Slot malfunction bad lawsuit

Quote: billryan

Reading the fine print, we discovered that at the .27 cent bet, only bar wins pay. At .81 cents, certain symbols turn wild but only at max bet do 7s pay. Very confusing to a casual player.

We call these machines "buy a pay" machines because you are buying different possible payouts. These types of machines have been around a long time (probably at least 30 years). I doubt if the symbol frequency is different depending on the bet, but it could be.

Quote: MaxPen

That's exactly why I find it hard to believe a casino would even have that promotion.

It was in either 98 or 99. The winner got one spin on each machine. If you doubt it happened, put up enough money to make it worthwhile hunting it down..

Quote: darkoz

...By playing with that signage visible patron agreed to terms of payout...

Quote: CrystalMath

I can see how this is frustrating for a player, but the contracted payment was right there on the glass...

I'm not an attorney and I could destroy this as being a contract with the player. The contract with the player is them pressing the button and the game performing as designed, which it did. Want to know how I'd destroy the "displayed pay rates" being the contract? Simple. Sit down slot techs, pit bosses, ceo's, and even random gamblers and ask them for the exact payouts on different machines. No one knows the exact payouts of symbols on pretty much any slot. People 'plop' on in to a seat and play, with the VAST MAJORITY not looking at the payout screens/section at all. The writing on the machine is not the contract the casino has with the patron, in my opinion. Would make for a pretty obvious case when you have the own casinos employees that walk by the machines or do something with them daily not even knowing the payouts.

Quote: Romes

I'm not an attorney and I could destroy this as being a contract with the player. The con.tract with the player is them pressing the button and the game performing as designed, which it did.

That is ridiculous. The reason the paytables are required to be included is so that the patron can make sure it is paying the advertised amount. Otherwise I would put a paytable that says every winning combination pays $1,000,000 and always pay zero. That is how I designed it, therefore the patron deserves nothing.

The only fair way is to pay what is advertised.

Quote: DRich

The only fair way is to pay what is advertised...

... and have the machine properly set up to play as intended, without having the casino's vendor improperly setting internal machine controls.

The vendor agreed it accepted all responsibility for acts by its staff, and improper actions by its staff caused this problem before either the casino received the machine or the patron played it. Absent the improper actions by the IGT staff there never would have been a problem in the first place. Period.

Quote: LuckyPhow

... and have the machine properly set up to play as intended, without having the casino's vendor improperly setting internal machine controls.

The vendor agreed it accepted all responsibility for acts by its staff, and improper actions by its staff caused this problem before either the casino received the machine or the patron played it. Absent the improper actions by the IGT staff there never would have been a problem in the first place. Period.

Nope, that is irrelevant.

Quote: billryan

It was in either 98 or 99. The winner got one spin on each machine. If you doubt it happened, put up enough money to make it worthwhile hunting it down..

You trying to AP another round of $ribeyes?

Quote: DRich

Nope, that is irrelevant.

As I see it, there are three parties involved. The casino, the manufacturer and the player. Of the three, only the player is blameless. Of course, they are the ones being punished. The others skate. It's a wonderful system.

I believe there is precedent for contracts to be deemed invalid if the contract was completely onesided to a vendor. This should have been argued here

Ex. Signage says max $8000 payout so when patron wins top symbols and machine says its worth one million casino claims signage is correct

However if reversed signage says top symbols pay one million and when patron spins them machine says she only won $8000 would casino them claim malfunction voids all pays and plays

This would be deemed a one sided contract imo

You are not supposed to have a contract where one side is on the losing end of all decisions no matter what if im not mistaken

Certainly one can argue this example is not a SIGNED contract with attorneys advising both sides of the ramifications

200,000 credits per spin or max from free spins?