darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 5465
July 20th, 2018 at 10:50:31 PM permalink
I came across this old lawsuit from 2009

At first i thought it was another of those malfunction voids play ridiculous $43 mil jackpots but this one is quite different

Here is the final ruling. I think the lawyers were incompetent for the plaintiff. Im wondering if the wizard could have testified and what his current opinion is

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1326082.html

So Ms Eash spins the top symbols on a slot and wins a $1mil jackpot at IP in Biloxi

Only IP says malfunction. The machine only pays $8000

Gaming commission does investigation and uncovers following

Machine had 3 different settings
Standalone with $8000 max pay
Standalone progressive with $1mil cap
Linked progressive with no cap

IP requested standalone machine but IGT incorrectly set the machine as a standalone $1mil progressive

Even though the signage clearly stated the top jackpot was only $8000 its settings were for $1mil

The commission ruled in miss Eash favor as the machine did not malfunction and she truly had the "lucky" spin per the odds

IP appealed

It climbed up to state supreme court

Which ruled in IPs favor

In the judgement there were two contracts examined

The IP lease agreement had an indemnity clause forbidding IP from recouping from IGT even though the mistake was traced to IGT. IP was considered unfairly on the hook

Secondly they concluded the signage stipulating a top payout of $8000 in full view constituted a valid contract which Miss Eash was held too.

She was awarded $8000 final judgement

IMO the plaintiff lawyers were incompetent. They should have made the mathematical argument that every person who had previously played had paid into the progressive so it was not IP but previous customers paying the jackpot

Also those customers were playing a game which probably violated state minimum payback (that is by paying only $8000 of $1mil the payback was then altered as to violate state law)

As such it was the signage that was wrong and therefore a void contract

Anyway its too late now but this really has made me upset all day lol
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3423
July 20th, 2018 at 11:16:51 PM permalink
I doubt more than a couple percent was going to the progressive.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8545
July 20th, 2018 at 11:17:25 PM permalink
What did the progressive amount supposedly start at? Seems like it was just set to a $1M base jackpot. (#4)

I doubt the difference between $8k and $1M jackpot would be the deciding factor between the game being below or above minimum payback requirement. The top jackpot is usually a small %. I'm not sure about top dollar.

IMO, since it showed the top payout being $8k, then the ultimate decision was correct in having IP pay her $8k. Well, maybe not 100% "correct", but not a complete hornswoggle.

I don't know how those games are setup. Is it possible to set it to the normal setting (how it should have been) and manually adjust the top payout? I think so, since every now and then you'll see a top payout of some weird amount that's non-progressive. Or was it setup so that the top payout was $1M, making the frequency of the top payout super duper low?
# Свободный Натан
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 5465
July 20th, 2018 at 11:24:57 PM permalink
Quote: RS

What did the progressive amount supposedly start at? Seems like it was just set to a $1M base jackpot. (#4)

I doubt the difference between $8k and $1M jackpot would be the deciding factor between the game being below or above minimum payback requirement. The top jackpot is usually a small %. I'm not sure about top dollar.

IMO, since it showed the top payout being $8k, then the ultimate decision was correct in having IP pay her $8k. Well, maybe not 100% "correct", but not a complete hornswoggle.

I don't know how those games are setup. Is it possible to set it to the normal setting (how it should have been) and manually adjust the top payout? I think so, since every now and then you'll see a top payout of some weird amount that's non-progressive. Or was it setup so that the top payout was $1M, making the frequency of the top payout super duper low?



Good questions

I dont have the answer

However gaming commission sided with patron that jackpot was legit win based on odds and settings

Higher courts overruled based on contract legality
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 131
  • Posts: 16741
July 21st, 2018 at 12:37:13 AM permalink
I'm not sure what limitations are posed on their gaming commision, however, they should have said to the casino if you don't pay the 1M we will impose a fine of 1.5M. Problem solved.

I'm surprised the casino didn't try to negotiate once gaming ruled in her favor. Perhaps they did and someone suggested that since gaming ruled in her favor there would be no problem with the higher courts.

More often than not, I think gaming has made good decisions overall.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1223
  • Posts: 20327
July 21st, 2018 at 5:46:44 AM permalink
If forced to take a side, I have to go with the IP. I'm sure there was a sign somewhere saying "malfunction voids all pays and plays." It was a malfunction, albeit human error, that caused the machine to incorrectly announce a $1M win. Plus, signage indicated the top win was $8,000.

I've heard a number of cases like this and all of them seem to go the casino's way, which I think is right. I used to have the opposite position on this matter, when I was younger and more idealistic.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 91
  • Posts: 9319
July 21st, 2018 at 6:11:13 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

If forced to take a side, I have to go with the IP. I'm sure there was a sign somewhere saying "malfunction voids all pays and plays." It was a malfunction, albeit human error, that caused the machine to incorrectly announce a $1M win. Plus, signage indicated the top win was $8,000.

I've heard a number of cases like this and all of them seem to go the casino's way, which I think is right. I used to have the opposite position on this matter, when I was younger and more idealistic.



I disagree that it was a malfunction. It was not a malfunction. The machine operated in the exact way it was programmed to operate. She won the jackpot with the correct reels. In other type of situations the machine would display a jackpot when there was no win. In this case the player got the correct symbols. Since they got the correct symbols for a jackpot then they should be awarded the jackpot. The argument is not if it was a malfuntion, but what should the jackpot be.

I do agree with the outcome. When everyone sat down they all played based on the 8k award. I would have fought for the million but knew in my heart that I was probably going to get 8k.

I would like to see a picture of the machine though. Was there anywhere on the machine that showed a progressive that was climbing, or was this just a standard machine where all of the screens showed fix wins?
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 5465
July 21st, 2018 at 6:23:30 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

If forced to take a side, I have to go with the IP. I'm sure there was a sign somewhere saying "malfunction voids all pays and plays." It was a malfunction, albeit human error, that caused the machine to incorrectly announce a $1M win. Plus, signage indicated the top win was $8,000.

I've heard a number of cases like this and all of them seem to go the casino's way, which I think is right. I used to have the opposite position on this matter, when I was younger and more idealistic.



Does this mean human error is considered within malfunction parameters?

That sounds a bit scary and catchall to me

For example if you knew your freezer needed to be set high to avoid an ice cream cake melting

And when you returned home your cake was melted because you had accidentally set it to low

Would you declare the fridge had malfunctioned? Or accept the fridge worked as it was supposed to and it was human error

Not trying to be argumentative. You yourself said your opinion has changed so this seems like a grey area
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
CrystalMath
CrystalMath
Joined: May 10, 2011
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 1768
July 21st, 2018 at 7:31:24 AM permalink
It was not a malfunction and I didnít gather that anyone was leaning on that for their verdict. Instead, they are relying on contract law: the game said 3 diamonds pays $8000. This was permanently on the glass. If the game had displayed the progressive in any way, before she hit it, then thatís what she should be entitled to. I doubt the machine had a progressive display, because IP would have surely lost.
I heart Crystal Math.
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 4920
July 21st, 2018 at 8:04:52 AM permalink
It was the correct outcome. You can not win more than the advertised maximum on the machine.

I agree with others, there was no malfunction.
Living longer does not always infer +EV

  • Jump to: