Ethics - playing a broken slot machine in a casino

[Ladewig]

Although I cannot find the story online, a casino industry publication I regularly read reported this story:

A slot machine in Caeasars Palace casino in Indiana was reprogrammed by the casino to accept foreign currency. During the reprogramming a technician made an error and players received $10 in credits for every $1 they put into the machine. Because the casino lost $500,000 through this error, Caesars and state prosecutors are considering charging the people who knowingly played the machine with criminal fraud. Some of the players gave back the money when they were asked, but others refuse to do so. The casino was notified of the problem by a Kentucky woman.

A) would you play that machine if you knew it was broken?

B) would you give back the money if asked?

C) would you tell the casino of the problem?

I was rather disapointed the last time I asked a similar question. How honest are you JREFians?

[triadboy]

A) would you play that machine if you knew it was broken?

Yes

B) would you give back the money if asked?

No. The problem was their doing. They need to either sue the technician's company or eat the loses.

C) would you tell the casino of the problem?

No. Telling the casino before I play the machine would be dumb. Telling the casino after I played the machine would be mean....and dumb.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Although I cannot find the story online, a casino industry publication I regularly read reported this story:

A slot machine in Caeasars Palace casino in Indiana was reprogrammed by the casino to accept foreign currency. During the reprogramming a technician made an error and players received $10 in credits for every $1 they put into the machine. Because the casino lost $500,000 through this error, Caesars and state prosecutors are considering charging the people who knowingly played the machine with criminal fraud. Some of the players gave back the money when they were asked, but others refuse to do so. The casino was notified of the problem by a Kentucky woman.

A) would you play that machine if you knew it was broken?

B) would you give back the money if aske

C) would you tell the casino of the problem?

I was rather disapointed the last time I asked a similar question. How honest are you JREFians?

I can't speak from personal experience, as gambling is one of the few traditional vices that have never attracted me. However, many of my friends who enjoy gambling have told me with glee of profiting from the carelessness of the bookie or casino. Their motto seems to be Caveat vendor.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'll give back the money I make from the broken slot machine when the casino gives back the money they make from skewing the probabilities.

~~ Paul

[Hokulele]

I would play the machine, keep the money, and not tell the casino. However, if it were an ATM, I would return the money and tell the bank. Don't give me grief, I know it is not logically consistent, but that's what I would do.

[qayak]

If a casino, or someone working for them, makes a mistake that is all part of the gamble. Let's face it, these games are not fair being heavily in favour of the house and everyone recognizes that when they agree to play them. If the odds suddenly favour the player instead of the house, big deal. No one cries when a player loses all their money.

That's why it's called gambling.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I would play the machine, keep the money, and not tell the casino. However, if it were an ATM, I would return the money and tell the bank. Don't give me grief, I know it is not logically consistent, but that's what I would do.

Well, you may be doing yourself an injustice.:) After all, there may be a relevant difference beween savers who take interest from the bank and those who take an income from the casino.

But that's where we came in...

[Zep]

Play that machine? Hell yeah! Until my arm fell off!

Chances are, however, the supers would VERY quickly notice the anomaly, and would shut the machine down or something. Then it, and the mechanic, would be "fixed". ;)

[qayak]

I would play the machine, keep the money, and not tell the casino. However, if it were an ATM, I would return the money and tell the bank. Don't give me grief, I know it is not logically consistent, but that's what I would do.

I don't think it is inconsistent. You went into the casino to gamble and hopefully walk out with a bunch of money that previously did not belong to you. Everything the machine gives you is yours. You won they lost.

Interesting thought though: suppose you were given $10,000.00 extra by a cash machine and you had every intention of returning it to the bank but on the way out of the ATM you were robbed of all the money. Would you be morally obligated to pay back the bank with your own money? If you were outside the range of the security cameras when robbed, would you be legally responsible? :confused:

[Zep]

I understand there may be a period of time that a bank will allow for honest mistakes to be owned up to, and also for carrying any debts from mishandled transactions.

Also note this of banks: If you owe them $100,000 and don't pay, your problem. If you owe them $100,000,000 and don't pay, their problem! It's to do with scale!

[Hokulele]

You people are being too nice to me. :) I had almost this exact conversation several months ago. In the bank scenario, you would go up to the ATM to withdraw $40 from your account. Instead of two $20 bills, the machine dispensed two $100 bills. The receipt indicated that your account was only debited the $40. The question at that point was do you keep or return the money and tell the bank. Epsecially when it became obvious that the bank always dispensed $100's instead of $20's. This was compared to the casino (probably the same news story triggered that conversation).

