Casino: $166M Win Was Slot Malfunction

[Soylent Brice]

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A Daytona Beach man thought he hit the jackpot. He thought he won $166 million on a slot machine at the very popular Hard Rock Hotel and Casino near I-4 in Tampa.

However, as soon as the crowds departed, the celebration ended. The casino told him that he didn't win a thing. The casino claims the slot machine malfunctioned.

Bill Seebeck, who lives on a houseboat, thought his ship had come in. His blood pressure skyrocketed and said he was screaming and celebrating. But then casino workers told him there was a malfunction and wanted him to agree to that in his report, even though they say they're still not done investigating.

*snip*

The Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino spokesman told Eyewitness News Monday that the slot machine malfunctioned because its top prize is $99,000. Seebeck was not even given that amount.

read more: http://www.wftv.com/news/21501235/detail.html

[hobbit709]

1. What a crock

I wouldn't sign anything and get a lawyer.

[Robb]

6. Which is just what he's doing. nt

[wroberts189]

2. Dumb decision .. this will be great publicity for the Casino ...

Come to our Casino where even if you win you lose!


Jeebus they should have at least offered the 99k... they take that in a few hours.

[Journeyman]

3. I'm certain they'll be repaying all monies played in that machine since it was last calibrated. . .

If it "malfunctioned" for the winner, how do they describe what it did for those who lost?

[wroberts189]

5. Thats a very good point. Somedays I wish I was a lawyer. nt

[jberryhill]

18. LOL

I guess that would depend on the "function" of a slot machine.

They are wonderful amusement devices. For only a quarter, you get to see cherries, lemons and gold bars spin around at high speed.

A value at any price, I say.

[Confusious]

54. Never been a fan....

Video games though....

[KittyWampus]

68. according to my father, they are digital now and you don't even get that pleasure. No sounds of the

wheels turning, either.

[krispos42]

22. Ha!

Excellent point!

[zbdent]

23. I'm going to remember that ...

:)

[Rabrrrrrr]

37. By that logic, then they should have legal recourse to reclaim all winnings.

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

50. they won't explain anything

slots have signs right on them that say "Malfunctions void any payoffs"...on a small malfunction that pays off, it probably goes unnoticed, but on a biggie, you know they will "find it"..

If it's not a progressive machine with a digital sign that keeps changing, and the pay-out top prize is posted as $99K, a $166K payout would certainly have to be a malfunction:)...just like if you had $75.00 in your bank account, and the ATM allowed you to withdraw $500.:)

[Horse with no Name]

4. Huh?

Sounds like tough luck for the broken casino machine.
I know that I went to the casino a year or so ago and there was a power glitch.
There were signs posted on every machine that the casino was not responsible in that situation and they enforced it.
I lost a few bucks, but taught me to cash out more often than I did previously.
Their machine glitched--it wasn't in their favor--so sad for their loss.
Pay up.

[joeybee12]

7. Hate to say it, but the guy doesn't have a case...

...the law probably says the casino isn't liable for malfunctions...

[Robb]

11. Reservation land, even.

You're probably right.

[Bitwit1234]

28. But stop and think

They are the ones who said if malfunctioned. When does the customer get to have his expert check the machine. Are we to take their word for it. No way. The would have to have me led out by a police officer and then suffer a big big law suit for fraud. IF the machine did malfunction we as customers should have the right to have another expert check it out.

But that wouldn't be possible, because they wouldn't want anyone to get their codes.

[joeybee12]

32. I would assume there some sort of gaming control board or agency

that would investigate...these machines are built so that malfunctions can be determined, even a way after the event occurred...the casino will not settle with the guy unless the control board determines they were in the wrong.

[tonysam]

59. Unfortunately, you are right

There have been cases in Nevada of malfunctioning machines which have "tilted." Seldom if ever do the "jackpot winners" ever prevail.

[XOKCowboy]

82. I don't see how this could stand up in court. The gambler takes a risk playing the machines

the casino should take the risk of them malfunctioning. If the player did nothing to break the machine then the jackpot should be paid.

