$57 Million Slot Machine Win Blamed on Software Error, Casino Won't Pay

[iniudan]

However, it's difficult to say if the system doesn't already heavily lean towards the casinos, and that the ones who do operate the machines have enough inside knowledge that they can manipulate the results in their favor.

Actually it quite easy to calculate how the system advantage the casino. Just need to multiply the amount of each prize by the odd of each of them, add each result together, then divine by amount gambled, divine 1 by that last result, minus 1, result is the odd for the casino against 1 odd for you.

 

[Zen Toombs]

They should pay up. It told him he won, so he should win. Whether only 4 of the 5 slots came up is kinda irrelevant in my opinion when the machine is blaring noises and victory music at you and you are stuck dumb with a sum of ?43 million that you think should be yours!

If it was a computing error, which not actually getting all five slots but "winning" indicates, then he shouldn't get the money, because he actually didn't win, the machine said he did, but machines can be wrong, and the casino shouldn't suffer for it.

This argument, in two posts. I say that TimeLord wins though, because David Tennant.

Now for my two cents: it doesn't matter that the machine was buggy - if another machine had a bug that resulted in noone ever winning at that slot, the casino wouldn't do anything about it. Fair is fair.

 

[esperandote]

How come the error is that it declared him winner but not that the fifth slot didn't match?

 

[mjc0961]

Dude's entitled to the money as far as I'm concerned. Pay up and fix your buggy software so it doesn't happen again. If that thing is going off saying you won, then you should get the money. And if he doesn't get all the money, he sure as hell deserves more than a pitiful $100 and a free meal. This casino is scum.

 

[Sixcess]

I hope he wins, or at least drags it out enough that they offer a decent payment. Trying to palm off someone who thought he'd won millions with a hundred bucks and a cheeseburger is just cheap. So yeah, right or wrong I hope they have to pay out for not showing any class.

 

[Notthatbright]

[
Isn't it that they have to pay out roughly 80% of what they take in? Can't remember exactly how that nugget got in my head, but meh.

I think you're thinking of Health Insurance companies, and that nugget was thanks to Obamacare.

 

[Kopikatsu]

What is it with most of the people on the Escapist frothing at the mouth and howling for blood whenever it's some person vs a business? Take a chill pill, people.

Anyway...he didn't win. He even admitted he didn't win, AND he took video evidence of him not winning.

Bottom line: He didn't win. It's disappointing that the machine told him he won more than he would have, but disappointment is a part of life.

Edit: Misleading title is misleading. There was no win.

He added, ?I was so overjoyed and in my head I began calculating what I could do with all this money.?

A few months ago, Merlaku told the Austrian Times, ?I will fight for this until my death. I don?t accept it. I can?t sleep anymore and I constantly think about the injustice I?ve experienced.?

This is what an entitled twat looks like. Everyone look closely, because the word 'entitled' has been misused a lot lately. This is an appropriate situation for it.

 

[Eggsnham]

As far as I'm concerned, he should get his money.

Casinos cheat people out of millions all the time, why should one of their customers be denied the millions that he won out of a fluke?

 

[JaceArveduin]

I think you're thinking of Health Insurance companies, and that nugget was thanks to Obamacare.

Don't think so, I haven't read hardly anything on Obamacare. Think I heard it from my stepdad, so that source isn't really reliable either XD

 

[antipunt]

I'm interested more in the outcome. In other words, who -will- win, not who -should- win

 

[cgaWolf]

While i wish him all the best (austrian gambling is either state-run or firmly standing in mafia-like swamp of corruption; usually both), he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

He only had 4 stars, there are no $57m jackpots for (what's legally refereed to as) "small gambling", and austrian politics is unlikely to interfere on his behalf. Also, as lawyer rates are fixed here, and cannot legally be a %age of the contested sum/penalty, the case isn't hugely interesting to good law firms.

2. Don't set prizes at that kind of level if you can't afford the consequences of someone actually winning it. (I mean, 43 million Euros? That must be one hell of a wealthy casino...)

Casino Austria was part of a partially state-owned gambling monopoly for the longest time, the only reason it's not a monopoly anymore is because the EU broke that up. Right now it's a badly regulated, non-enforced clusterfu...srohdah, and that's describing the situation kindly.
Casino Austria is one of the largest gambling corporations worldwide, and one of Austrias largest tax contributors, one of the reasons why politicians are unlikely to interfere against them. They're owned to 1/3rd by the Austrian Fed, 1/3 Major Austrian Banks & Insurance companies, all companies with VERY close ties to politics (it's where we park ex-politicians until they retire).

Prediction: This is gonna end up at the OGH (supreme court) in 2-3 years, where it will become a political playball between the Conservative & Socialdemocrat parties, who will reform the law (in 2014, a year after the election so they get to dodge election promises) despite protests of the far-left and far-right, and the law will then be declared unconstitutional by the VfGH (Constitutional Court) around 2015/6...

PS: I'm not exaggerating about our legislative... inheritance & gift tax got declared unconstitutional in 2007 (mostly because they didn't handle money and real estate the same way), and it hasn't been fixed yet; so for the past 4 years we don't have those. What we do have since 2008 however, is a prime minister who quite literally might medically qualify as a moron.

PPS: On the plus side for this guy, Casino Austria has been successfully sued against, for errors in obligatory supervision and gambler protection laws, which may just apply in this case. On the downside, punitive damages are very limited since a 2005 law change, although that may not apply here, as the cases were ex-gamblers suing their money back due to addiction.

