She has a picture
These slot machine are no longer mechanical
Its all computer
Computer gives her 8.5 mil, I consider it fairly won.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Over-8-million-jackpot-was-slot-machine-malfunction-casino-says-340207762.html
http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-news/casino-news/85-million-jackpot-winner-told-slot-malfunctioning/27862
Quote: terapinedI think she has a strong case
She has a picture
These slot machine are no longer mechanical
Its all computer
Computer gives her 8.5 mil, I consider it fairly won.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Over-8-million-jackpot-was-slot-machine-malfunction-casino-says-340207762.html
http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-news/casino-news/85-million-jackpot-winner-told-slot-malfunctioning/27862
I'm not so confident in her chances of having a case. Now, I'm not too familiar with that machine, but I do know that all slots have a warning on them "All malfunctions void payouts" or something similar on them. If the casino forked out some cash for the "jackpot", then it may be a pitiful consolidation payment, but I can't say for sure.
The machine is certainly not mechanical, you're correct. They should be able to go into the machine history and see what happened, and whether or not a legitimate win had occurred.
On a related note, I have seen "ghost jackpots" hit before in my experience, and they were fictitious jackpots of $1,000,000+.
Quote: rsactuarywhere is said video?
What video? The articles in the OP indicate that she wasn't able to record anything beyond a picture, which is understandable. We have the same practices here, no pictures or videos allowed.
Quote: DodsferdWhat video? The articles in the OP indicate that she wasn't able to record anything beyond a picture, which is understandable. We have the same practices here, no pictures or videos allowed.
"She recorded the machine on her phone". Do you say you "record a picture"?
Quote: rsactuary"She recorded the machine on her phone". Do you say you "record a picture"?
Ah, right. I misread the article, I was under the impression that she just snapped a shot of the machine. Regardless, video proof won't really do much for her case if the machine history says otherwise.
Quote: ontariodealerdoes that pic not say 8.5 million nickels
171,774,993 credits in nickels recorded on machine
On the other readout is dollars.
Why is that understandable? What possible bad can come from someone recording a machine?Quote: DodsferdWhat video? The articles in the OP indicate that she wasn't able to record anything beyond a picture, which is understandable. We have the same practices here, no pictures or videos allowed.
It's only protecting the casinos ass in case someone has a legitimate jackpot and the casino wants to cry foul.
There was some video recently at a NY casino where machines were stealing credits from people.
They got pissed she was recording as well.
What is the paytable for this game?
Does it in fact provide for that payout, for those symbols in that position?
Bet not.
Quote: AxelWolfWhy is that understandable? What possible bad can come from someone recording a machine?
It's only protecting the casinos ass in case someone has a legitimate jackpot and the casino wants to cry foul.
There was some video recently at a NY casino where machines were stealing credits from people.
They got pissed she was recording as well.
Typically speaking, they're more concerned with staff, camera locations, exits, and other aspects of the casino coming into frame and being recorded. Doesn't have much to do with the machines themselves. We've had photographers come into the casino for promotional purposes come into the building after hours to take photos, etc.
It's a pretty common rule among casinos, and it's more just superstition than validity.
In my professional opinion, it arises suspicion for me, and causes an interest in the individual and their motives for wanting to record on the gaming floor.
In my personal opinion, it's harmless 99.9% of the time, and I really don't think it's a big deal.
Exactly and by not letting someone record an event like this makes it seem suspicious.Quote: DodsferdTypically speaking, they're more concerned with staff, camera locations, exits, and other aspects of the casino coming into frame and being recorded. Doesn't have much to do with the machines themselves. We've had photographers come into the casino for promotional purposes come into the building after hours to take photos, etc.
It's a pretty common rule among casinos, and it's more just superstition than validity.
In my professional opinion, it arises suspicion for me, and causes an interest in the individual and their motives for wanting to record on the gaming floor.
In my personal opinion, it's harmless 99.9% of the time, and I really don't think it's a big deal.
Quote: AxelWolfExactly and by not letting someone record an event like this makes it seem suspicious.
Which, unfortunately, goes both ways. There is a lot of superstition and suspicion when it comes to this industry (no surprise), and the house tends to win in that tug-of-war, being that it's their house that people play in.
Again, I understand reasons for and against photographing or recording machines during play, but when I'm on shift, I'm there for the company.
There's no legitimate argument for not letting people record their own play.Quote: DodsferdQuote: AxelWolfExactly and by not letting someone record an event like this makes it seem suspicious.
Which, unfortunately, goes both ways. There is a lot of superstition and suspicion when it comes to this industry (no surprise), and the house tends to win in that tug-of-war, being that it's their house that people play in.
Again, I understand reasons for and against photographing or recording machines during play, but when I'm on shift, I'm there for the company.
I can understand that they don't want people recording exits and certain procedures. If someone wanted to secretly record that stuff they could EASILY do so and never be noticed. It's the people secretly recording they need to worry about not little old ladies recording JP wins. That's just dumb.