[Dogdoctor]

I am not sure what I would do but it would be really unlikely for me to ever be in a casino much less playing a slot machine in a casino. How do I know they aren't lying? How would I know it was broken? I am not sure what I would do but I have no compassion for a company that makes it money off of gambling.

[Ladewig]

I am not sure what I would do but it would be really unlikely for me to ever be in a casino much less playing a slot machine in a casino. How do I know they aren't lying? How would I know it was broken?


You would know it is broken because when you put a one dollar bill in it, before you pulled the handle, the machine would say that you have $10 worth of credit.

You went into the casino to gamble and hopefully walk out with a bunch of money that previously did not belong to you. Everything the machine gives you is yours. You won they lost.

No, I disagree that it is a matter of you won they lost. A person could put in $10, not gamble at all, and then hit the cash-out button and receive $100.

In this scenario it is not a matter of the odds were accidentally shifted in the players' favor, it is a matter of the machine clearly produced extra credits before any gambling took place. It would be very easy for the casino to produce videotape of the machine and show that the money was not a payout from gambling, but rather a crediting error.

[Ladewig]

If a casino, or someone working for them, makes a mistake that is all part of the gamble. Let's face it, these games are not fair being heavily in favour of the house and everyone recognizes that when they agree to play them. If the odds suddenly favour the player instead of the house, big deal. No one cries when a player loses all their money.



If a player handed a $100 to a dealer and the dealer gave back two $5 tokens, then I suspect every last one of us would immediately raise a stink. So the question is "why is what is sauce for the goose, not sauce for the gander?"

[wollery]

If it's a crediting problem, then yes, I'd inform them, just as I would if I went to the cashier window for chips and was handed too much. To me that's theft.

On the other hand, if it was that it kept paying out on the game, even when it shouldn't, then that's a different matter. It's up to them to set the odds correctly, and if they don't then it's their problem.

[quixotecoyote]

If a player handed a $100 to a dealer and the dealer gave back two $5 tokens, then I suspect every last one of us would immediately raise a stink. "

True enough. But if I didn't notice until a month later, you wouldn't catch me sending lawyers to hassle the casino about it.

[qayak]

No, I disagree that it is a matter of you won they lost. A person could put in $10, not gamble at all, and then hit the cash-out button and receive $100.

In this scenario it is not a matter of the odds were accidentally shifted in the players' favor, it is a matter of the machine clearly produced extra credits before any gambling took place. It would be very easy for the casino to produce videotape of the machine and show that the money was not a payout from gambling, but rather a crediting error.

(Highlighting mine)

Could or did? I don't know anything about casinos because I have never been inside one and I have never played slots. From what I know of it though, I see the machine as part of the game. If it makes a mistake, that is part of the game just like a referee making a mistake in a professional sport or an opponent playing with an injury

I think that my going to the casino after dropping $100 dollars and explaining that I only meant to drop $10 would be met in much the same way. If I had a gambling addiction and could not resist putting money into a machine would it give the money back because of my defect?

[Ladewig]

If it's a crediting problem, then yes, I'd inform them, just as I would if I went to the cashier window for chips and was handed too much. To me that's theft.

On the other hand, if it was that it kept paying out on the game, even when it shouldn't, then that's a different matter. It's up to them to set the odds correctly, and if they don't then it's their problem.

I can agree with both statements.

[Ladewig]

I think that my going to the casino after dropping $100 dollars and explaining that I only meant to drop $10 would be met in much the same way. If I had a gambling addiction and could not resist putting money into a machine would it give the money back because of my defect?

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Imagine you were at a blackjack game that paid even money for a win and that table was clearly marked as having a $10 maximum. If you kept putting down $100 bills and they took each one when you lost and paid you only $10 when you won, then the Nevada Gaming Commission would side with you and support your claim to get back your money.

This case is very much like the ATM analogy. The money was paid out not as the winnings from a bet.

[Ladewig]

Found an online version of the story
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NEWS02/707190478

Kathryn Ford, who reported the problem while visiting the riverboat with her husband David, said in an interview that one young woman leaned across her while she was seated at the machine, put in a $100 bill and took off with a $1,000 cash voucher.

I consider that evidence of fraud. The person was not trying to play the machine - the person was simply trying to run money through the machine to get a tenfold return.

