Man wins $166 million at Casino. Casino refuses to pay.

[b0rk]

A Florida man, Bill Seebeck hit one hell of a jackpot. Playing the $4 slots, he hit the biggest jackpot in the history of the state of Florida: $166,666,666.65. The casino looked at the number and thought two things: 1) that is way more money than we want to lose and 2) that is too many consecutive sixes for foul play to not be involved.

It turns out, they may have been right. Casinos make it their policy to investigate every jackpot (wouldn’t you?), and after they roped the machine off, they looked into whether or not Seebeck’s win was legitimate. They concluded (surprise) that it was not because the machine’s alleged top payout was $99,000. Seebeck (surprise) claimed he wanted a good lawyer.

Usually, when you hit a jackpot, the machine “locks up” and stops spinning. There are flashing lights and an electronic signal is sent to a casino attendant instantaneously to let them know about the win. In Seebeck’s case, the casino is claiming that the machine continued to spin “out of control,” that it was their policy to not payout for malfunctioning machines, and that he would therefore be getting no money.

This is actually protocol for all jackpots over $5,000. A casino attendant, in these cases, always checks the machine for malfunctions, and as the jackpots get larger, even the machine manufacturers will travel to the casino to check the machine. You've got to be a phenomenal liar to put one over on the casinos (like these guys).

So, at the end of the day, when the casino offered Seebeck an undisclosed amount for a settlement, he should be thanking his lucky (sort of?) stars. The Seminoe Hard Rock Casino had this to say:

“The Seminole Hard Rock Casino Tampa has made an offer to William Seebeck, and he has accepted, recognizing that the slot machine he was playing on Sunday malfunctioned, in what can be best described to the layman as a “computer glitch.”



http://www.mademan.com/casino-denies-man-his-jackpot


I wonder if it's legal here in Canada to refuse payment for a malfunction of a casino machine. Sort of like if a physician malpractices right? There's a certain level of responsibility right?

[45ED]

http://www.mademan.com/casino-denies-man-his-jackpot


I wonder if it's legal here in Canada to refuse payment for a malfunction of a casino machine. Sort of like if a physician malpractices right? There's a certain level of responsibility right?

Yes.

Machine's 'mistake' kills $43M casino win

Slots player says no dice to consolation dinner, calls his lawyer instead



For five glorious minutes, Paul Kusznirewicz thought he was a multi-millionaire.

A new house. A new car. College funds for the kids and their kids and their kids. All of his dreams were going to come true.

It was Dec. 8 at the Georgian Downs casino in Innisfil, Ont.

The 55-year-old sat stupefied, gawking first at the Buccaneer slot machine – Jackpot! You've won $42.9 million – then at his equally stunned wife.

"The lights and the sounds. It was saying on the machine 'Call attendant. You have won a jackpot of over $42 million,' " he said. "I couldn't believe it."

Amidst the bells and whistles, a casino employee arrived, at first offering congratulations on the win.

"Oh," he remembers the attendant saying. "But look at how big. I'll have to call a supervisor."

Casino personnel rushed to the slots – two supervisors, security and several mechanics. They took pictures. A crowd began to gather. Finally, someone said: "We can't pay you that money because that machine is broken."

But as compensation, Kusznirewicz was offered four coupons for the casino's dinner buffet.

Yesterday, just before 1 p.m., Kusznirewicz's lawyer, Bryan McPhadden, served the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation with legal papers. Kusznirewicz, who lives in Wasaga Beach, believes he should be compensated.

OLG has countered that the maximum payout for the Buccaneer slot game – a 2 cent per play machine – is $9,025.

"It malfunctioned. It clearly malfunctioned," said spokesperson Allison Sparkes. "Each machine has a posted sign that says malfunction voids all pays and plays."

But what wasn't posted is the maximum prize amount, said McPhadden.