[tonysam]

83. I can tell you Nevada slot machines have right on them

that jackpots aren't paid if the machine malfunctions. It's a disclaimer.

[XOKCowboy]

85. Next time I'm in a casino I'll have to put my specs on and read the fine print...

on the slot machines. Well it is their property and they make the rules. What keeps them from saying that any big jackpot is a malfunction?

[TexasObserver]

8. He needs a good lawyer and a big old lawsuit.

They are in breach for something that is their problem, not his. It's their job to pick and maintain their own equipment. If they can freely repudiate such jackpots, where's their incentive to properly maintain the equipment?

The casino offers to make bets with customers. Those who do so in good faith have a contractual right to the benefit of their bargain. In this matter, that's a payoff when they hit.

[Loose Meat]

24. I don't think so.

There is an implied contract made between the customer and the casino as soon as the customer enters and chooses to play. No contract will allow any party to it to profit because of a malfunction beyond the control of the casino. If the stated limit was $99,000, no one will ever find that a multi-million dollar payout was legitimate.

Now, as an act of smart public relations, the casino would be wise to reward the gentleman with a significant sum of money. I'd ask for $99,000 if I were in his place, and let the negotiations begin.

But you are wrong about the idea of any kind of breach being a viable cause of action here.

[TexasObserver]

40. I'll explain how a case like this is handled by a good trial lawyer.

All the plaintiff needs is a good trial lawyer, one who has won multi million dollar verdicts that have become judgments and stood up on appeal, one who can spend a hundred thousand or more of his money on discovery costs and experts.

There are many ways to pursue this lawsuit. An enterprising and accomplished plaintiff's attorney can figure out which jurisdiction is best for his case and probably figure out a way to get the case in that jurisdiction, as long it has some connection to matter. The county of the Casino, the county of the plaintiff, and the county of the home office of the manufacturer of the machine are all possible locations for a filing the lawsuit. One venue is likely better for the plaintiff than the other two, if for no other reason than travel costs or playing on one's home court.

The attorney will likely sue at least two major defendants: the casino and the machine manufacturer, then he will make them fight each other, with each one helping him prove it was the other defendant's fault.

This case has good facts. It has great jury appeal. If the casino can win on summary judgment, which is unlikely if the plaintiff's pleading are smartly written, they can shut the case down early. Otherwise, this case will go on until trial, if the plaintiff's attorney is a heavy hitter.

I believe he will have a very good trial lawyer soon, and they will get him a nice settlement, that will likely be the subject of a confidentiality agreement.

[Loose Meat]

42. Thank you.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction, venue, service of process - all the prerequisites for filing suit are part of my everyday world. But, that was not the point of my post. Your response is more like a law student's reply on an exam, and isn't quite versed in the real world of the practice of law.

How long have you been practicing?

[TexasObserver]

44. You're welcome. Always glad to explain how lawsuits are handled.

Since you couldn't leave well enough alone and you just had to take a shot at me with your lame law student comment, I'll give the answer to your question about my history as a lawyer. It will be painfully clear to you that you do not know what you're talking about when it comes to finding, signing up, filing, discovering, trying and winning a big plaintiffs' case, but that I do.

I've been trying and winning civil cases for thirty years, and I've won almost every trial I've had, including a number of multi million dollar trial victories against companies a lot bigger than this casino. In fact, most of them are against companies at the very top of the Fortune 500.

I'm one of those trial lawyers that Republicans hate.

As for your commentary, you seem a lot closer to law school than to handling big cases.

[Loose Meat]

46. I see.

That's a mighty impressive record. It brings to mind the people who frequent message boards who are veteran SEALS, or Green Berets, or Special Forces, or Mossad. Very often, they're also physicians or English literature scholars, and they rebuild vintage Jaguars in their spare time. When they're not flying their own jets, or doing tricks with their helicopters that they use to oversee their thousands of acres in Texas, most of given over to cattle, that is.