 

[AdmiralCheez]

Since his evidence of "winning" shows he didn't fulfill the requirements of winning - getting all five stars or whatever - and most slot machines have that "machine malfunction voids all winnings" stamped on the side, he doesn't have a case.

When it comes down to it, the casino has more money than him, and a staff of lawyers on call. He has a video showing machine malfunction. As disappointing as it is, the casino wins.

 

[cgaWolf]

and most slot machines have that "machine malfunction voids all winnings" stamped on the side, he doesn't have a case.

When it comes down to it, the casino has more money than him, and a staff of lawyers on call. He has a video showing machine malfunction. As disappointing as it is, the casino wins.

Stickers on the side may claim exclusion from liability, but this alone won't actually make them immune from it in an Austrian court. Unless specifically supported by a law (for example: warning signs about non-cleared ways in winter making you non-liable if someone slips there & breaks a leg), all those unilateral company policies aren't worth anything: Unless i sign my name, there's no agreement. It's one of the reasons why EULAs aren't enforcable in Austria, why Origin's EULA had to be changed in Germany because it simply wasn't legal, etc...

The D-A-CH region is very peculiar about what constitutes an agreement, and what doesn't.

Case in point, i'm in a 14 year legal battle against the catholic church, so far i've paid them 0.0 EUR, against several thousand Euro in church taxes they claim i owe them.

To be more specific, "Legal Battle" here means they threaten to sue me, i ignore them, the do sue me, i ignore them which defaults the sentence to them, and then they don't dare actually enforcing the sentence, for fear of me appealing the sentence, and winning the appeal.
Since i never signed anything, and since i never paid them a cent, i never explicitly or implicitly agreed to pay them church taxes - it's the one case the church would rather not see in court, which ofc doesn't stop them from bullying me...

 

[AdmiralCheez]

Stickers on the side may claim exclusion from liability, but this alone won't actually make them immune from it in an Austrian court. Unless specifically supported by a law (for example: warning signs about non-cleared ways in winter making you non-liable if someone slips there & breaks a leg), all those unilateral company policies aren't worth anything: Unless i sign my name, there's no agreement. It's one of the reasons why EULAs aren't enforcable in Austria, why Origin's EULA had to be changed in Germany because it simply wasn't legal, etc...

The D-A-CH region is very peculiar about what constitutes an agreement, and what doesn't.

Case in point, i'm in a 14 year legal battle against the catholic church, so far i've paid them 0.0 EUR, against several thousand Euro in church taxes they claim i owe them.

To be more specific, "Legal Battle" here means they threaten to sue me, i ignore them, the do sue me, i ignore them which defaults the sentence to them, and then they don't dare actually enforcing the sentence, for fear of me appealing the sentence, and winning the appeal (since i never signed anything).

Wow, I didn't realize some places of the world have reasonable laws surrounding agreements. All of the casinos I've ever been in have an unspoken rule that setting foot on their casino floor is akin to signing a legal document agreeing to any house rule. And it somehow holds up in court.

An example: around Halloween, I was walking through a casino, and in the center area of their hotel/shopping center, they were filming a party for their website or something. And signs were set up that said, Entering this room gives us permission to use your image in any way we desire. It wouldn't be that bad, except for the fact that the layout of the building forces you to go through this room if you want to go anywhere in any part of the building.

Anyway, it's good to see that signed paperwork agreements are still considered requirements in your part of the world. Good luck with the "legal battle." Maybe they'll get the hint some day and stop sending you notices.

 

[kebab4you]

I'm going with the 5th one jammed and he really did get 5 in a row and the software read it as such so yeah he should get the money.

 

[Khada]

They should pay up, but I don't care because I doubt the recipient will do anything worth while with it.

 

[Valanthe]

You know, all he really needs to do is find a way to either A. prove that the software worked as intended, and was, as many above have suggested, just the wheel jamming, which isn't an unlikely scenario, even well cared for machines break in hte most unusual ways when they get old. Or if he's -really- lucky, find a way to prove that the machine was not properly maintained. (A tangential example of this being the practice of "sweep logs" that many retail companies have their employees fill out as proof that the floor was checked to be free of spills/clutter. This became very popular with the prevalance of Slip Scams, where a customer would fake a 'slip' on some loose clutter, injure themselves, then sue the company for everything they could get away with.)

I'm not too keen on the laws in this case, but either of those should be able to waive the "malfunctions void wins" clause.

 

[LorienvArden]

I wonder if he took a printscreen when he supposely claim his prize?
Honestly I would properly done the same thing or at least settle it for more than $100 and a meal.

No need to. Casions have security cameras pointed EVERYWHERE. They can propably show evidence that the game result of this man did not match the winning conditions for the grand prize. No chance no how.

 

[Kapol]

While I'm sure that most people want him to win because they see it as a case of 'David vs. Galiath' in the small guy is fighting the big bad casino, he shouldn't. The guy didn't actually win. He got four out of the five and that's that. Yea, it 'told him' he won. But he could obviously see that he didn't win the jackpot. It's not like the guy didn't notice not all of the symbols were up up. And why should the casino have to pay him an ungodly ammount of money for a computer glitch?

Using the 'jammed' excuse is bullshit. If it spun at all, then wherever it stops should count as the landing zone. It's not like he didn't have any chance to begin with if it was spinning. And if it wasn't spinning, then he shouldn't have been playing the machine to begin with and told someone. The 'jammed' excuse also makes the casino's argument for them. The machine malfunctioned due to a jam so they shouldn't have to pay him out. In fact, I argue that one of the other four that did get on the winning layer jammed and he in fact only got three out of the five. I have as much logical basis as anyone making the same claim for the last one as far as I know.