Malfunction Costs Couple $11 Million Slot Machine Jackpot

Mistake my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-05 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's be clear. The 'engineering mistake' was that the machine hit the jackpot.

Re:Mistake my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-05 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's be clear, it's called "welching," the casino should pay out the jackpot and the slot machine maker should pay the casino for his "engineering mistake." Nevada (or wherever) should enact a law such as that, but it won't happen soon. And it's why part of the reason not to gamble in the first place.
Re:Mistake my ass. by ls671 · 2010-06-05 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

About having the machine inspected when you lose to make sure no 'engineering mistake' were made ?
This is stupid, it should be like in baseball where faulty referee calls are considered part of the game. Especially since I have never heard of machine getting inspected when you lose ;-)

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Re:Mistake my ass. by fearlezz · 2010-06-05 07:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

That actually was a mistake.
I read an article a while ago about a guy who uploaded the software of a slot machine to a vmware-like environment. This way, he could revert back to the very same state over and over again. The machine always gave the user the impression that if he had made another decision, he would have won the jackpot. Except for when the user actually made that decision.
So I think any slot machine paying big bucks is either programmed to do so periodically as a way of marketing the casino or otherwise suffering from a serious bug.

--
.sig: No such file or directory
Re:Mistake my ass. by twistedsymphony · 2010-06-05 08:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

I worked in an arcade repairing machines for 3 years... we bought a few dozen decommissioned slot machines from casinos that I retrofitted to dispense prize tokens as opposed to money.

I can tell you that the machines are absolutely programmed to make you lose even if you hit the buttons at the exact right time to stop the rollers. Basically the operator programs the payout to be a ratio of the money deposited. Our machines were programmed to dispense 2 cents worth of prize tokens for every 25 cents deposited. The machine word operate honestly until the ratio got too far in the user's favor, then it would cheat on the last roller to correct the ratio. a jack pot scenario would only be allowed to happen if the ratio was already deep in the favor of the operator.

It was pretty comical, with the machine open I could stop the rollers right in the position I wanted by hand, and if the machine decided to "correct" the ratio it would use the stepper motor to index the last roller one or two positions past where I had stopped it. Pretty much undetectable to the human eye while the thing is spinning.

--
Collector's Edition
Re:Mistake my ass. by MaskedSlacker · 2010-06-05 08:26 · Score: 4, Funny

They're inspected regularly, which is approximately how often the players lose.
Re:Mistake my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-05 08:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

When I was younger, the local football club used to sell scratch-cards in the town each weekend. They sold them for years. They were 25p each, with a max possible win of £20. I can remember buying a few from time to time, maybe winning £1 very occasionally.
Then, when we were about 14 somebody found out that a shed near the football club had boxes and boxes full of these unopened (and by then out-of-date) cards, and we took tens of thousands of them. We would spend ages scratching them off, looking for 'winners'. Took so long, that we gave up on that and we learnt just to scratch of the 'void if removed' box and recognise the most common codes... something like 18414 would always mean a loser, 85413 would be a £1 winner etc... we were always looking for a really unusual number that would be the £20 winner.
Any we never found one, not one £20 winner, despite examining tens of thousands of cards over several months.
Re:Mistake my ass. by hduff · 2010-06-05 08:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

All games of "chance" and "skill" (like carnival games) are deliberately skewed in favor of the owner, otherwise there would be no profit in owning them. They are meant for entertainment of the customers, not their retirement plan. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
That said, the owners could be less greedy.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Re:Mistake my ass. by PopeRatzo · 2010-06-05 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Every machine here in Nevada says right on the front "malfunction voids play" or something similar.
And clearly, a jackpot is a major malfunction for the casino owners.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Mistake my ass. by thoughtfulbloke · 2010-06-05 09:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

When you try to throw a ring over a peg at a carnival, there is the assumption that there is a very, very small chance you might win. But as this recent case (involving statistics, forensics, and side-show con artists) shows, in the U.K. at least the odds can't be too far in the houses favour.
Re:Mistake my ass. by this+great+guy · 2010-06-05 10:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Just like these claw crane games that you find in vide arcades or amusement parks: those with a joystick to control a crane to grab stuffed animals or whatnot. Curious, one day I browsed the web to find operator's manuals, and they are programmed to make it look like the crane accidentally drops objects. The operator can enter parameters to define the average price of prizes, the average winning rate, etc so that in the end, just like slot machines, the payout percentage can be controlled very precisely. For more info read Machine configuration and chances of winning.
Knowing this completely takes the fun out of it, doesn't it ?
Re:Mistake my ass. by Anne_Nonymous · 2010-06-05 10:57 · Score: 5, Funny