I commend you for your remarkable career, and applaud you for trying to get across here on a message board. You probably didn't mean for it to serve as entertainment, especially since the anonymity of the Internet, the same phenomenon that makes all those veteran SEALS so prolific, also serves to show up blowhards and phonies in a clear and revealing light.

You're very funny, and you're also kind of sad, but if you want to keep on charging on with your fantasy, have at it. You're not doing any harm, and, after all, on an online message board, everyone is at least six feet five and was an Olympic decathalon champion.

Your last paragraph gave you away. Didn't you realize that? Such a feeble putdown to someone who simply asked a question and who didn't agree with you. I still find your answer above to be odd, but that's all right. You claim to be an experienced trial attorney, and the sad part is that you don't even know what you got wrong in your answer here, but I'll leave you to figure it out. Your daydreams are the stuff that made Walter Mitty immortal.

In the meantime, carry on with your brilliant participation in the legal profession. I should think your clients are more than grateful to have you as their representative, fighting the good fight and bringing joy into so many lives.

Just watch out for that walking on water trick. The holes weren't in your feet the first time you did it.

[TexasObserver]

48. Believe what you have to in order to make it through your day.

But if you shoot your mouth off here about the law, I'll be here to explain whether you're right or wrong.

[Loose Meat]

53. I see that.

Your need to be The Lawyer here is obvious. I find it more than passing strange that an accomplished litigator such as yourself would be so busy trumpeting that alleged expertise and brilliant career on a message board. Giving lectures on the rules of civil procedure even when they're irrelevant. God bless The Google.

You are entertaining, though. Keep up with the straining that you're putting on yourself, and you will not only be The Lawyer, you'll be The Advertisement For The Giant Truss.

Boo.

[TicketyBoo]

65. All I can say is

he'd better have a good law clerk to proofread his briefs.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. TexasObserver is a longtime well respected DUer

who has credibility.

You, however . . . .

[TexasObserver]

70. Thanks for your kind words.

I appreciate your threads. I'm not a thread starter, but I appreciate those who do so regularly and start threads that are relevant and with an appropriate OP. You, Babylonsister, Heidi, and kpete start threads that usually are worth reading and recommending. I don't always participate in such threads, other than to Recommend, or perhaps recommend and post that I did, to kick the thread. If the thread doesn't need kicking, I might just recommend and move on. I post "Recommend" when I think a thread needs a kick and I've recommended.

I decided a while back to discuss legal issues when they arise, and take the abuse that goes with it. I've noticed you do likewise with teaching. Some people are bitter at certain professions and a message board allows them to vent their anger in a way they never would otherwise. If putting up with that is the price to convey some knowledge, so be it.

I've never suggested this casino case is a slam dunk. It's far from it. But there are many ways to get around the defenses these companies typically throw at you. The key to a big plaintiffs' case is (1) potential for huge damages, (2) good facts for jury appeal, (3) a plaintiff who has done what he or she was supposed to do, and is without fault, and (4) a defendant who can pay a big settlement or judgment. Contrary to the supposition of some, there is seldom a case such as this one which can be disposed of by a trial judge's summary judgment, and that means it goes to a jury. Some here seem not to know that the plaintiff's attorney will likely sue the machine manufacturer and make the casino and the manufacterer each help prove the other screwed up.

A good plaintiffs' attorney wants a case he can get to the jury. If you can get an appealing case in front of a jury, they'll often be able to see that the arguments the defense trots out simply are not compelling. If the jury goes with the plaintiff on the liability issues, they usually go with the plaintiff on the damages issues. That makes it a high stakes crap shoot for the casino, or similar defendants.

Big damages are frequently the result of the defendant and their attorneys overplaying their hand. They think (wrongly) that the public will share the defendant's outrage. While there are citizens who think like that, the art of picking a jury is making the citizens reveal their biases in voir dire, and getting such jury venireman stricken for cause.

Every big case against every big company is one that the company is certain they will win, until they get their ass kicked at trial. It's usually a result of such company hiring defense lawyers who are equally detached from reality when it comes to things such as "how will jurors react to a casino that doesn't pay on jackpots?"