"The maximum payout of the machine is not clearly stated on the machine as is the case with many other (slots in the casino), which bear stickers stating the maximum win. Accordingly, it is not clear that that amount cannot be won on this machine," he said.

Furthermore, McPhadden says that despite weeks of discussions with OLG's legal team, the corporation has never provided evidence the machine malfunctioned.

Sparkes says a report compiled after the incident indicated that the machine never actually went into jackpot mode and that an error message flashed on screen.

"There was an error message," she said, adding that the OLG deals with public money and must protect the public's interests. "The machine did not go into jackpot mode and the patron was informed there was a malfunction in the machine."

To this, McPhadden says both Kusznirewicz and his wife know what they saw. Neither noticed any error message.

"All the normal lights, bells and the like associated with a win were shown on the machine and this is what attracted the OLG floor attendant to go to the machine," he said, adding that the gaming corporation took photos of the machine at the time. "OLG should release those photographs now if it is taking this position. Had OLG provided us with these long ago, as it has had ample opportunity to do, we may not have commenced the action or continued with it."

Kusznirewicz, who immigrated to Canada from Poland in 1981, has two children and three grandchildren.

"I have dreams, you know," he said. "Then boom, just like that, the dreams are gone."

Kusznirewicz says he and his wife have enjoyed going to the casino a few times a month for the past five or so years. In the past, he has won small jackpots – $500 once and a few $300 prizes. "But I've put much more money in," he said.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario is investigating the allegations.

(Source (http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/604035))

This guy hasn't received his "prize" because he isn't getting it. I'd like to think it was made clear (http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/604696) that the "prize" was a mistake. The gambling folks have made it clear that mistakes happened and in the case of one, they aren't going to pay out. They might compensate, but no big payout.

[Tijuana]

If a machine ever malfunctions, they should payout the maximum winnings. Who knows if the spins before were also *malfunctioning* and preventing you from hitting the jackpot.

[MarkIII]

Which shows that Slot machines sucks and are for losers. Blackjack is where the true skills are .

[corrupt123]

The guy who "won" 43 million in Ontario actually had a faulty machine. Someone who knows more about computers than me explained it, and basically the machine returned an invalid value (it expects 0 or 1, and got -1 for example) and when that happensed it displayed the maximum (or minimum?) value for that bit of memory. In that case it was 43 xxx xxx.

I'm curious exactly what happened with the florida machine though.

[gman]

The guy who "won" 43 million in Ontario actually had a faulty machine. Someone who knows more about computers than me explained it, and basically the machine returned an invalid value (it expects 0 or 1, and got -1 for example) and when that happensed it displayed the maximum (or minimum?) value for that bit of memory. In that case it was 43 xxx xxx.

I'm curious exactly what happened with the florida machine though.

The maximum of a signed 32bit integer is 2,147,483,648.
The maximum of an unsiged 32bit integer is 4,294,967,295.

For a 32bit cpu, in order to have positive and negative number, it uses the leading 1 bit to indicate that. Hence, signed 32bit integer is between −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

For unsigned 32bit integer, it does not need to deal with negative. Hence, it can uses the full 32bit to represent 0 to 4,294,967,295.

In hex, -1 is 0xffffffff (for signed 32bit integer) and 0xffffffff is also the biggest number of unsigned 32bit integer 4,294,967,295.

If the machine reserves last 2 digits for decimal, it will be 42.9 million.

[najibs]

The maximum of a signed 32bit integer is 2,147,483,648.
The maximum of an unsiged 32bit integer is 4,294,967,295.

For a 32bit cpu, in order to have positive and negative number, it uses 1 bit to indicate that. Hence, signed integer is between −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

For unsigned integer, it does not need to deal with negative. Hence, it can uses the full 32bit to represent 0 to 4,294,967,295.

In hex, -1 is 0xffffffff (for signed integer) and 0xffffffff is also the biggest number of unsigned integer 4,294,967,295.

Ummm, so all that means what?

[gman]

Ummm, so all that means what?