>> "malfunction voids play"
It should say that on electronic voting machines too.
Re:Mistake my ass. by realityimpaired · 2010-06-05 11:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

And in *this* country, a malfunction would be too bad for the casino owner, and they'd still have to pay out. If they had a problem with doing that, they'd have to take it up with their insurance company, or with that of the company that caused the malfunction.
Yet another reason why things are royally borked in the US....
Re:Mistake my ass. by Blue+Stone · 2010-06-05 11:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

Then the onus should be on the casino to ONLY allow functional machines to operate and be played.
If the machine is on the floor, the casino is stating that the machine has been tested and is fit-for-purpose. Otherwise they're essentially saying, these machines might be broken; where the error would result in OUR loss we will void your winnings; where the error might be your loss, that's tough cheese.
That's basically a scam. The law should be changed, or they should basically admit that 'anything goes' and the casino can always weasel out of any situation. (Maybe in big neon letters above the door).

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Mistake my ass. by rhvarona · 2010-06-05 12:46 · Score: 5, Informative

I worked for a while for a company that makes software for modern slot machines. Each state and indian reservation has different rules, but in the one we wrote software for it works almost like a roll of scratch-off lottery tickets. When developing a new game, the company decides on the payout, for example, 95%, which means that on average, out of every $1 played, the company pays out 95 cents back to the players. The company then decides on the prize distribution, for example (not a real game distribution, just an example): Count Prize Payout Amount 387,251 0 0 10,000 1 10,000 2,000 5 10,000 500 25 12,500 200 200 40,000 30 1,000 30,000 15 5,000 75,000 3 30,000 90,000 1 100,000 100,000 400,000 136,231 367,500 Total So out of 400,000 games played of $1 each, the casino is paying out $367,500 and making $32,500 profit. The prizes are randomized and the resulting distribution inspected to make it is distributed appropriately. The prize distribution is saved in a central casino database. Every time a play happens, while the graphics or reels are moving, the machine talks to the central server over a secure network and requests the next available prize. The server finds the next prize in the the list, marks it as played, and sends it to the machine. If it is a win, lights flash, bells ring, etc. Casinos in general want big jackpots, as loud and as attention getting as possible, since it gets more players to play longer. They have no interest in cheating you out out of big prize, since they are making money on average every time you play. Their interest is to keep you putting in money into the machine as long as possible, and they do that by having jackpots as often as they have calculated they should do it.
Re:Mistake my ass. by Xeno+man · 2010-06-05 15:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

The dealer isn't part of the game. It's the dealers job to run the game. The game it self determines winners and losers. If I'm playing blackjack and I have 25 and the dealer says winner, that is his mistake and I'm not entitled to any winnings. If I hit a blackjack and the dealer says looser, I am entitled to my winnings. If the dealer is not shuffling correctly and I'm winning, that's the casinos problem to fix but that doesn't change my past winnings or losses. If I don't like the way the dealer is shuffling, it's up to me to walk away from the table.

As for the slot machine, if the wheels all came up jackpot, they should get the money, regardless of any errors the machine may have had. If the wheels came up anything else but said jackpot anyway, then no they shouldn't win. It's as simple as that. If casinos want their games run by computers, they need to accept any errors they make. No different when an employee fucks up.
Re:Mistake my ass. by jd · 2010-06-05 16:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