I did civil defense work for big companies for ten years before switching the plaintiffs' side, and many civil defense attorneys think exactly like the GOP talking heads. They think every plaintiff is a deadbeat bum looking for a free payday. Consequently, when they really offend a jury, the jury hits them with big damages.

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. Too many have an axe to grind

Everyone has a 3rd grade teacher (or 5th or Science, etc) they hated. Mine was my 4th grade teacher. A true heartless bitch like her is a rare breed. Unbelievably cruel. I am 56 years old and still shake when I remember her.

And some people assume all teachers are like the bitch I had in 4th grade. Or want to be. So they take it out on the rest of us on a message board.

I would assume the same thing can be said for lawyers. But it's easier to walk away and hire a different attorney than it is to walk out of 4th grade.

We are human creatures and are shaped by our experiences. I sat in that 4th grade class and prayed (I was pretty holy as a kid) that when I grew up I would never be as cruel to children as that woman was to us. And I think I have kept that promise. For one thing I never make kids clean out their desks. She did that and inspected them when we were done. God forbid if your Science book was on top of your Reading book. :scared:

So my first year teaching (and wouldn't you know, it was 4th grade!)the principal said I needed to make the kids clean out their desks. I shook. Went home, slept on it and the next day went to school a bit early. As my kids arrived the ones who had neat desks had certificates on top: CLEAN DESK AWARD. The rest of them got busy and cleaned out their desks.

As they say, when life gives you lemons . . .

Thanks again for your great posts. I am off to get ready for a BIG Health Care March we are having here in red state hell in the district of our local state senator who is a Michelle Bachman clone. The teabaggers are planning on being there. Yes, I will post pictures. That's my favorite thing to do on DU. :hi:

[TexasObserver]

92. Ah, yes. That unfavorite teacher we all had.

I think your theory is right. People have one or more teachers at some point who really did a job on them, and you quickly become that teacher.

I have held to that theory about lawyers for some time. Most people never deal with lawyers, except on rare occasions. When they do, typically for divorces, they end up hating their spouse's attorney quite naturally, and by the time the thing is over, half hate their own attorney.

I don't blame them for that, but I do blame them for assuming all lawyers are out to get them.


I'll go looking for those photos of the Health care march.

[Heidi]

73. You required 335 words to essentially call a respected DUer a liar.

Welcome to DU. I suggest you choose your pissin' matches a bit more carefully during your stay.

[rd_kent]

79. WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU????

Who do you think you are? You think you can come on to this board and start calling a respected, long time DU'er a LIAR after having been here two weeks and only have 18 posts? WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? :puke:





Welcome to DU...Enjoy your stay..... :hi:

[greyl]

56. oh, brother nt

[Heidi]

76. How long have YOU been practicing?

Wait. I'll do you the courtesy of telling you how long _I_ have been practicing law: zero years. See how courteous it is, when asking a pointed personal question of another DUer, to predicate such a question with a "get to know me" gesture?

You're welcome.

[Loose Meat]

89. You're funny.

It's interesting to watch people rise up and defend "a longtime DUer" just because the poster is "a longtime DUer." They have no specific insight into what the poster is writing, but their rabid defense, coupled with a blind attack on a new DUer, is fascinating. Just blind anger, an automatic defense of someone familiar, with no thought given to any of the specifics.

Good for you. They used to triple-team Magic Johnson, too, but he still managed to score.

What I see here, with an exception or two, are weak, uninformed beings huddling together against what they perceive to be some kind of onslaught by an outsider. So much for that open-minded progressive bent people here are alleged to possess.

If you enjoy being fooled, have at it. My opinion is as valid as yours, regardless of the time I've posted here or the number of posts. You feel the need to make this some kind of adversarial situation with no thought given to the substance.

To answer your question, I practiced law for thirty-six years, and I am now retired. I teach at a law school in my city, and I do volunteer work as a senior attorney at a clinic that is run by the students at the law school. The rest of the time, I volunteer at a nearby nursing home, taking my dog to visit the residents and, once a week, I work at the local food bank. My profession was very good to me, and I am fortunate enough now to be able to do other things in order to return the great good fortune Life has visited upon me.