Just to explain how the computer program screwed up.

In most program, returning -1 usually means error. However, that program did not detect that and try to print out the number and print it out as an unsigned integer.

[najibs]

Just to explain how the computer program screwed up.

In most program, returning -1 usually means error. However, that program tries to print out the number and print it out as an unsigned integer.

so what will that mean in the court room? that he is entitled to his $166m?

[corrupt123]

Ummm, so all that means what?

It means the machine and it's 32 bit processor returned -1, and since that value in hex is ~43 million, the machine displayed the maximum value for that bit.

i.e. it is expecting some value to be returned, and depending on that value it displays whatever the guy would have won. But in this case it got a value that it wasn't expecting, so when it tried to display the winnings it displayed the 4,294,967,295 inside the bit of memory it called.

4,294,967,295 = 42 949 672.95 = ~$43 million

Which is why I was (and remain) curious why the machine in Florida displayed 16666666 or whatever. It is a kind of unexpected value - at least to me with my limited computer knowledge.

[gman]

so what will that mean in the court room? that he is entitled to his $166m?

I replied to corrupt123 who was talking about the Ontario case. The programming bug I referred to is not related to the 166m case.

Regardless, if it is proven that the machine is malfunction, he is not entitled to the win.

[Nikita]

I think the Casino is going to have to prove 'malfunction' first and foremost and have to wonder why they haven't provided any evidence of that nature to the guy's lawyer. They should also have to show they conduct regular due diligence to ensure machines are in working order and maintained regularly. Then they're going to have to prove their policy is clearly stated to patrons and in a language they can understand, not legalese. Exclusionary clauses aren't the be-all-end-all defense, it always depends on a number of factors, including not only the above factors, but fairness as well. Personally I don't think it's fair that a malfunction should be a reason to deny the winnings. IMO that's a chance the casinoi takes, everything malfunctions occassionally, nothing's perfect...and in cases like this the deep pockets often lose on the equities alone.

[CSR]

I think the Casino is going to have to prove 'malfunction' first and foremost and have to wonder why they haven't provided any evidence of that nature to the guy's lawyer. They should also have to show they conduct regular due diligence to ensure machines are in working order and maintained regularly. Then they're going to have to prove their policy is clearly stated to patrons and in a language they can understand, not legalese. Exclusionary clauses aren't the be-all-end-all defense, it always depends on a number of factors, including not only the above factors, but fairness as well. Personally I don't think it's fair that a malfunction should be a reason to deny the winnings. IMO that's a chance the casinoi takes, everything malfunctions occassionally, nothing's perfect...and in cases like this the deep pockets often lose on the equities alone.

Brings back memories of my undergrad law class. :):idea:

[bubble.tea]

The maximum of a signed 32bit integer is 2,147,483,648.
The maximum of an unsiged 32bit integer is 4,294,967,295.

For a 32bit cpu, in order to have positive and negative number, it uses the leading 1 bit to indicate that. Hence, signed 32bit integer is between −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

For unsigned 32bit integer, it does not need to deal with negative. Hence, it can uses the full 32bit to represent 0 to 4,294,967,295.

In hex, -1 is 0xffffffff (for signed 32bit integer) and 0xffffffff is also the biggest number of unsigned 32bit integer 4,294,967,295.

If the machine reserves last 2 digits for decimal, it will be 42.9 million.
Very cool read.
Ummm, so all that means what?
It means you're a numpty.

[najibs]

Very cool read.

It means you're a numpty.

easy there, humpty dumpty....

[Lawl and Order]

The maximum of a signed 32bit integer is 2,147,483,648.
The maximum of an unsiged 32bit integer is 4,294,967,295.

For a 32bit cpu, in order to have positive and negative number, it uses the leading 1 bit to indicate that. Hence, signed 32bit integer is between −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

For unsigned 32bit integer, it does not need to deal with negative. Hence, it can uses the full 32bit to represent 0 to 4,294,967,295.