The thing with probability is that the past should not alter the future. If you toss a coin, the chances of it being heads on any given toss are fixed. Even if you have tossed tails a dozen times on a perfectly fair coin, the odds of the next toss being heads are still 50/50.
Gambling on a machine has little to do with probability. Even so, there is a difference between a system that is skewed in the house's favor because the game is unbalanced versus a system that is skewed in the house's favor because it's rigged. An unbalanced system can still be "fair" in that you know that you have a non-zero chance of winning at any given time. In a rigged game, the chance of winning is either 1 or 0. It can never be anything in between. Even if both produce the same number of winners and losers in a day, with the winnings for each being identical, anyone with a sense of fairness is going to prefer the "honestly unbalanced" system over the rigged one.
Why? Because in an unbalanced system, the house is also gambling. It is a contest, no matter how warped. It is possible, as with the coin tossing, for the house to lose more than it expects on a given day. It is also possible for the house to win more. It'll even out in the end. In the rigged system, the winnings are pre-determined. The house is guaranteed to win around X amount from a given machine. It has zero risk.
In this particular case, a valid result according to the rules of the game was rejected because the game wasn't corrupt enough. It would be on-par to someone racing in Formula 1 being disqualified despite a perfect race because the bribed engineer failed to remove the fuel tank. IMHO, if a player plays by the rules and wins by the rules, they are entitled to victory under the rules. It is a bet, with agreed-upon odds, agreed-upon stakes and agreed-upon victory conditions. If a betting office was found doping racehorses or bribing footballers, do you seriously imagine they'd be able to claim they could withhold winnings when the person they tried to make lose won anyway?
Casinos in the US are not betting offices or really "gambling". You can't gamble in a deterministic world, you can merely win or lose when instructed to do so. I doubt this case will force any kind of change to the system, but I'd rather see ACTUAL gambling legalized in the US and game-rigging of any kind banned outright. Mind you, this would mean putting half of Nevada in jail. Not that I can see anything wrong with doing that.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Mistake my ass. by TheTurtlesMoves · 2010-06-05 22:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's basically a scam.
When you can get banned from a casino/s for winning too much, what part of a casinos operation isn't a scam?

--
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!

Lik they say by Vinegar+Joe · 2010-06-05 07:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

The House always wins.

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Jerry · 2010-06-05 07:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

in recent history that gambling casinos have used "mechanical problems" to evade honoring their promises?

I wager it will be used again. After all, aren't most winners too poor to afford lawyers to fight the casinos? It's the same problem with corporate abuse of DRM and DMCA lawsl.

--

Running with Linux for over 20 years!

Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by icannotthinkofaname · 2010-06-05 07:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

After all, aren't most winners too poor to afford lawyers to fight the casinos?
If I win my lawsuit, then I'll get $11 Million or $42 Million or whatever and be able to pay my lawyer. And I remember seeing ads on TV for law firms that don't charge unless they win your case.
Or am I missing something important here?

--
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by mbone · 2010-06-05 07:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes. From TOA
"It's the second time in three months a Colorado slot machine has made a multi-million dollar mistake. In March, a machine malfunction was blamed for a $42 million dollar jackpot."
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Kaboom13 · 2010-06-05 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Generally slot machines have a posted maximum jackpot. I don't know about this case but in other cases like this the reported "winnings" have far exceeded the maximum the machine is supposed to possibly give out, as posted on the machine. The real issue here is how crappy the engineering must be on these machines, to allow this to happen so often it routinely makes then news. In my opinion all glitches should require a payout of the maximum possible winnings, which must be clearly posted on the machine, regardless of what it "should" have paid out. That would encourage casinos to invest in machines with actual sound engineering principles, without making them unfairly liable for massive amounts of money when a legitimate freak error occurs (even in the best systems, exceedingly rare circumstances could cause errors). It's a slot machine, it's a simple device, if they spend the money on reasonable robustness they can easily achieve extremely low error rates.
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Josh04 · 2010-06-05 07:43 · Score: 5, Informative

The other side's lawyers charge. The court charges. No-win no-fee isn't no-cost.
Re: Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Black+Parrot · 2010-06-05 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's a slot machine, it's a simple device, if they spend the money on reasonable robustness they can easily achieve extremely low error rates.
They already do. I've seen the engineering that goes into slot machines made in the USA, and know a little bit about the certification requirements and procedures. It's jaw-droppingly stiff. After all, these machines deal with *money* instead of mere lives.
If the Colorado Gaming Division says the machine is defective, the couple should sue them for allowing it into service.
Actually, the certification is done by a third party, so the couple should sue the casino and the certifier, and the CGD only if it doesn't revoke the certifying agency's license to certify in their state.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by dgatwood · 2010-06-05 08:14 · Score: 5, Informative

The court charges, but in general, when you're talking about two parties with dramatically differing levels of available resources, the only time the smaller party pays for the larger party's attorney fees is if the lawsuit is frivolous (summary judgment) or if the law specifically provides for that (e.g. the defense loses certain types of suits). This is clearly not frivolous.
Besides, it would never go to court. The company would almost certainly settle out of court for a few hundred thousand just to get them to shut up. Otherwise, the story hits a few major networks, and that casino's business dries up because people suddenly realize that if they win big, the casino is just going to screw them out of the money.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by CaptainPatent · 2010-06-05 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

What I don't understand is how when something goes wrong on the part of the gamer, the Casino can treat the transaction between the slot machine and gambler as a binding contract, yet when something goes wrong because of a fault on their end they can say "oops, we goofed - let's call it off"

I've heard of a couple of jackpots a while back called off because a user entering the coin, or pulling the lever, or even present while someone they knew gambeled was under the legal gambling age at the time and the jackpot was called off.