I don't think your post to me was at all courteous, but I'm sure you meant it to be. Lecturing a new poster as to "how it's supposed to be done" is rather pedantic, and smacks of a hard-won attempt at exclusivity, which fails. I don't recall ever posting anything to you, so I am somewhat confused as to why you would post such an unfortunate and mean-spirited collection of words. If you look back, I simply asked that person how long the person had been practicing law, much as you posted. Your effort, apparently born out of anger, failed.

Otherwise, I think this is the sort of thing my friend, who posts here, and who has been posting here for years, warned me about. She said it wasn't as good a place as it used to be, and, having watched this little display of bullies in the playground ganging up on the new kid, I think her evaluation was probably correct. She said she no longer posts here, due to the takeover of the place by, as she puts it, "the stupids," and this thread and sub-thread have been a perfect example of what she meant.

You can all rest easy now, sure that you've put me in my place. Good luck to you. And, really, there is no need to thank me.

[Rabrrrrrr]

36. That's right, because we should never, ever, EVER EVER allow ANYONE to make a mistake.

EVERY error should be punished as harshly, as fully, as rigorously, and as punitively as possible.

EVERY ONE.

[Loose Meat]

43. Right.

We have become a nation of litigious people who think they are entitled to money every time something goes wrong. Everything is always someone's fault, because there is no such thing as failure or accident or malfunction. Every slight must be addressed and rectified and someone must always pay.

It's tiresome, that kind of thinking. Some people watch too much TV and get the wrong idea from TV shows, which are fictionalized. They forget that it's not real life.

Mostly, they embarrass themselves.

[TexasObserver]

45. Wrong. We're Democrats, not Republicans.

Your comments could be a direct quote from any Fox News Contributor. You lack the empathy necessary to understand the little guy's side of lawsuits.

This is a case about a casino failing to honor a jackpot. The burden is on the casino, not the customer, once the customer has established he paid for the gambling, did that which was required of him, and WON. This customer can do all that.

[Loose Meat]

47. What burden?

So far, all we know is that something went wrong. You're leaping to a conclusion that's not valid. There is no "burden."

Itchy trigger finger or just a bad case of scabies?

You try too hard. It's endearing, that eagerness to be noticed. But, it falls flat and it rings false. To claim that our nation's eagerness to sue is a derivation of something heard on Fox is simply your overreaching again. And, no, it's not a case of a "casino failing to honor a jackpot." You clearly lack the ability to frame the issues, a most basic skill.

That's all right, though. You'll just go and sue another Fortune 500 company, pull down that multimillion-dollar verdict, and bask in all the glory of that exquisite victory. It'll be fine. Just make sure you wash your hands after you're finished.

Do I really threaten you so much that my having an opinion brings out the defensive desperation and ridiculous characterization? And my post wasn't even addressed to you.

Mighty shaky for such a brilliant trial attorney.

Boo.

[TexasObserver]

49. Thanks for proving you're not educated about law.

Lawyers (and even law students) know about the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion.

You don't.

[Loose Meat]

52. Timing.

Come on. Americans aren't as dumb as you would apparently believe. Everyone knows about the burden of proof. It's hardly the exclusive domain of law students and lawyers. You are sorely out of touch there. It's such a basic, even a primitive understands it.

It is a concept that doesn't arise until litigation rises.

Your need to be right is tripping you up and making you look the fool. At least you're doing that right.

[TexasObserver]

63. You didn't know. You had to look it up.

Stick to what you know. It's not trying cases.

[Loose Meat]

88. I had to look it up?

Now you possess a special kind of vision that allows you to see what others online are doing?

You're projecting. When you do that, you give yourself away. The Google is your best buddy, that's obvious.

If only you could have restrained yourself from insulting me when I asked about your experience. Gratuitous and insipid offenses are such a waste of time and energy. They're only used by the weaklings who are determined to convinced someone, somewhere, that they are something they're not.