[Dogdoctor]

You would know it is broken because when you put a one dollar bill in it, before you pulled the handle, the machine would say that you have $10 worth of credit.

Well I might not notice this but thinking about it for a while I would probably contact a lawyer to find out what my legal options were since Casinos are the bottom end of scum sucking lowlifes that make money legally ripping off people and I wouldn't want to help support them in any way if it could be avoided.

[qayak]

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Imagine you were at a blackjack game that paid even money for a win and that table was clearly marked as having a $10 maximum. If you kept putting down $100 bills and they took each one when you lost and paid you only $10 when you won, then the Nevada Gaming Commission would side with you and support your claim to get back your money.

This case is very much like the ATM analogy. The money was paid out not as the winnings from a bet.

There are a few other issues according to the story:

Ford said in an interview that she was surprised that a criminal investigation was under way, and that she thinks that it's unfair to go after patrons. When a slot machine jams and gamblers lose money, they don't get it back, she said.

In the Caesars case, the commission fined the casino $15,000 for failing to follow procedures to properly test the machine . . .

Colin said the investigation has raised some questions about why Caesars shouldn't just absorb the loss after failing to check its own equipment.

This is really quite an interesting issue. I have looked at it from many different angles, what if it was an individual that lost the money instead of a casino, what would I do if I was a player at the machine, what would I expect from others, etc.?

In my line of work, if I screw up, I eat the cost and perhaps I am just used to this being the case but I always come back to the casino making the error by not checking the machine.

But, that is neither here nor there in regard to what I would do. Most likely I would report the machine immediately although I wouldn't see a problem with someone playing it and keeping the money. And I don't know if I would help identify the people who did . . . in fact, I am sure I wouldn't.

[andyandy]

A) would you play that machine if you knew it was broken?

yes.

B) would you give back the money if asked?

it depends how big the bouncers were or how likely the threat of a lawsuit. :)

C) would you tell the casino of the problem?

No.

On an interesting side note, in the news in japan at the moment is the story of a mystery benefactor dropped what is thought to have been 1million yen (about $10,000) from an apartment block in Tokyo down to the street below in the eqivilent of $100 bills. 96 of the 100 bills were handed in by passers-by. The other four were found lying on rooftops. ;)


At the Popura convenience store, the manager Mr Horiuchi was again nervous, and unwilling to give us his first name.

He told us what happened when the bills started falling out of the sky last week. "People all around started collecting it. We collected 96 10,000 yen bills. Then we found four more on nearby rooftops."

He said the honesty of the passers-by was "remarkable


If someone left an envelope with a crisp 10,000 yen ($80) note in it, would you:
A - get on the phone to your favourite restaurant and find out if they have a spare table
B - get down to the bank and deposit it
C - take it down to the nearest policeman and hand it over intact?

If you live in Japan the answer, it would seem, is C.

In recent weeks more than 400 blank envelopes containing 10,000 yen bills have been left in the gents toilets of local council buildings all across Japan.

Also in the envelope were notes asking that the cash be used for "ascetic training".

Then, over the last few days, 18 residents of a Tokyo building found a total of 1.81 million yen ($15,210) stuffed into envelopes in their mailboxes.

People are very, very worried. Put yourself in our shoes. We are very anxious

Resident of Glanz Ober apartment block
This time there was no note telling them what to do with the money.

Half an hour's taxi ride away from the apartments, money was falling out of the sky last week - a million yen floating down from another apartment block above a convenience store.

What is notable about all these events, whether they are connected or not, is the unease they have caused among those lucky enough to find the cash.

And apparently the money has all been handed over to the police.
One of the residents, an angry man in his sixties, told us they were fed up with all the attention they had received in recent days.

"People are very, very worried," he told us. "Put yourself in our shoes. We are very anxious."

The Japanese are very private people, and this money seems to be making them nervous.

Some fear it is tainted in some way, perhaps "hot" money from a robbery or some other criminal endeavour.

As we made our way to the location of the second "public donation", our taxi driver rubbished that idea.

"I don't think it's a bad person," he told us. "A bad person would keep it to himself. If you have extra money you might as well donate it, put it to good use."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6927297.stm

[sphenisc]

A) would you play that machine if you knew it was broken?



Yes



B) would you give back the money if asked?



No



C) would you tell the casino of the problem?



What problem?

[Ladewig]

Correct me if I am wrong, but some posters are of the opinion that if they put in $10 and the machine credited them with $100 (before play actually started) they would either withdraw the $100 or gamble with the $100 (but not tell the casino) and if they put $100 in a slot machine and the machine credited them with only $10, they would immediately tell the casino that the machine is broken and claim that they are owed $90.

