Man Wins 650,000 From 17 Deposit Might Not Get Paid

[Vegasbum]

Should this guy get paid?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Nifty29]

Should this guy get paid?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Given we don't have all the facts, it is almost impossible to say what the outcome will or even should be (although I'm sure that someone in particular will....).

IMO it is going to come down to whether the software malfunctioned or not, as malfunctions void all pays and plays.

I don't believe that the player had no idea there was a problem. Apparently he was paying for 1 bet and getting 6, so he was certain to win. Personally, if it happened to me, I would have stopped after it became obvious something was going on and wait for written confirmation that it was OK to keep playing. I just can't see how he didn't notice that he was getting 6 bets for the price of 1.

 

[jetset]

This is an 'old' news story - the casino won. Search Casinomeister News for the full report.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is an 'old' news story - the casino won. Search Casinomeister News for the full report.

The casino may have won the case, but from the comments it seems they have lost the PR battle.

Most contributors don't see a software bug being allowed to go live as a valid excuse for voiding winnings. Most cite the belief that had the bug been in the casino's favour, the house would have kept quiet, or denied there could possibly be a bug.

Sadly, this seems to be true, as most bugs favouring the casino are denied at first, and only persistent pressure and mathematical evidence from the player community persuades the casino to think again.

The great AP/UB poker scandal was one such case, with the bug only being exposed when CS mistakenly released too much information to a player who had access to mathematical skills good enough to make a near watertight case for cheating.

We also have the English Harbour case where a bug was innocently introduced during an update that favoured the house, and was repeatedly denied until again players got together and were able to provide statistical evidence of the flaw.

This has lead to players believing that the "malfunction voids play" rule is not enforced fairly, but enforcement is biased towards cases where the bug favours the player.

The one good thing that came out of this was that the UK courts were interested in hearing the case, even though it related to a gambling debt and an offshore operator. It shows that operators who take UK players cannot rely on hiding behind their terms and conditions. It also shows that players who defraud casinos may also find themselves appearing in court having been sued by the casino.

 

[Slotster!]

Sadly, this seems to be true, as most bugs favouring the casino are denied at first, and only persistent pressure and mathematical evidence from the player community persuades the casino to think again.

This.

Who knows how many other 'bugs' slip under the radar... It happens in business as well, too much/too little charged for stuff. Some gets picked up, some doesn't.

MG Came good when Mega Moolah was first introduced and the jackpot wheel appeared to stop on a higher win than got delivered to the player - under pressure from 32RED if my memory serves me correctly? That's the only one I can think of though and it's slightly different in that it was more of a visual graphic issue as opposed to a RTP/Financial one.

 

[herpiderp]

The casino may have won the case, but from the comments it seems they have lost the PR battle.

Probably not a huge problem for them, as they ceased operations last year.