Boo.

[TexasObserver]

93. You're obviously a complete fraud.

You put me on ignore, created a new account, and came back for more.

You're a complete fraud, just like I told you several weeks ago.

[Loose Meat]

94. No, my credentials are intact.

I have no experience with you, nor you with me. Now, coupled with your brilliant legal career and your ability to know what people are reading when they're not posting, you can also know who I am in real life. I doubt we've ever crossed paths. All your suppositions exist only in your mind.

Your anger and defensiveness are startling. There is a concept I've always made sure my students understood and that is the Infantile Frustration Tolerance Level. It's something that can be used, if properly understood, to bring down the incompetents who run on too much emotion and not enough scut work. Your outburst here is the perfect example.

I have no one on Ignore. I'm not even sure how I would do that, or why. You need to know who I am, although you don't know me at all. Your need for control has been shaken, while your deficiencies have been highlighted. All you can do is to strike out, threatened and exposed as you are.

No, we do not know each other. And your namecalling is just another sign of your shaky base. It's too bad that you have to do that, but I understand. You're harmless. It's only a message board.

This isn't going anywhere, and I think it's best that I bring it to an end. My friend who directed me here is having a big laugh at this exchange, and she showed me some other entanglements you encountered with other DUers who got caught up in it with you. You do like to tell people things about themselves that are based on pure fantasy and/or conjecture. There's something quite awry with that sort of behavior, so, yes, this is my final post in this thread. The rut in which you dwell, the same abusive language, the same need to try to denigrate members of the legal profession, the same anger that causes such odd things to be posted, odd fancies that you can actually know what another person is doing while offline, well, those are unfortunate symptoms, and, as such, I would be committing a grievous and cruel act, in my opinion, were I to continue to engage with you on any matter.

I've found some lovely people here at DU, who post very interesting messages, and who have been most welcoming. I'm not yet ready to give up on the place. I'm not much for message boards, but this is new and interesting for me.

[TexasObserver]

96. Your credentials for making up bullshit are intact.

"Infantile Frustration Tolerance" - Google Search

Google returned no results for this search.




There isn't an ounce of legal substance to anything you've posted. Tell your "friend" who sent you here to argue with me she needs to pick someone who knows something about law, not you.

[Loose Meat]

97. Just as I thought.

Anyone who regards Google as an authoritative source is in dire need of a legitimate education. Understanding and exercising legitimate research methods wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

How would you possibly consider the Illusion of Central Position as a legal concept? Your limits are showing. It has nothing to do with the law. You probably don't even know the jolly song that accompanies every Real Property class, I'll wager.

Strange how you've made this all into a personal attack on me. Speaks to your very empty quiver, old sot.

I am entertained, though, that you run to find out about the Illusion when you read my post. You really do tangle yourself up in your need to prove, somehow, in any way, that you are somehow prevailing in a competition that exists only in your mind. And the best you can come up with is Google. That's funny.

I continue to maintain, as this began, that litigation is an untenable idea in this casino matter, and you, clearly not understanding the need for legitimate jurisdiction in any dispute, went off on a hornbook exposition, aided, no doubt, by Google, on "How To File A Lawsuit." You never took into consideration the matter of tribal courts.

If you don't know that jurisdiction fails, well, that's all right. We're all allowed to disagree, even if some of us have only empty quivers.

[TexasObserver]

98. Just as you didn't think.

If you don't think jurisdiction in this case can be established outside the tribal authority, you're mistaken. There have been successful federal court cases against countries, such Libya, Iran, and Iraq, and assets of such countries in this country have been seized in furtherance of those judgments.

I'm not going to explain to you how to get jurisdiction over all these parties, but it can be done in federal court in this country. I've got at least four defendants to sue in this case. And all of them but the tribe will be US citizens living in the USA.

I notice you didn't discover the tribal argument until you read it down thread. It is clear you've never had the foggiest idea of how a case is made.

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. Hmm. Would I run the risk of embarrassing myself for a potential HUGE payout??

