Just for clarity on the above - any self-exclusionary payout would be on the same basis and rate as that laid out in the T&Cs, so there will still apparently be no single big payment.
This still kicks in only if the player initiates one of the self exclusion options. The story here seems to be that the player does not recognise they have a problem holding on to this win, so presumably have not initiated such a procedure.
It's a shame, because if they had, they could have locked into a 4 year payment plan giving them 25K per month, and time to adjust to being so wealthy.
Beneath this though, there is provision for a third party once "properly identified" to ask for a player to be excluded for their own good. In this case, an application from this player's parents could save the day if it is not already too late.
The only part of this story that falls foul of these standards is the allegation that the VIP team actively induced the player to play back his winnings by offering the "carrot" of up to $100K per month if play was sufficient to raise them to Platinum loyalty level. They also gave him access to a VIP slot with a 2K per spin bet.
Those standards seem to require the opposite, and my understanding is that a player who wins such an amount should receive "councelling" about their approach to gambling responsibly, rather than "marketing" to induce them to play at a much higher level consistent with their new found wealth.
The problem is that I bet much of this is "off the record", done over the phone between casino host and player. There have been numerous tales of rogue casinos offering deals over the phone, and then denying all knowledge and responsibility of such promises when a player beats such a deal and wins.
Perhaps the standards need to be changed so that the onus is on the CASINO to contact a player who wins such a large sum, and ask if they would like their account locked until such time as the win can be paid in full. It is likely that more players will end up being protected from losing back such a big win than in the current system, where the player has to make first contact after recognising that they may be tempted to play back their win. This is particularly important where such wins are paid by mid to long term installment plans, with the remainder just sitting in the playable balance at the casino.
eCogra could go even further, and outlaw installment plans completely. It would mean casinos would have to have sufficient funding to pay the biggest jackpots they offer in one go, rather than having to rely on future income, and the player having to hope the casino doesn't go bust during the installment plan. A lesser protection would be to require installment plans to be independently insured, so that even if the casino later goes out of business, a winning player still gets paid.
