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.