay even on a (relatively) small amount
if the answer is yes - then casinos have an awful lot of power
.
I don't believe the Casinos can simply declare there is a glitch. They have to provide evidence that a glitch occurred.
In this case they presented a spreadsheet and explanation. It's in the complaint. (Surprisingly the plaintiff did not present the spreadsheet as an article of evidence. Only that one was provided. This says to me he intends to let MGM present this as their evidence and that it speaks in their favor, not his.
Ten cents or ten billion dollars, a glitch is a glitch.
I suspect getting overpaid$100,000 is going to be used against her by the defense. They are going to prove she was overpaid AND THEN claim how generous they were in allowing her to keep a rather hefty portion. They will point to the condition that she not go public and then demand the $100,000 return.
She may find herself owing the Casino the money back.
Precedent may be admissible. For example, the double up bug which may qualify as a similar glitch. They were forced to pay back the money even though nothing criminal was determined.
I personally was at a Roulette table when another player took my winning bet. I complained and to my shock, everyone at the table including the dealer said it was not my wager. The pit boss was called over and they played the back the tape in surveillance. (Of course it was mine). It wasn't the dealer who the pit boss ordered to pay me, it was the player who took my wager. So, yes, players, even $45 are on the hook if they get overpaid.
Quote: billryanI thought casinos can not force you to pay back an overpayment. They can ban you but not recoup money unless you volunteer it.
I'm unaware of any regulations to that effect.
I would imagine any civil judgement would be enforceable absent any such regulations.
The double up bug was paid back.
Phil Ivey had to not only pay back for the Baccarat win but the judge ordered him to pay back his Craps wins which always rubbed me wrong as he won those legit with no edge.
As for my own situation at the roulette table I described, I am quite certain the person could have refused to hand over my money but he didn't want to be banned. He wanted to continue playing roulette. And it was only $45.
Quote: Mission146Yeah, the Ivey decision pretty much opens the door for any player to be screwed in any orifice of the casino's choosing.
In that case, the casino didn't take the players winnings. It went through the court system and collected a legal judgment against them. The casino couldn't and didn't just seize the money.
Pete Rose was banned from the Tropicana for not paying back a substantial overpayment but they didn't take the money back.
Quote: billryanIn that case, the casino didn't take the players winnings. It went through the court system and collected a legal judgment against them. The casino couldn't and didn't seize the money.
Pete Rose was banned from the Tropicana for not paying back a substantial overpayment but they didn't take the money back.
How could they just take his winnings? They would have, "Just taken," his winnings if it had been online live dealer, or what have you.
Besides, Ivey played the game that he was given by the casino. They catered to everything he wanted because, for reasons that I will never understand, they figured one of the greatest professional poker players to ever live wanted to play -EV games for huge amounts.
Let's say she had only won $250K, and that amount is below the amount that they flag or whatever. And then 3 months later they run an audit and find there was a glitch. At some point the money should be hers.
I think we all understand that if the software glitches and everyone wins a billion dollars on one spin, that obviously it's not possible to pay everyone a billion.
But in this case, this went on for days. At some point, the casino is responsible.
Wow, you really do not know me. First, I have never worked for or on behalf of any casinos whatsoever in my life.Quote: lilredroosterI seem to remember you indicating that you worked for some casinos or worked on behalf of some casinos...if I'm correct then that has to be considered when assessing your above remark. I would question the objectivity re this issue of a person whose livelihood comes from casinos.
I do accept advertising from an online casino on my website, but as you can see by reading my page about the advertisers, I don't hesitate to criticize the advertiser for anti-player behavior.
In addition, I'm critical of casinos in general, saying that they should be reformed because of predatory behavior, and starting a Hall of Shame for the worst ones.
Even if I had worked for casinos, I like to think I'm objective. I reserved judgement on this particular case until (1) I found details about the nature of the malfunction, and (2) I read the complaint, which showed that the player's attorney is really stretching.