My question is why do you distinguish between these two cases. Why is valid to accept the extra $90?

[Ladewig]

Well I might not notice this but thinking about it for a while I would probably contact a lawyer to find out what my legal options were since Casinos are the bottom end of scum sucking lowlifes that make money legally ripping off people and I wouldn't want to help support them in any way if it could be avoided.

Why do you consider them to be ripping off people? The house percentages range from about 1% to 20%. Players can easily find the house percentages for the vast majority of games available. I have even seen craps dealers provide accurate answers to players who ask what the house percentages on specific bets are. No one is forcing these players to go into a casino - they choose to engage in this activity.

Why are they scum sucking lowlifes?

Are the twenty-something states that offer lotteries scum sucking lowlifes as well? The house advantage on state-run pick-3 games is fifty percent.

[quixotecoyote]

Lotteries are by and large a tax on the desperate with poor math skills.

[Hokulele]

Correct me if I am wrong, but some posters are of the opinion that if they put in $10 and the machine credited them with $100 (before play actually started) they would either withdraw the $100 or gamble with the $100 (but not tell the casino) and if they put $100 in a slot machine and the machine credited them with only $10, they would immediately tell the casino that the machine is broken and claim that they are owed $90.

My question is why do you distinguish between these two cases. Why is valid to accept the extra $90?


I would believe that if I were playing a slot machine, it is with the understanding that my $100 will at least buy me the opportunity to win money. By taking away $90 immediately, they did not provide that opportunity, and therefor owe me either the money, or its equivalent in slot machine play.

If I put in $10, again I am assuming I have an opportunity to win money. If the machine immediately credits me for $100, I will assume that my opportunity has been fulfilled sooner than later, and will take the profits. :D

[Charlie Monoxide]

This is kind of interesting. I believe the majority of the people probably didn't realize the mistake and proceeded the play the machine (and most likely lose all). Some people might have assumed it was a promotion of some kind, and again proceed to play (and most likely lose again) the machine.

I wonder if the casino will go after the people it can identify (the ones using comp cards). If so, would they demand the (ie) $90 with a $10 in of "illegally" credited amount returned, even though I lost everything.

I doubt very much the casino would go out of their way to credit people if the reverse had been true. I've been ripped off many times by faulty machines and sticky buttons. The amount is usually trivial (>$20), but,dang, it bugs you. It takes so long to get a refund (as well as jumping through many hoops), I usually end up walking away.

Boo hoo for the casino. They should have their technicians more properly trained.

Charlie (watch em advertise 1000% payback! on certain machines) Monoxide

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think the argument can be made that, if (as stated earlier) the "The house percentages range from about 1% to 20%", then the casino should get back 1% to 20% of the "stolen" money.

Seems only fair to me! :confused:

[Ladewig]

This is kind of interesting. I believe the majority of the people probably didn't realize the mistake and proceeded the play the machine (and most likely lose all).

That is very possible. Many people don't understand all aspects of slots machines.

Some people might have assumed it was a promotion of some kind, and again proceed to play (and most likely lose again) the machine.

That is also very possible. Of course, the woman who put in $100 and immediately cashed out $1000 probably didn't think it was a promotion.

I wonder if the casino will go after the people it can identify (the ones using comp cards).

Fewer than 40 people are involved and the casino is still trying to ID some of these people.

I doubt very much the casino would go out of their way to credit people if the reverse had been true.

I suspect you are correct for smaller amounts. And even if the casino didn't do much to reimburse plyers who put in $1000 and received $100 worth of credits, the state gaming commission would certainly side with you and you could bring cause against the casino.


I've been ripped off many times by faulty machines and sticky buttons. The amount is usually trivial (>$20), but,dang, it bugs you. It takes so long to get a refund (as well as jumping through many hoops), I usually end up walking away.

My friend and I waited for over 20 minutes to get a refund on $5 that was not credited properly (it was a Monday morning and we were also waiting on our friends). I can imagine that waits during peak times are often not worth the money lost through malfunctions.

[Ladewig]

I would believe that if I were playing a slot machine, it is with the understanding that my $100 will at least buy me the opportunity to win money. By taking away $90 immediately, they did not provide that opportunity, and therefor owe me either the money, or its equivalent in slot machine play.