Decisions, decisions. LOL

[Heidi]

75. Me, too.

:rofl:

[keroro gunsou]

87. but the real issue here is

what would YOU do for a klondike bar?

sorry, had to do it :D

[rd_kent]

80. Do you like pizza? What would you like on your TOMBSTONE???

[Loose Meat]

90. ?

So you think my postings here would have me removed from the membership list?

That's interesting. Exactly how have I violated any of the DU rules?

[anigbrowl]

9. They'll end up paying their lawyers and PR firm a lot more than $99,000.

The lower prize would have been acutely embarrassing, but paying out nothing at all is like business suicide.

[myrna minx]

10. At lease people know where *not* to go from now on.

He should have at least won the 99,000 prize. So if you lose, can you claim a malfunction too?

[Soylent Brice]

13. that's what i've been thinking the whole time.

you would think they would pay him something just to avoid the bad PR.

[TwilightGardener]

12. They should have at least given him the $99,000 and avoided legal trouble.

I hope the judge awards him the full amount.

[ddeclue]

16. I hope he gets the whole 166M or at least gets to own the joint and break the bank.

:P

[Downtown Hound]

14. My hand once malfunctioned at a casino, and I played a card I didn't mean to play

I still had to pay when I lost. It seems that the casinos don't like to live up to the rules they set down for others. What a shock.

[ddeclue]

15. Been cheated by a Florida casino.. Morgan and Morgan..For The People.

http://www.forthepeople.com/

:rofl:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Dow Jonesy.

[Soylent Brice]

29. HA!!!

[Kansas Wyatt]

19. So sad casino....

You lost, now pay up. As you well know, there are NO 'do overs' in casinos.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Heads I win, tails you loose.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

26. Loose or Lose

I was just thinking how often people use the word "loose" as in "I lost weight and now my pants are loose" when they mean the use the word "lose".

Then, I was thinking how slot machines are sometimes described as "loose" machines when they pay out frequently.

Which, according to those who believe "loose" means "lose", would make those machines "lose machines". I wonder if they read it and avoid them?

[FiveGoodMen]

27. Oops!

:blush:

Yes, I do know better.

[dmr]

58. Wait a minute, if my pants are 'lose', then I'm not wearing any

maybe because I 'lost' them.

But if I 'lost' weight, they then are most likely 'loose'. Now, they may either lack moral character, or they just may be too big, falling to my ankles. If that's the case, then I'd have to 'lose' them or else I'd trip all over them.

Either way, I'd be 'lost' without a pair of britches. It's cold outside.

:shrug:

I could get a belt.

[ddeclue]

31. The casino is too big to fail... oh wait that's Wall Street.

:rofl:

[FiveGoodMen]

34. Easy to confuse the two!

[Ignis]

35. That loose tail will get you in trouble every time.

;)

[krispos42]

21. There are odds of a slot machine manfunctioning, too

One more thing you gamble on.


Suck it up, Hard Rock... people will flock to your casino hoping to find another malfunctioning machine.

[LisaL]

57. For what purpose? They didn't pay him.

[bobburgster]

25. WTF!!!

I hope he's calling a lawyer.

[Bucky]

30. When the machine malfunctioned, did they call for a repair truck... or for a Waaaambulance?

They're going to lose more than $99k in customers if they stick by this. I might understand if they simply don't have the $166 million. Caveat Emptor means you are responsible for knowing what the payoff is on the slots you play. Bravo to Bill Seebeck for having the wits to claim he had blood pressure problems caused by this event. That alone will get his eventual settlement up into the mid 6 figures.

[KittyWampus]

69. Bucky, that's what I think. Claims built on the stress.

[derby378]

33. The big problem, from a legal standpoint...

...is that while slot machines in Las Vegas or Atlantic City are regulated by a gaming commission authorized by the state, machines at tribal casinos are governed by tribal rules established by the tribal councils with the blessings of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and in many cases that casino is the source of income for that particular Native American enclave.