Quote: AxelWolfThere's no legitimate argument for not letting people record their own play.
I can understand that they don't want people recording exits and certain procedures. If someone wanted to secretly record that stuff they could EASILY do so and never be noticed. It's the people secretly recording they need to worry about not little old ladies recording JP wins. That's just dumb.
It's private property, just as you have the right to say what does and doesn't happen within the confines of your own home.
Quote: AxelWolftheir own play.
The scary thing is, it's not their own play. All of the machines are owned by the gaming commission, and are being used for entertainment purposes. Their credits and play can be voided at any time.
Now, I've checked over our Terms and Conditions to double check, and it does indicate that pictures or recording of any type is strictly prohibited by any volunteer staff or charity workers in the vault / cash out cages. I realize that that doesn't apply here, though it is the only regulation related documentation I can find which speaks to any sort of non-casino recording.
This again leads me to believe that the prohibition of recording is entirely in-house related, and falls under the ownness of each casino to make a final call on that topic.
First they have to determine if a 8 million dollar JP was even possible.Quote: KentryMan, that is jank! I would raise hell if the machine told me that I won over 8 million dollars and the Casino wouldn't pay me!
Quote: AxelWolfFirst they have to determine if a 8 million dollar JP was even possible.
Aye. I mentioned previously that I am not familiar with that particular machine. The intricacies of the different machines isn't usually something we're supposed to know in our department, though I find it odd that a 5 cent machine would have a jackpot of $8m.
Quote: DodsferdAye. I mentioned previously that I am not familiar with that particular machine. The intricacies of the different machines isn't usually something we're supposed to know in our department, though I find it odd that a 5 cent machine would have a jackpot of $8m.
Yeah, odd doesn't cover it. I've never seen a 5 cent machine that had any possibility of hitting a JP like that.
Still, $80 is a pretty sad consolation prize. I think they could have shaken loose of some serious freeplay or something, not just stood on the letter of the malfunction clause. JMO given that the story's out there.
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, odd doesn't cover it. I've never seen a 5 cent machine that had any possibility of hitting a JP like that.
Still, $80 is a pretty sad consolation prize. I think they could have shaken loose of some serious freeplay or something, not just stood on the letter of the malfunction clause. JMO given that the story's out there.
The unfortunate reality, is that every machine indicates "Malfunction voids all pays and plays", so by that statement, they'd be entitled to absolutely nothing. The PR call of the department or casino in question certainly could have at least extended an olive branch beyond a paltry $80.
Offer a meal or something as well. Food takes the mind off of troubles for most.
Quote: AxelWolfWhy is that understandable? What possible bad can come from someone recording a machine?
I always thought bans on recording/taking photos of slot machines were more to protect the IP of the slot machine manufacturer (e.g. so you don't get a video of the reels as they spin) than to protect the casino.
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/Machine-Malfunction-Voids-All-Pays-and-Plays-And-H/
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, odd doesn't cover it. I've never seen a 5 cent machine that had any possibility of hitting a JP like that.
NickelMania might be in 100k territory, but I can't think of anything else.
There was (or still is) a megabucks version which is in penny denomination that started at 10million. 300 pennies was max bet. That sort of thing. And some of the other million dollar payouts are in dollar denominations.
However, Indian casinos I have found to be very sensitive about photography. I wrote about an incident where I was chased down by security and blocked from leaving my parking space over taking an exterior picture of the casino.
Regarding this case, I'd like to hear the casino point of view but I didn't see anything in that one image that showed anything that looked like it paid much. If nothing happened to add up to a win that big, I probably would take the casino's side.
In my opinion, deep down she knows it's a glitch and she's desperately trying to cling to the money. I have to side with the casino on this also.
Notice the number of credits is 171,774,993. This is in nickels, which comes to $8,588,749.65. 2^33 is 8,589,934,592. It is common for the maximum value of an integer to be some power of 2. I think the maximum value was 8,589,934,591. If this were a count of tenths of pennies, the maximum cash value would be $ 8,581,345,842. This is 1185 less than the $8,588,749.65 balance shown in the picture. Maybe I don't have the details right but I would bet it comes down to the problem of trying to store a negative number in a variable that is declared as "unsigned."
A slot machine should not have a reason for negative numbers so there is obviously some bad programming here. However, if it were my decision, I would say this falls under a "malfunction" and side with the casino.
Quote: DodsferdOffer a meal or something as well. Food takes the mind off of troubles for most.
Not the buffet at the Lucky Eagle!
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/supreme-court-upholds-dismissed-waterloo-casino-payout-case/article_0d0b2521-4c5c-5393-86c3-efcdd7edcadc.html
To my knowledge, the casino never offered her 200k. The Iowa Supreme Court decision has a lot of background information, including details of many other malfunction cases from around the country:
http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2015/140802.html
Notably, the courts in that cases did not even address the issue of malfunction. The player lost on other grounds in summary judgment (affirmed by the state Supreme Court).