It seems only fair then that a goof on their end should not be able to nulify the standing "contract."

It should be the responsibility of the casino to test their equipment (or buy from only the most reliable sources which are well tested.) If there was a glitch in the machine itself, the casino should be responsible to pay out and able to sue the company that made the slot machine.

--
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2010-06-05 08:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, but the people who sue casinos are probably willing to take that bet.

--
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Kjella · 2010-06-05 08:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, here's a follow-up on that $42.9M story:

At the time, the top award on the slot, a progressive game that takes a percentage of bets placed in all similar machines, was $251,183.16. But to be eligible for the top award, a maximum wager of 400 credits, or $4, was required. Chavez's 40-cent wager was eligible for a prize of 20,000 credits, or $200, if she would have hit the progressive.
So.... you're playing a 40 cent game for $200 max, who cares if it shows 42 millions when it's impossible? I can tell you what happened too, a 32 bit unsigned has a max of 4,294,967,295 <-- seem familiar? Somehow a subtraction lacked a bounds check and it underflowed to be UINT_MAX cents. And for that they should pay out 200,000 times her largest possible theoretical winnings? Sorry, but I'll side with the casino on this one.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Smallpond · 2010-06-05 09:41 · Score: 4, Funny

I have this system. If the first lawsuit fails, I sue again for twice as much. Then if that fails ...
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-05 09:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Absolutely they should pay the amount the machine says the player won. If that's a bug then they can deal with the slot machine manufacturing/distributing company, but pay the player what the machine says is due.
Simply put, the machine should pay the proper amount on all pay combinations. A machine should never lock up except for a genuine winning combination that triggers a handpay, and all touchscreen elements should work 100% of the time on the first touch. These newer video slots with 50 lines, 100 lines, 243 ways to win, 1024 ways to win, etc. if they can't find a way to make those machines absolutely and 100% bug free with all spin combinations tested and verified--then those machines should be illegal meaning the manufacturer cannot sell them to the casinos and the casinos cannot install them for players to play.
After all, the machine will glady take all of a player's money even if they don't win anything, even if their "bonus" round results in zero extra credits, and if there is a malfunction that doesn't pay it's often hidden by all those obscure line shapes so that a player really can't scan all of those pay lines during a free spins bonus round before the next free spin occurs.
"Malfunction voids all pays and plays" should be illegal too, if the machine might malfunction, it should be illegal.
Re:Isn't this the SECOND time ... by Adrian+Lopez · 2010-06-05 10:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

If a construction crane malfunctions and ends up killing a bunch of people, should the construction company get to avoid liability simply because the machine malfunctioned?
In this case it involves money rather than lives, but I see no reason why casinos should not be liable for problems with the machines they operate.

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."

Winnings by RobinEggs · 2010-06-05 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

So the casino isn't responsible for the operating condition of their machines, or for standing behind the results said machines promise customers? Why can the gambling industry get away with something we would never tolerate from power companies, car manufacturers, clothing companies, etc.?

They paid for a chance to win, and the machine told them they'd won. It's like buying a new shirt, finding a giant hole in it, and Banana Republic says "Sorry, the sewing machine was miscalibrated! No, we won't take it back. Maybe you can use it as leg warmers or something!"

Re:Winnings by evilviper · 2010-06-05 09:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

The slot machines have very clearly printed disclaimers that all malfunctions void the entire transaction. They will get the original bet returned.
Fine, so long as they refund ALL players that ever put money in that slot machine. You don't get to just pick and choose who gets a refund, and who does not.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Winnings by Cylix · 2010-06-05 10:23 · Score: 4, Funny

I can tell you clearly how to identify when the machine is malfunctioning. In fact, it rings bells, throws up warning lights and generally behaves quite conversely to normal operation.
ie, when a slot machine is pouring money on the floor it is quite clearly broken. Seriously, why would they put all of those lights on there.

--
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra

Re:It turns out by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-05 07:28 · Score: 5, Funny

It turns out slashdot submissions are handled by the same slot machine code.

