SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-just-won-the-Jack-Not...-oh-wait dept.
A Queens gambler thought she hit it big until managers at the Resorts World Casino said her $43 million slot machine win was a technical glitch — and tried to pay her off with a steak dinner. Katrina Bookman was already thinking about what she would do with all that money back in August as she took a selfie beside the slot machine that said: Printing Cash Ticket. $42,949,672.76.
[...] "Upon being notified of the situation, casino personnel were able to determine that the figure displayed on the penny slot was the result of an obvious malfunction - a fact later confirmed by the New York State Gaming Commission," a Resorts statement said. "Machine malfunctions are rare, and we would like to extend our apologies to Ms. Bookman for any inconvenience this may have caused."
Money from the casino, like state lottery proceeds, help grow the state's educaton[sic] fund. Officials said payout maximums are put in place to protect that money.
Although the machine's screen displayed the multimillion-dollar jackpot, the printed ticket showed $2.25.
Is it a coincidence that 2^32=4294967296? Full story at NY Daily News.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:04PM
There's not really much of a case here for her. All slot machines like this have a statement on the screens that, per gaming regulations, must be clearly visible at all times that say all jackpots must be verified and that any malfunctions void any plays or payouts. This isn't the first case and won't be the last case.
That's fine, but where is the balance here? For example, what happens if a machine malfunction so it has a 0% chance of hitting the jackpot? How are the numerous customers who are being robbed (playing and having lower odds than they should) supposed to know the machine should be audited and their games reimbursed?
This situation seems like a "heads you lose, tails nothing happens."
(Score: 2) by Desler on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:49PM
That's fine, but where is the balance here?
The balance is they are comping her a meal worth more than the $2 bucks she was actually owed.
For example, what happens if a machine malfunction so it has a 0% chance of hitting the jackpot?
Not possible. An ITL or the state gaming lab would have discovered that long before the game was allowed in a casino.
How are the numerous customers who are being robbed (playing and having lower odds than they should) supposed to know the machine should be audited and their games reimbursed?
They file a complaint with the state gaming commission and have them investigate.
This situation seems like a "heads you lose, tails nothing happens."
No, the situation is basically saying "Our machine says the max payout is only this much and this jackpot was clearly far beyond that thus it is invalid".
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday November 02 2016, @10:06PM
Based upon what? Losing one spin? Ten spins? All day and no jackpot? What you are saying does not seem to make sense.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday November 02 2016, @10:38PM
Based upon what? Losing one spin? Ten spins? All day and no jackpot? What you are saying does not seem to make sense.
The machines are regularly randomly sampled and spot tested by independent regulators. The casino has independent auditors monitoring it as well. If a unit was malfunctioning either pro or against the player it would be detected and corrected... perhaps not immediately. But if you genuinely thought a machine was malfunctioning you could report it and it could be looked into. Your right an individual gambler is not likely to detect a non-obvious fault... which is WHY there is so much regulation and testing going on behind the scenes.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:33PM
I am not challenging you; rather; I appreciate your input and I am curious. The stated hypothetical scenario was this:
Assuming that it was not malicious modification but actually an error that caused the jackpot condition to not arise under circumstances when it should, how specifically are errors such as this detected? Is there a standard test plan?
(Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Thursday November 03 2016, @09:28PM
Assuming that it was not malicious modification but actually an error that caused the jackpot condition to not arise under circumstances when it should, how specifically are errors such as this detected?
In this case it wasn't a 'jackpot' it was a display bug. It displayed "-1" when she won $2.25 for some reason. (See my other reply to the AC.)
But to answer your question about a hypothetical malfunctioning that wasn't paying out...
http://gaming.nv.gov/index.aspx?page=62 [nv.gov]
Specifically for example, the section on Slots, pdf, page 19; in an random audit...
31 Using a listing of slot machines by type, select five machines. The sample selected should represent five of the most common types currently on the floor.
For each machine selected:
a. Obtain the theoretical hold worksheet (par sheet), test the actual reel strip settings and trace the payout schedule from the machine to the worksheet. Review the worksheets for propriety of theoretical hold.
[...]
c. Trace theoretical hold percentages from the worksheets to the slot analysis reports.
Note: For multi-game/multi-denomination slot machines, trace the calculated weighted theoretical hold percentage from the Regulation 14, Technical Standard 3 on-line slot metering system report to the weighted theoretical hold percentage in the slot analysis report. If a simple average theoretical hold percentage is used, trace the calculated simple average theoretical hold percentage from the Slots MICS #104 report to the slot analysis report.
[...]
d. Verify that the theoretical hold percentages recorded in the slot analysis report are the same within each type.
[...]
And if you skim through that checklist... they cover everything from cash handling, to looking for tampering, to verifying that terminated employees are denied access, to validating that the payout the slot machine is reporting matches the accounting; and that that all matches the coin-in trace log...
Separate from that, they also have to provide complete accounting for each slot machine; and if its total payout didn't match its programmed amount, that would trigger an investigation into that machine in particular, and likely, more broadly into that whole hardware/firmware release...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:38PM
The machines are regularly randomly sampled and spot tested by independent regulators. The casino has independent auditors monitoring it as well. If a unit was malfunctioning either pro or against the player it would be detected and corrected... perhaps not immediately. But if you genuinely thought a machine was malfunctioning you could report it and it could be looked into. Your right an individual gambler is not likely to detect a non-obvious fault... which is WHY there is so much regulation and testing going on behind the scenes.
This sounds good in theory... but they clearly failed to detect the error in this one machine which had a false jackpot during routine auditing. Therefore it is reasonable to assume they failed to detect another error in a machine which will never jackpot.
When a jackpot is hit, an audit is triggered. When a non-jackpot is hit, no audit is triggered. This is the asymmetry which strikes me as unfair.
As a more obvious example, let's say the police stop all black drivers (jackpots) at an intersection for drug checks, but no white people are likewise checked (non-jackpots). They will certainly catch some black drug users (malfunctions benefiting the player), but will catch no white drug users (malfunctions benefiting the casino).
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday November 03 2016, @09:08PM
When a jackpot is hit, an audit is triggered. When a non-jackpot is hit, no audit is triggered. This is the asymmetry which strikes me as unfair.
First, this wasn't a 'jackpot', this was a display bug. She won $2.25. That was what was printed. That was what was logged. It printed "-1" which in 2's complement of a 32bit integer is: 4,294,967,296.
Second, the payout rates of machines ARE audited to be exactly what they were programmed to be. So a unit that never paid out absolutely would trigger all kinds of audits both internally and regulatory.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday November 03 2016, @10:38AM
For example, what happens if a machine malfunction so it has a 0% chance of hitting the jackpot?
There are large statutory fines that will be applied. The customers don't get anything back, but the company operating the machine will take a big loss.
sudo mod me up