In hex, -1 is 0xffffffff (for signed 32bit integer) and 0xffffffff is also the biggest number of unsigned 32bit integer 4,294,967,295.

If the machine reserves last 2 digits for decimal, it will be 42.9 million.
A+ post

[JohnB]

The maximum of a signed 32bit integer is 2,147,483,648.
The maximum of an unsiged 32bit integer is 4,294,967,295.

For a 32bit cpu, in order to have positive and negative number, it uses the leading 1 bit to indicate that. Hence, signed 32bit integer is between −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

For unsigned 32bit integer, it does not need to deal with negative. Hence, it can uses the full 32bit to represent 0 to 4,294,967,295.

In hex, -1 is 0xffffffff (for signed 32bit integer) and 0xffffffff is also the biggest number of unsigned 32bit integer 4,294,967,295.

If the machine reserves last 2 digits for decimal, it will be 42.9 million.

Did you copy and paste this from a 1st year engineering course, LOL.

You do know that computers can count higher than 42.9 million right?

[unun]

Did you copy and paste this from a 1st year engineering course, LOL.

You do know that computers can count higher than 42.9 million right?

Did he ever say otherwise? And if you want to be nitpicky, he stated that the max value of an unsigned 32-bit integer is 4.29 BILLION but apparently your all knowing self missed that part.

[TerenceL]

Did you copy and paste this from a 1st year engineering course, LOL.

You do know that computers can count higher than 42.9 million right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary-precision_arithmetic

[DLFB]

...that's some Matrix sh... right there...damn.

I hope the man wins in the end. Who's with me here? :cheesygri

[brunes]

As chips get more and more complex and pathways go to smaller and smaller nano-meters, this kind of thing is bound to happen.

A lot of people do not realize that chips can have random, arbitrary errors in their math due to cosmic rays. No I am not kidding (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/03/do-we-need-cosmic-ray-alerts-for.html). Cosmic rays beam down on the planet all the time - and if one of them happens to smack into the atom of silicon currently containing a number in memory, it can flip the bit from 1 to 0. Normally this is caught by the ECC parity code - but what happens when TWO bits are flipped?

Chips in airplane electronics and military hardware are heavily shielded from cosmic rays. Consumer-level stuff is not, it is too expensive and bulky to do when lives are not at stake.

Thing is, usually all this means is something goes funny on your PC for a second. But when you are talking about a lotto machine....

[Lulz]

That's why they should use Vista 64bit operating system...not 32bit

[gman]

That's why they should use Vista 64bit operating system...not 32bit

The chance is the machine is not running Microsoft OS.
Even if it runs a 64bit OS, it does not mean the application is 64bit.
Even if the application is 64bit and it does run Vista 64bit, it still may not help if it is coded in C (which is used in most decent size embedded system) because Microsoft OS's (unlike other 64bit OS) long integer is still 32bit.

[death_hawk]

The chance is the machine is not running Microsoft OS.


You'd be surprised.

There are A LOT of machines that use Windows NT (Yes. You read that right.) embedded in both Casinos and Bars (VLTs). Not all machines do, but there are a good chunk of the video ones that do (or did at one point)
I used to work in one. When there's downtime on a table, you have nothing better to do than to watch the slot machines.

I almost literally messed myself when I saw the WinNT logo pop up.
When I saw it, I [expletive deleted] bricks.


And if you read the backglass of all machines, you'll notice a little disclaimer saying "Malfunctions void all plays and pays" or something to that effect.
There's also numerous clauses in the gaming handbooks regarding malfunctions etc.
Any large jackpots are subject to "verification" either by an employee(s), the gaming commission and/or the manufacturer. Obviously the higher the jackpot, the more "ands" that sentence will contain.


Bottom line: Stick to Blackjack.

[MacGyver]

The house always wins.

[random pattern]

i think marty needs to fix the flux capacitator. :idea: