Women wins 8.5 mil jackpot. Casino claims malfunction
November 8th, 2015 at 1:48:48 PM
permalink
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
Wow that's great news. Do you know which casinos, specifically Muckleshoot or Tulalip?
Regarding the slot error: Most low volatility slot games usually award a top payout of 50,000-80,000 credits, high volatility from 100,000-200,000 so in good faith the casino should pay out $10k, or 200,000 nickels. Of course heavy emphasis on SHOULD.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
November 9th, 2015 at 2:47:23 PM
permalink
It could be the casino is not the final say on this. If this is some extremely big progressive machine, then the casino could very well be leasing that machine and it will be the manufacturer who has the final say. We do not have many large progressives anymore at the establishments I audit but when we did the payouts could only be conducted once the slot machine rep. checked the machined and okayed the payout.
As far as what should have been done, well I am a bit torn. The bean counter conservative side says heck no there should be no pay out but the more liberal sides acknowledges the guest has been through an emotional ride and how can we make this up to her. The $80.00 is a joke but I am not sure that I would pay out more than a $1,000. I would at least pay the guest back exactly how much she placed in the machine during the session at a minimum and then probably match that with an equal amount for free-play.
The Wizard is pretty spot on in regards to the possible tribal court issue but even then this really depends on the factions and politics within the tribe. Some tribes have good strong regulatory systems in place that are impartial but there are just as many with commissions and courts with biases views. At my place I think the person would get a fair meeting with the Gaming Commission and get a fair trial if it went to tribal court. That is not the case in all jurisdictions. You run into the same type of possible bias even at the non tribal casinos. The state may be in charge of the GC but the funding that supports the GC comes from the casinos and the state also receives other tax funding from the commercial casinos. I guess the biggest difference is how much funding a state receives from a commercial casino vs. the almost total funding of a tribal government by the tribe's casino. In the end though both the state and tribal governments are receiving funding from an entity they regulate and it is the individuals who work with the regulatory structure, that you hope are honest and impartial.
As far as what should have been done, well I am a bit torn. The bean counter conservative side says heck no there should be no pay out but the more liberal sides acknowledges the guest has been through an emotional ride and how can we make this up to her. The $80.00 is a joke but I am not sure that I would pay out more than a $1,000. I would at least pay the guest back exactly how much she placed in the machine during the session at a minimum and then probably match that with an equal amount for free-play.
The Wizard is pretty spot on in regards to the possible tribal court issue but even then this really depends on the factions and politics within the tribe. Some tribes have good strong regulatory systems in place that are impartial but there are just as many with commissions and courts with biases views. At my place I think the person would get a fair meeting with the Gaming Commission and get a fair trial if it went to tribal court. That is not the case in all jurisdictions. You run into the same type of possible bias even at the non tribal casinos. The state may be in charge of the GC but the funding that supports the GC comes from the casinos and the state also receives other tax funding from the commercial casinos. I guess the biggest difference is how much funding a state receives from a commercial casino vs. the almost total funding of a tribal government by the tribe's casino. In the end though both the state and tribal governments are receiving funding from an entity they regulate and it is the individuals who work with the regulatory structure, that you hope are honest and impartial.