Re:Law Suit!!!! by casings · 2010-06-05 07:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Won't matter. This has happened before and they have never had to pay out.

Oh, come on by mbone · 2010-06-05 07:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, if they found evidence of fraud or tampering, throw the book at them. Otherwise, them's the breaks - pay the couple.

The casino deserves to be pilloried and lose their gaming license over this. It's bad enough you can be ejected or even banned for being too good at playing something. Now, it seems that they are extending this to games of chance. This seems a little too pat, as the casinos could avoid ever paying out anything by simply making sure that their slots always have some technical flaws.

And What Recourse Do Players Have? by Azarael · 2010-06-05 07:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Seriously, how often is it the case that machines pay out *LESS* than they are meant to. We'll never know and I don't anyone in the industry is looking very hard to find out. Code and electronics aren't perfect, but that isn't the player's fault. Perhaps players cannot be paid out in full in all cases, but the awarded prize shouldn't be miniscule.

Mitch Hedberg called this one by PKFC · 2010-06-05 07:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

"I saw a billboard for the lottery. It said, "Estimated lottery jackpot 55 million dollars." I did not know that was estimated. That would suck if you won and they said, "Oh, we were off by two zeroes. We estimate that you are angry!""

Re:Mitch Hedberg called this one by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-05 07:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Why would I be angry at winning 5.5 billion dollars?
Re:Mitch Hedberg called this one by wygit · 2010-06-05 08:26 · Score: 5, Informative

It's "estimated" because the lottery winnings are a percentage of all tickets sold, and they haven't yet sold all the tickets for the next lottery.
They usually close the sales 15 minutes before the drawing.

Casino's blaim bugs all the time. Its a scam! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2010-06-05 07:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

A woman recently won like 42 million in a jackpot and they refused to pay her saying it was a bug.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/colorado-42-mil-jackpot-winner-jack/story?id=10235836

A quick google shows that this happens all the time, whenever someone wins a large number its always blaimed on a bug, and for some magical reason the winners do not get paid.

The casino's are ripping winners off.

Re:FTFA... by binarylarry · 2010-06-05 07:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Way to be a judgmental asshole.

I think they meant "money troubles" in that they needed to have money to live on, whereas with 11 million dollars they wouldn't.

Lighten the fuck up.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!

Something similar happened in Argentina by VuduZen · 2010-06-05 07:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I live in Argentina and about two or three years ago a woman won like 3 million Argentinian Pesos in slot machine. The casino claimed it was a fault of the machine. They went to court and the woman won because it didnt matter if it was a machine error, she did not cheat or anything. So whatever the problem was, it had nothing to do with the woman. She played, she won, she should receive her prize. The real problem was between the casino and the company they bought the slot machine from. So the woman was left out of the equation.

--
Everythiing visible is empty.

Re:Something similar happened in Argentina by Renraku · 2010-06-05 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

United States corporations work on extortion. The legal system favors corporations far too much to have a fair chance in court. If you bring suit against a large company and lose you'll probably have to pay their legal fees too, and 80% of the citizens here could not ever hope to afford those kinds of expenses. The result is that not many people file suit, and most of the ones that do are just plain crazy and have no qualms with being a million or more in debt for the rest of their lives.
This is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying, "Sorry, no refund on your car. The welding machine messed up and welded the doors shut. We aren't responsible for what our machines do." and then saying, "We sent this to our legal department and they agree that it wasn't our fault the welding machine messed up so we don't have to pay you."

--
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Re:Something similar happened in Argentina by fnj · 2010-06-05 09:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Congratulations for living in a country that does not have a corrupt legal system. Wish I could say the same.

Upon further investigation... by Ozlanthos · 2010-06-05 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

After pissing all over the message boards about how unjust this action was, I investigated further. To my dismay, it turns out that this is a popular practice among casinos. Apparently one of the problems with going to digital slots is that ANYTIME there is a huge win that the casino doesn't want to pay out on, they cop this "it was a glitch" excuse! I was given the impression that this is happening EVERYWHERE!!! I think it is time that we implement some sort of law or gaming regulation that states that if someone wins that they are ENTITLED TO THE FULL SUM DISPLAYED on the screen! The only exception would be that if the casino can prove that the win was "artificially" created/induced by the player via some "device" designed specifically to fuddle the machine. The penalty for not paying out the sum within 24 hours would be that the casino would be immediately CLOSED and their gaming license REVOKED for a full calendar year, or until the full sum was paid to the player! If you can't stand to lose, don't play the game....The same should apply to the casinos!