Quote: mipletJust a reminder that this is in Washington State, so it's either pull tabs or bingo. The highest progressive that I have seen in Washington was about $1 million.
Exactly. In Washington games are not "random".
Going from Fifth Ave NY to Fifth St Detroit in a matter of minutes at her age she wouldnt make it
The Casino needs to pay her what I just suggested, or risk her bad mouthing the Casino to potential gamblers,("Hey, Tina, don't play at this Casino. Their machine told me that I won 8.5 million, and they refused to pay me all those millions because of a malfunction. All they gave me was $80." Tina "Okay, wow. Thanks for the heads up. I'm not going to be putting my money in that Casino, that's for sure!" thus, losing them money in the long run. A payment of $8,500 or $80,500 would show good faith from the Casino,($8,500 or $80,500 is really not all that much money for a Casino to give, considering that many people are losing $5,000 on a constant basis anyway, if just 20 people lose $5,000, that is already $100,000 and the Casino is still ahead by about $19,000, if they go with the $80,500, and up about $91,000 if they go with the $8,500 one and she gets happy
Quote: DeanThe $80 the Casino sent her in a check is a joke, and not the funny kind either, as she may have played $400 in that machine before getting that dreaded 8.5 million malfunction. The right thing for the casino to have done since it's not the player's fault if the machine malfunctions on its own is give her $8,500, or $80,500, a reasonable compromise for both her and the Casino.
I think she'll get more than that in a settlement. We'll probably never know, but I think this will settle out of court for about $100,000. I do agree the $80 is insulting. Had I been in charge, I would have offered about $5,000 if she signed a non-disclosure and release of all claims, and been willing to go higher if pushed.
There is supposed to be a piece on this on the Today Show this morning but I'm probably not going to wait around for it. Hopefully it will make the Today web site.
Quote: WizardI think she'll get more than that in a settlement. We'll probably never know, but I think this will settle out of court for about $100,000. I do agree the $80 is insulting. Had I been in charge, I would have offered about $5,000 if she signed a non-disclosure and release of all claims, and been willing to go higher if pushed.
There is supposed to be a piece on this on the Today Show this morning but I'm probably not going to wait around for it. Hopefully it will make the Today web site.
With the publicity, it may indeed go in her favour. Given that the machine clearly indicates that all malfunctions void pays, she's entitled to nothing. The settlement at this point would be a PR call, more than any wrong doing. I agree that $80 is silly, and probably actually hurts the case, but in the end, she didn't win $8.5m, nor is she entitled to any volume of cash from that machine.
She'll probably get little if anything more: the machine clearly malfunctioned.
The joint is always busy, what do they care about a little bad publicity?
Their clientele of drunks, farmers, retirees and meth-heads will return, regardless.
Should be simple for the casino to compare a screen shot to the game's pay table.
Quote: MrVShe should get no more than the outcome of her play, as shown by the placement of the symbols on the game screen, entitles her to.
Should be simple for the casino to compare a screen shot to the game's pay table.
But if there is an error somewhere, who is to say that it was the screen symbols that are wrong and the payout is correct. As long as the payout was even a possibility.
Quote: GWAEBut if there is an error somewhere, who is to say that it was the screen symbols that are wrong and the payout is correct. As long as the payout was even a possibility.
Interesting point. That would be a good measure to cap any maximum award. However, the way slots work is to first draw random numbers, then assign them to positions on a reel strip, then to score where the reels stop. In other words, it is the reels that determine the win, not the other way around (except in class II slots and pull-tab games).
Quote: DRichExactly. In Washington games are not "random".
Washington recently (6-8 months ago) allowed Class III gaming for certain tribes, it appears, so it's possible this was a random machine
Quote: NcellWashington recently (6-8 months ago) allowed Class III gaming for certain tribes, it appears, so it's possible this was a random machine
I went to the casino in Anacortes several years ago and it looked like they had class III games, although you couldn't put money directly in them but had to buy a voucher first. However, I didn't play them, so could be mistaken.
All Appendix X2 games are Class III. They're central-determinant electronic pull-tab games, not RNG-based slot games, but those are Class III under IGRA as well. To my knowledge, no tribal-state gaming compact in Washington permits an EGD to determine the outcome of a play in an independent, "player vs machine" manner the way a Nevada slot game does. If there's a new compact in force somewhere, I don't know about it.Quote: NcellWashington recently (6-8 months ago) allowed Class III gaming for certain tribes, it appears, so it's possible this was a random machine
Those were the Appendix X games. Appendix X was modified (into Appendix X2, naturally) and that allows cash-in/TITO.Quote: WizardI went to the casino in Anacortes several years ago and it looked like they had class III games, although you couldn't put money directly in them but had to buy a voucher first. However, I didn't play them, so could be mistaken.
Interesting Business Model. Find your niche and be the best in it, I guess.Quote: MrVTheir clientele of drunks, farmers, retirees and meth-heads will return, regardless.