If I put in $10, again I am assuming I have an opportunity to win money. If the machine immediately credits me for $100, I will assume that my opportunity has been fulfilled sooner than later, and will take the profits. :D

The smiley confuses me. Are you serious in this argument or are you being somewhat facetious?

[Dogdoctor]

Why do you consider them to be ripping off people? The house percentages range from about 1% to 20%. Players can easily find the house percentages for the vast majority of games available. I have even seen craps dealers provide accurate answers to players who ask what the house percentages on specific bets are. No one is forcing these players to go into a casino - they choose to engage in this activity.

Why are they scum sucking lowlifes?

Are the twenty-something states that offer lotteries scum sucking lowlifes as well? The house advantage on state-run pick-3 games is fifty percent.

They dangle the stick of wining big in front of everyone and make sure that everyone knows when someone hits it big but never publicize when someone loses everything they own. They don't publicize that the majority of people walk away from gambling poorer than they came in. The house always has an advantage and if you keep playing you will loose whatever you won if you are playing against the house. Numerous people loose countless dollars there every single day. I mean look at the Casinos. They are built on people loosing money to them. No one forces a junkie to take heroin, does that make it right? Lotteries are just as bad but at least if they are state run then revenues can be set aside to treat those most severely affected. To me they are little different from an addictive drug dealer. So as you can see I would never be in there donating money to that scum so this is entirely theoretical in my case.

[Ladewig]

They dangle the stick of wining big in front of everyone and make sure that everyone knows when someone hits it big but never publicize when someone loses everything they own. They don't publicize that the majority of people walk away from gambling poorer than they came in. The house always has an advantage and if you keep playing you will loose whatever you won if you are playing against the house. Numerous people loose countless dollars there every single day. I mean look at the Casinos. They are built on people loosing money to them. No one forces a junkie to take heroin, does that make it right? Lotteries are just as bad but at least if they are state run then revenues can be set aside to treat those most severely affected. To me they are little different from an addictive drug dealer. So as you can see I would never be in there donating money to that scum so this is entirely theoretical in my case.

I am not sure I can get behind the heroin analogy. I strongly suspect that there are no social heroin users. I have witnessed many social gamblers who wager a small amount of money and leave if they lose. I consider bars and taverns to be a much better analogy because while some people are clearly alcoholics, other people clearly are not. Therefore, the question then becomes what percentage of gamblers are addicts and what percentage are not. I suppose the next step is to research some studies and come up with specific numbers.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: very ballpark estimates: about one in ten drinkers (7% of U.S. population) are problem drinkers. Gamblers Anonymous estimates problem gamblers at one out of every twenty. Bars serve liquor to patrons knowing one out of every 10 could easily be a problem drinker. Casinos offer games of chance (clearly weighted towards the house) knowing that one out of every ~20 could easily be a problem gambler.

I guess my libertarian stripes are showing. I think that (for adults only) gambling, alcohol, and soft drugs (and maybe even hard drugs) should be legal.

[Puppycow]

Hopefully I'd be smart enough not to be playing slot machines in the first place. (The odds of finding a broken one that favors the player are minisule enough to be negligible).

The casino should see this as a cost of doing business. It's not the customer's fault, its human nature.

[Ladewig]

So a question for all of you that would keep the money: if the same thing happened in a grocery store (you paid with a ten-dollar bill and were given change for $100) would you keep the money there?

[Robin]

So a question for all of you that would keep the money: if the same thing happened in a grocery store (you paid with a ten-dollar bill and were given change for $100) would you keep the money there?
It is not the same case. There is no agreement between you and the grocery store that you might get money through the operation of luck. There is precisely this agreement with the casino.

Personally I would not take the money, but I believe that there would be no ethical requirement not to take the money.

It is not the same (as casinos would have you believe) as a bank automated telling machine making a mistake in your favour.

The nature of the contract between the casino and the gambler is that you play a game on their terms and on the understanding that through good luck you might gain some money.

A slot machine malfunctioning in such a way as it pays out money is clearly an instance of good luck, so if I gain money from such a machine the casino would be ethically obliged to give me the money.

There is not, as I understand, any requirement for the casino to ensure that gamblers understand the magnitude of the odds against them winning (although they know these odds to the nth decimal place), so why would there be a requirement for me to ensure that the casino understands that these odds have shortened somethat?

[Hokulele]

The smiley confuses me. Are you serious in this argument or are you being somewhat facetious?


Sorry, the logic of the difference between the ATM and casino is serious. The "profits" comment is somewhat facetious. I would take $90 for $10, but I doubt I would do the $900 for $100 mentioned in the article. Then again, I seriously doubt I will ever be in a position to find out.

