Man wins 166 million dollars at slots. Casino says not so fast....

[dud]

This just in: Casinos exist to part you from your cash...

Agreed. A fool and him money are soon parted.

I fly into Vegas all the time and the first thing I do is get the hell out of there.

The world is truly filled with morons ...

 

[spidey07]

That stuff is highly regulated by the gaming comission. If won then the money is his but this seems like clear malfunction. The gaming commision is there for the player, not the casino.

 

[sandmanwake]

If the top prize is $99k, why was the machine flashing he's won $166 million? This is bull crap on the part of the casino.

 

[Mike Gayner]

If the top prize is $99k, why was the machine flashing he's won $166 million? This is bull crap on the part of the casino.

Machines aren't 100% flawless, and the casino shouldn't (necessarily) be liable for genuine hardware malfunctions.

 

[Ns1]

99k max payout = /story

 

[GeekDrew]

Machines aren't 100% flawless, and the casino shouldn't (necessarily) be liable for genuine hardware malfunctions.

Fine. If the casino shouldn't be liable, then the hardware manufacturer should be.

 

[SunSamurai]

Machines aren't 100% flawless, and the casino shouldn't (necessarily) be liable for genuine hardware malfunctions.

You probably understand that the real injustice is when someone wins, and it malfunctions to show a loss, right.

In cases like this, they should get the full labeled payout of the machine, becuse I believe that is a good offset if they are going to be too fucking lazy/greedy (and you know they are) to reward would-be winners with zero.

 

[Schadenfroh]

damn, ever heard of a unit test?

Whoever wrote that code is gonna have a shitty monday morning.

Did Bill Seebeck program or reprogram it?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Machines aren't 100% flawless, and the casino shouldn't (necessarily) be liable for genuine hardware malfunctions.

Ding! You don't get it.

A machine with a 99K cap shouldn't even be able to display 166 million.

 

[RESmonkey]

Ding! You don't get it.

A machine with a 99K cap shouldn't even be able to display 166 million.

Not necessarily...

 

[Iron Woode]

Ding! You don't get it.

A machine with a 99K cap shouldn't even be able to display 166 million.

Ding! Fail

The display is not limited to the max jackpot. The display does other things like when the machine is being tested or upgraded.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Ding! You don't get it.

A machine with a 99K cap shouldn't even be able to display 166 million.

I think you might want to google the definition of "malfunction".

 

[spidey07]

Fine. If the casino shouldn't be liable, then the hardware manufacturer should be.

There is no liability. Malfunction means no pay.

 

[GeekDrew]

There is no liability. Malfunction means no pay.

Yes, I understand that's apparently the case at the moment. That's why I used the word "should".

 

[agibby5]

I never really understood computerized gambling... I feel like if someone codes it, it can be severely biased toward the company. Are they really going to code in the proper probabilities? Does the gaming commission regulate/audit their code?

Anyway... back on topic, he should get the 99k as a consolation prize. What's 99k to a casino anyway? Beans.

 

[frostedflakes]

So if there was an error in NewEgg's software and they charged you $10,000 for an order that was only supposed to be $100, you should have to pay the $10,000?

 

[Iron Woode]

I never really understood computerized gambling... I feel like if someone codes it, it can be severely biased toward the company. Are they really going to code in the proper probabilities? Does the gaming commission regulate/audit their code?

Anyway... back on topic, he should get the 99k as a consolation prize. What's 99k to a casino anyway? Beans.

there is someone on this board that builds and programs slot machines.

I can't remember his name.

 

[Q]

there is someone on this board that builds and programs slot machines.

I can't remember his name.

Rossman

 

[Jeff7]

damn, ever heard of a unit test?

Whoever wrote that code is gonna have a shitty monday morning.

Yyyyyup.
I wonder why that particular number though? $166.6M?
A 24-bit variable should give something around 16,7M, and of course 32-bit would be something over 4 billion.

 

[Iron Woode]

Rossman

nope.

his name is Kyteland.

 

[nageov3t]

I never really understood computerized gambling... I feel like if someone codes it, it can be severely biased toward the company. Are they really going to code in the proper probabilities? Does the gaming commission regulate/audit their code?

Anyway... back on topic, he should get the 99k as a consolation prize. What's 99k to a casino anyway? Beans.

the odds of winning should be posted somewhere on the machine, so? and I assume there are all kinds of legal regulations along with it.

 

[sandorski]

Yyyyyup.
I wonder why that particular number though? $166.6M?
A 24-bit variable should give something around 16,7M, and of course 32-bit would be something over 4 billion.

Obama is President, so 666 is just gonna keep popping up....

 

[nageov3t]

Obama is President, so 666 is just gonna keep popping up....

is 666 important to Muslims or something?

 

[Mike Gayner]

Fine. If the casino shouldn't be liable, then the hardware manufacturer should be.

Or you could just accept that there is no liability, mistakes happen and get on with your life. I know this is a difficult concept, you coming from the most litigious society in the world and all.

 

[Malak]

True... but if the casino is smart, they'll give him a few thousand dollars just to shut him up. Not giving him anything would give the casino tons of bad publicity.

PR isn't an issue with casinos.