Question for Casino Apologists
This question is for Steverino and any other casino apologists who side with the Sandia Resort and Casino over their refusal to honor a jackpot that apparently resulted from a malfunction, and which in any event registered winnings in a much higher amount than the machine was supposed to have been capable of. Suppose I walk into the same casino, wearing a pin on my shirt reading “Maximum loss $500. If I screw up, it doesn’t count.” Assume that pin was in plain view of all dealers, printed in exactly the same font and size as the slot machine warnings no one ever reads. I sit down at a card table, giving the dealer every opportunity to tell me to take a flying leap, but he ignores the pin and deals me a hand instead. I place $10,000 on the table, am a royal flush, get the stupids, and discard a few cards. As a result of my own stupidity, I end up losing a hand I should have easily won. How much should the casino collect from me?
- $10,000. That’s how much I placed on the table. Duh!
- $500. I told the guy that was all I could lose, so how does he get off expecting to collect more? Duh!
- $0. Malfunctions void all pays and plays, right? I malfunctioned. Duh!
- Other (specify). Duh!
November 7th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
You’re comparing a person to a machine. Doesn’t that invalidate your argument out of the gate?
November 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I’ve always thought of you as a bit robotic so it’s not a stretch to think that you’d malfunction on occasion.
As to your hypothetical, the pin would be seen as a gimmick (unlike a sign limiting payouts as in this situation) and would not be taken seriously by the casino, thus failing to meet the required ‘meeting of the minds’ needed for you to limit your losses. Heck, if wearing a pin establishes an enforceable contract, wouldn’t wearing a button that says ‘I’m a WINNER’ obligate them to give you money?
Even if you made it clear that your pin expressed more than just your wishes and dreams and the casino accepted your terms, your actions in betting more than the $500 you wished to limit your losses would invalidate the claim on your pin.
So no, you don’t get your money back.
Oh, and where is the casino that deals you a hand before you make your bet? That’s a casino I want to go to.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Anwyn: How so? People bet against machines, so why should the rules be stacked in favor of the machine? If anything, we should be more lenient toward the human, who is supposed to make mistakes from time to time. Machines never do, unless some human along the way did.
Steve: Don’t all casinos allow you to raise your bet after your hand is dealt? If not, assume I bet the $10,000 upfront; the issue is the same either way. As to the “meeting of the minds” arguments, I don’t disagree, but doesn’t the same go for the casino’s claim?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Because machines break in ways that people cannot foresee or control. You could walk in with that pin on you and lose on purpose just to test out your theory.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I could, but in my hypo, I didn’t. If the possibility of intentional malfunctions were the deciding factor, what’s to stop crooked casinos and manufacturers of one-armed bandits (they do call them that for a reason) from doing the same? Manufacturers could deliberately design machines to “malfunction” every so often, or casino owners could willfully fail to maintain them adequately for the same reason, with an eye to cause an occasional “malfunction” that will get all the other players on the floor excited, while the casino knows the purported winner will lose everything behind closed doors. And if they really are the only industry in the world that can wash its hands of product liability by placing a sticker on the machine reading “we’re not liable to anybody for anything, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah,” why shouldn’t they take advantage of that privilege?
Or both parties could be willfully negligent about design and maintenance, figuring that if any malfunctions do occur, they can only help the casino, so who cares? Sure the sticker claims that malfunctions void all “pays and plays,” but we all know that as a practical matter, the only malfunctions that will be detected in time to void anything are the ones that favor the player. The only reason Sandia inspected Hoffman’s machine was because it had just registered a big win for Hoffman. If the machine really was defective, as Sandia maintains, we’ll never know how many gamblers before him (let alone who) lost games they should have won as a result of that same defect over which they, unlike the manufacturer and the casino, had no control.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Ugh.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
This is over a year late, I know. I hadn’t been paying attention to the thread.
First, I’m not a casino apologist. I’ve made my living at times writing software for slot machines. I’ve also held a restricted gaming license. So, I know a little bit more about gaming regulations than the average bear.
Second, “malfunction voids all pays and plays” does NOT mean the player loses his money. At worst, the player would get his money back (the play is voided, so the bet is returned).
Your thought that manufacturers or casinos would rig machines to fail is just absurd. The gaming commission which oversees the venue has complete schematics and source code for all machines, and it’s got engineers whose sole function is to pore over that info. If a manufacturer ships a machine designed to fail, it would lose its ability to ship any machines ever again. And such a planned defect would be found. So, no manufacturer would ever risk it. A casino that deliberately rigs a machine after purchase would be caught by the on-site inspectors. They appear without notice, and check every machine in the building. Something like that would get their gaming license terminated. So, no casino would ever risk it.
All big jackpots result in the machine being checked. In Nevada, that means any payout more than $1200. Play on the machine is halted until the attendent comes to inspect the machine — which usually consists of looking at the play history and the payout history, to make sure they match — and then resets it.
I don’t know what caused the malfunction in this case. It may have been the machine itself, and it may have been the network software (which controls the wide-area payout jackpot). But if the history on the machine is saying one thing, and the network software is saying another, then the gaming commissions tend to go with what the game history says. Further, I don’t know whether this is the case at Sandia, but most wide-area payout progressive jackpots aren’t administered by the casino, they are administered by the slot manufacturer (or whoever sold them the networking software).
December 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I don’t doubt that you are correct on the law. My general understanding is that Nevada gaming laws (or in this case, Indian reservation gaming laws) are pretty simple: what the casinos want, the casinos get. That doesn’t mean the rest of us should accept as good policy a rule that is fundamentally unfair, and which is also fundamentally at odds with the way product defects are handled in almost every other arena. If I’m injured by a defective consumer product, I can sue the store that sold it to me. They can’t defend against ME by saying that they didn’t manufacture the product and it’s not their fault it was defective. They can, however, pay me off, and then use that argument to turn around seeking indemnity from anyone else upstream in the chain of distribution, with the manufacturer (if solvent) ultimately holding the bag.
I understand that “voids all pays and plays” means in theory that the player gets his money back when he wrongly loses, and not just when he wrongly wins. In practice, though, who are we kidding? As you noted, machines are immediately checked for a malfunction every time a jackpot exceeds a certain threshold. They are not checked for a malfunction every time a gambler loses a bet. A single glitch on a $1 slot machine (or network of slot machines) may cause 1,200 gamblers to lose bets they really should have won, and all 1,200 of them will be none the wiser. But when that very same glitch causes one gambler to win $1,200 that he shouldn’t have won, then the machine gets inspected, and golly gee, this particular malfunction voided this particular pay and play. How convenient!
You say it’s absurd to suggest that manufacturers would rig machines to fail, but I’m not so sure about that. Obviously, if someone submitted egregious code that made it clear that the programmer had deliberately created a “fail” subroutine to sabotage every nth game, then presumably that company would end up in a world of hurt. But surely not every innocent (or innocent looking) bug discovered by the gaming commission invites that same draconian result. Bugs occur all the time, and since selective inspections guarantee that any truly neutral errors will systematically favor the casino/manufacturer, there is no real incentive to devote any more resources than absolutely necessary to test the software and get it right. From a pure business standpoint, the “best” code is the worst code the gaming commission will let you get away with.