If the player had legitimately won, I'd be insisting she be paid, as my long history shows. But the player did not legitimately win, and so it's unfair for you to suggest that my siding with MGM could be because of some personal failing and not because the player didn't actually win the money.
We did, there's the detailed complaint, and I quoted from it extensively. That was the whole point of my last post. Did you even read it?Quote: lilredroosteryou've made a number of points. but before a conclusion is drawn we need to hear all the points made by her attorney
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/mgm-resorts-selling-aria-vdara-for-nearly-4b-and-leasing-them-back-2390989/
If MGM did indeed sit on the malfunction, then they did break the rules, because, as I just found, MGM *does* have a duty to report malfunctions, not just authentication failures:Quote: FinsRuleBut in this case, this went on for days. At some point, the casino is responsible.
But unlike the authentication clause, which requires reporting within 24 hours, this one just says "immediately". It seems like it took MGM a few days to report. Does that qualify as "immediately"? The law is vague.Quote: Michigan 432.632bAn internet gaming operator...must immediately notify the board, in writing, of any defects or malfunctions of the internet gaming platform, any component of the internet gaming platform, an internet game, or an internet game component that adversely affects the integrity or conduct of internet wagering or proper reporting of adjusted gross receipts, or that materially affects the operation or safety of, or wagering on, any internet gaming platform, any component of the internet gaming platform, any internet game, or any component of an internet game that has been approved by the board and is utilized by the internet gaming operator or internet gaming operator license applicant.
Michigan statutes
Even if MGM is shown to be in violation of this rule, again, that seems like an issue between MGM and the Control Board, and it's far from clear that it means the player should be entitled to money that she didn't legitimately win.
Quote: MichaelBluejayIf MGM did indeed sit on the malfunction, then they did break the rules, because, as I just found, MGM *does* have a duty to report malfunctions, not just authentication failures:
But unlike the authentication clause, which requires reporting within 24 hours, this one just says "immediately". It seems like it took MGM a few days to report. Does that qualify as "immediately"? The law is vague.Quote: Michigan 432.632bAn internet gaming operator...must immediately notify the board, in writing, of any defects or malfunctions of the internet gaming platform, any component of the internet gaming platform, an internet game, or an internet game component that adversely affects the integrity or conduct of internet wagering or proper reporting of adjusted gross receipts, or that materially affects the operation or safety of, or wagering on, any internet gaming platform, any component of the internet gaming platform, any internet game, or any component of an internet game that has been approved by the board and is utilized by the internet gaming operator or internet gaming operator license applicant.
Michigan statutes
Even if MGM is shown to be in violation of this rule, again, that seems like an issue between MGM and the Control Board, and it's far from clear that it means the player should be entitled to money that she didn't legitimately win.
"Immediately" implies from their discovery of the malfunction.
The woman's attorney hasn't fully thought it through. For example, he has submitted the letter from the MGM host congratulating her on her huge win as some form of proof that she won and then MGM renegged.
Actually the defense will say that letter is proof they had not discovered the malfunction yet and therefore were not in violation of the statute (I e. They didn't sit on the malfunction knowledge but reported it immediately upon discovery).
Quote: lilredrooster
you've made a number of points
but before a conclusion is drawn we need to hear all the points made by her attorney
Quote: MichaelBluejay
We did, there's the detailed complaint, and I quoted from it extensively. That was the whole point of my last post. Did you even read it?
1. I admitted I wasn't sure you worked for a casino or on behalf of a casino and indicated that if I was mistaken I would apologize. you did not include that when you quoted me
2. I was not able to find the actual lawsuit myself, despite searching. apparently you were. the link you provided in your first sentence does not contain the language of any of the points that you made. it only shows an image of the opening page of the lawsuit. I will chalk this up to an innocent mistake - but a mistake nonetheless. everybody would like to see the actual lawsuit itself, that you apparently have found. and it would be greatly appreciated if you would provide the link to this.