-Oz

Winners? by Petersko · 2010-06-05 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The casino's are ripping winners off."

I'm reluctant to classify slots players as "winners". When I look at slot machines I see rats in cages desperately pushing the dispenser in the hopes of getting a food pill. Soemetimes they get a food pill, but more often a little blade comes out and cuts off a piece of the rat.

But we can soften it a bit... they're "people who were awarded a slot machine jackpot". ... or, at least were supposed to be awarded one...

Re:Law Suit!!!! by History's+Coming+To · 2010-06-05 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

So presumably everyone who played the machine previously can claim their stakes back...the machine was faulty. You can't have it both ways.

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.

Re:Law Suit!!!! by wygit · 2010-06-05 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of course you can, if you have a few million to contribute to the whores who write the laws.

Security Only As Good As Physical Access Control by cmholm · 2010-06-05 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

twistedsymphony hints at a major point: the McMahons or a trusted representative didn't retain control of or an eyeball on the device between the gaming floor and the offices of the Colorado Gaming Division.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.

Re:Law Suit!!!! by frieko · 2010-06-05 08:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly, can I demand an inspection every time I don't win?

Tribal courts by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2010-06-05 09:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Or am I missing something important here?

Most US casinos are operated by native American tribes. Their reservations are their own legal jurisdictions. If you have a problem, your recourse is to sue them in tribal court ... which, of course, is operated by the casino owner. Good luck with those odds. Pity the customer. And how about the employees? The casino employees I know here in Minnesota are keenly aware that their employment rights are severely limited.

--
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden

Re:Law Suit!!!! by Cylix · 2010-06-05 10:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes,

The machine will have to be taken offline for inspection and a report will be mailed to you. I've read up on the gaming commission and several stories. (Mostly in regards to my fascination with that damn super stacker game). The regulations for "games of chance" are pretty much out there for anyone to read. Tons of interesting stories and material there to fill a day of reading.

--
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra

Why errors don't get jackpot payouts by SEE · 2010-06-05 10:40 · Score: 5, Informative

If they're paid, it becomes easy to use a casino for money laundering. Walk into the casino with a bunch of cash you obtained illegally, dump it as a high roller at the craps table, hit the deliberately-broken slot machine your accomplice in the casino management set up to get most of your money back, and when you go to the bank and have to explain where you got the money you're depositing, hey, you won it from a slot machine, perfectly legal source.

To stop that, when a big payout is hit, the machines are audited by the gaming commission and checked for errors. If there is one, you don't get the payout, so a crooked casino manager can't set up a broken machine as part of a money-laundering operation.

Yes, the "Storm Stopper" is trivial to rig by sirwired · 2010-06-06 00:52 · Score: 4, Informative

In high-school I was a game tech at an arcade across the street. (A dream job for a geek! Much better than McD's, even though McD's paid better.)

The manual for Cyclone/Storm Stopper, etc. explicitly let you set the number of mSec the jackpot light would be lit. The manual also included suggested payout layouts and jackpot light times for maximum play at specific average payouts. (i.e. if you want five tickets average per play, set up the non-jackpot lights like this, the jackpot minimums and increment like that, and jackpot light time for another value.) It was a delicate balancing act involving many tradeoffs. Starting the jackpot large and incrementing quickly gets a lot of players attracted to the machine, but the ensuing need to drop the non-jackpot payouts causes players to leave quickly. Setting the jackpot timing too fast means some moron who puts a couple of hundred tokens in the thing will take his compulsive gambling somewhere else. (Yes, we had compulsive gamblers at a kiddie arcade; we had a setup where you could "bank" tickets long-term, so you could save tickets over months to save up for a CD player or a TV. We dropped the average ticket value for the higher-end prizes to keep highly-skilled players from costing us too much.)

Our arcade machines were not bright enough to adjust parameters based on average payout, but they were all adjustable, which we did by monitoring the token and ticket counters for each machine on a weekly basis. If a machine paid out too high or two low, we would adjust the odds and/or payouts.

For the arcade overall, we shot for an average of 7 tickets (worth about a penny each) for each token (worth about 21.7 cents each.)

SirWired

Slashdot Mirror

Malfunction Costs Couple $11 Million Slot Machine Jackpot

57 of 479 comments (clear)