The various tribes that run these casinos almost always go to great lengths to ensure that the machines remain in good working order and provide a payout percentage that's large enough to attract visitors while still maintaining healthy profits for the casinos - we have two tribal casinos on the Texas/Oklahoma border that seem to be doing a great job in this regard - but if you're at a tribal casino, hit a jackpot on a slot machine, and then get told that the machine malfunctioned, what legal recourse do you have? You can't sue the casino in state court, because that casino is technically out of their jurisdiction. Federal courts won't touch the suit, either. That means you have to take up the case in a tribal court with a tribal judge and a tribal jury. And while every effort may be made to keep the proceedings fair, you'll be up against a legal system that is fully aware that the casino is responsible for whatever new-found livelihood the enclave now enjoys.

In other words, the house wins.

[tonysam]

60. +1,000

n/t

[Loose Meat]

95. Thank you.

The people who go deaf, dumb, and blind at the first hint that the white man's courts might somehow right whatever wrong they claim has been committed are usually the ones who don't understand how the system works. To counsel them that litigation might not be appropriate, or even applicable, in a case involving tribal overlords is usually lost on them. They don't do well when confronted with reality.

Thank you for the excellent exposition of the obvious. All the blather of jurisdiction and burden of proof and how to file a lawsuit was sort of entertaining, in a hornbook kind of way, if you don't know what you're talking about.

A settlement will be reached in this case, simply for the sake of good PR, and everyone will be satisfied. That's how reality works.

But, yes, the house always wins. At least, in the places where the tribal rules prevail, and the tribal courts are established, I feel just a bit less guilty for what the white men did to the people who were here first. An attempt, of sorts, at reparations for wrongs that can never, ever be redeemed or corrected. Too many reservations and tribes still suffer horribly in this great country of ours.

Again, thank you.

[arcadian]

38. If they don't pay up, nobody will want to gamble there ever again.

They will get a bad reputation among gamblers, who are notorious for remembering exactly which machines pay out and which don't, a whole casino that refuses to pay will be seen as a bad omen. Not to mention gamblers are usually very superstitious people. This will be spread around among the gambling community like wildfire.

[Johonny]

41. If gamblers were good at this

If they remembered their loses then no one would gamble. If you're the only game in town, you can be a bully and probably win.

[LaPera]

39. Like the health insurance corporations Casino' take your money but when it's time to pay out for

big time money, there's always a reason they won't pay, a disclaimer, a stipulation....it's complete corporate bullshit and they always get away with it....."Seebeck was not even given that amount", (the $99,000. prize).

[Dorian Gray]

51. If their slot machine

malfunctions like that, then they are responsible.

All gamblers who lose should claim body malfunction and not pay their losses if that's what the casino is going to do.

[B Calm]

62. Human body malfunction, demand casino return your losses! HA HA

[Liberal_in_LA]

55. They tried to get him to sign some form saying he was due no money. ha ha

[pinniped]

61. I've never even seen a NV Megabucks jackpot approach that amount.

.

[dorktv]

77. That is what I was thinking.

He should get something though.

[tonysam]

78. I doubt he will get one dime

Post #33 above I think says in a nutshell what the problem is in anybody trying to make a claim against a tribal-owned casino.

The person is shit out of luck, I'm afraid.

[dorktv]

81. Just for the positive publicity-"there was a malfunction but we want to show we are such

a great casino, here is a $X prize."

[tonysam]

84. The decent thing to do would be the casino paying the 99K

It's absurd to think the megamillion "prize" was anything other than a screwup.

The biggest slot machine jackpots are "only" in the 30-40 million range. A few months ago in Sparks, Nevada, a single parent on public assistance won a $33 million jackpot.

[dorktv]

86. Yep, works for me.

[SpiralHawk]

64. Sounds like republicon rules apply at this casino

lie and cheat...

[PuraVidaDreamin]

66. I'm sorry, our dealer mis- dealt

Double sevens? I'm sorry, our dice mal-functioned

[spanone]

74. time to lawyer up mr. seebeck

[Enrique]

91. so if I lose at blackjack

I can say, no, I didn't mean to hit. Sorry, my bad, give me my money back.