3. even if you have detailed all of the points of the actual filed lawsuit, as I believe you are claiming, there is every reason to believe that the plaintiff's attorney will have a great deal more to add if there is no settlement and the case is tried in a court of law
you also made no comment about this - which came from your link:
"𝐀𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧'𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧, Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Rules address voiding internet wagers.
The rule states: “An internet gaming operator or internet gaming platform provider 𝐌𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎𝐓 void a completed internet wager without board approval unless a void is necessary to resolve an internet gaming platform or internet game error or malfunction.”
the way I read that is that they did not have a right to void the wager under these rules because she had already completed her play and any resolution of the gaming platform or game error or malfunction could have proceeded - since she was no longer gaming
it was not necessary to void her wager - they could simply have taken the game off of their internet platform and no further glitch or malfunction could occur
if they improperly voided her wager - as it seems to me they did - this would seem likely to give strength to her suit and potentially add dollars if there is a further settlement offer
it is apparent to me that BetMGM did not act in good faith - and that fact is likely to count for something
.
Personal insult: 3 days. LOL.Quote: WizardYou would have made a good lawyer.
Here is a perfect example.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.casino.org/news/golden-nugget-wins-1-5-million-mini-baccarat-case/
Players won a huge amount of money when Golden Nugget failed to notice an unshuffled deck of cards being dealt.
The players noticed recognized they could accurately predict the succession of outcomes and capitalized.
The players were forced to pay back the Casino.
Taking advantage of mechanical glitches (an improperly unshuffled (pre-shuffled) deck or a double up bug has consistently resulted in the patrons Being forced to pay back money.
The MGM could sue for it anyway, based on the breach of the NDA, but I wouldn't do so in their shoes.
Quote: OnceDearPersonal insult: 3 days. LOL.
People have been suspended for less.
Quote: WizardIf I were the MGM, I would threaten to countersue for the $100,000 back. Based on what I know, if I were on the jury, I would probably side with the MGM.
you administer a site and I believe you at one time were the owner of this site, and it is a site accepts a great deal of casino advertising as does WOO
I also believe that at certain times you had other financial dealings with casinos
again, if I'm mistaken about this, I apologize in advance
but if I'm not mistaken - which I don't believe I am - than I have to consider the probability that your are not likely to be objective in assessing this issue
.
Although you admitted the possibility of error (and you couldn't have been more wrong), you said you were under the impression that I did work for or on behalf of casinos. That shows you don't have the first clue about me, and couldn't be bothered to even check. I'm an open book: My Easy Vegas website contains copious criticism of casinos, and my personal bio page lists every job I've ever had, which does not include working for or on behalf of casinos.Quote: lilredrooster1. I admitted I wasn't sure you worked for a casino or on behalf of a casino [blah blah blah]...
I *did* link to the complaint, where is available on the page I linked to, in its entirety. Either you couldn't figure out how to flip through the pages, or you're using a non-standard browser that can't handle it. Either way, that's not on me, that's on you.Quote: lilredroosterI was not able to find the actual lawsuit myself...the link you provided in your first sentence does not contain the language of any of the points that you made. it only shows an image of the opening page of the lawsuit. I will chalk this up to an innocent mistake - but a mistake nonetheless. everybody would like to see the actual lawsuit itself, that you apparently have found. and it would be greatly appreciated if you would provide the link to this.
Stop these character assassinations right now. Even if I *had* at one time worked for a casino, saying that I wouldn't view a case fairly is an insulting attack on my character. When you suggest the same thing about the Wizard, you attack his integrity as well. The Wizard has his faults, as we all do, especially me, but an unfair bias towards casinos is absolutely not one of them (for him or for me).Quote: lilredroosteryou [wizard] administer a site and I believe you at one time were the owner of this site, and it is a site accepts a great deal of casino advertising as does WOO. I also believe that at certain times you had other financial dealings with casinos