[Dogdoctor]

I am not sure I can get behind the heroin analogy. I strongly suspect that there are no social heroin users. I have witnessed many social gamblers who wager a small amount of money and leave if they lose. I consider bars and taverns to be a much better analogy because while some people are clearly alcoholics, other people clearly are not. Therefore, the question then becomes what percentage of gamblers are addicts and what percentage are not. I suppose the next step is to research some studies and come up with specific numbers.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: very ballpark estimates: about one in ten drinkers (7% of U.S. population) are problem drinkers. Gamblers Anonymous estimates problem gamblers at one out of every twenty. Bars serve liquor to patrons knowing one out of every 10 could easily be a problem drinker. Casinos offer games of chance (clearly weighted towards the house) knowing that one out of every ~20 could easily be a problem gambler.

I guess my libertarian stripes are showing. I think that (for adults only) gambling, alcohol, and soft drugs (and maybe even hard drugs) should be legal.

Well just because they are legal doesn't mean that they are ethical. And admittedly in the numbers games there is worse harm but there are social heroin users although probably low in numbers compared to addicts. Bars are supposed to not serve drunk individuals in the USA as American society attempts to force responsible consumption when bars have failed to on their own.

[qayak]

I was just thinking (A dangerous thing, I know!). If you were following behind a Brinks truck, the rear door came open and a bag of old money fell out, would you return it?

Personally, I wouldn't. I mean that old money was probably going to be destroyed and I know that if I was following behind someone who was taking their old dog to be destroyed and he jumped out the back of the truck, I wouldn't return him just so they could have him killed!

No, morally I would have to keep that old money and just like the dog which I would allow to fetch things for me because it gets such great pleasure from doing what dogs do, I would allow that money to buy me things. I would try and make sure both enjoyed the rest of their life to the fullest.

But that's just me. I don't expect everyone to be as morally upright as I am.

[triadboy]

I was just thinking (A dangerous thing, I know!). If you were following behind a Brinks truck, the rear door came open and a bag of old money fell out, would you return it?

I wouldn't know old money from new. But this is an entirely different situation. Of course, I'd phone 911 and guard the loot.

[ClintonHammond]

" A) would you play that machine if you knew it was broken?"
All damn day!

"B) would you give back the money if asked?"
Not even a little bit!

"C) would you tell the casino of the problem?"
Not in a million years!

[Skeptical Greg]

It is not the same case. There is no agreement between you and the grocery store that you might get money through the operation of luck. There is precisely this agreement with the casino.

Personally I would not take the money, but I believe that there would be no ethical requirement not to take the money.

It is not the same (as casinos would have you believe) as a bank automated telling machine making a mistake in your favour.

The nature of the contract between the casino and the gambler is that you play a game on their terms and on the understanding that through good luck you might gain some money.

A slot machine malfunctioning in such a way as it pays out money is clearly an instance of good luck, so if I gain money from such a machine the casino would be ethically obliged to give me the money.

There is not, as I understand, any requirement for the casino to ensure that gamblers understand the magnitude of the odds against them winning (although they know these odds to the nth decimal place), so why would there be a requirement for me to ensure that the casino understands that these odds have shortened somethat?


I think you summed it up nicely ..

When you hand over money in a casino, there is the assumption that you have a chance to to win something. A broken machine simply gives you a temporary advantage .

If the machine was broken ( programmed wrong ), and the casino felt that the people who had profited should give the money back; then they should be making the same effort to return money to everyone who lost ..

Broke is broke ..


P.S.

I forgot this was about ethics ..

So ladewig,

If you put $10 in a slot machine and got credit for $100 and rushed out and gave it to your favorite charity, who immediately used it to pay for the lifesaving dialysis treatment of
an indigent 10 year old with kidney disease; should we demand they give the $90 back and
transfuse the kid with a supply of dirty blood ?

[Ladewig]

It is not the same case. There is no agreement between you and the grocery store that you might get money through the operation of luck. There is precisely this agreement with the casino.

Personally I would not take the money, but I believe that there would be no ethical requirement not to take the money.

It is not the same (as casinos would have you believe) as a bank automated telling machine making a mistake in your favour.

The nature of the contract between the casino and the gambler is that you play a game on their terms and on the understanding that through good luck you might gain some money.

A slot machine malfunctioning in such a way as it pays out money is clearly an instance of good luck, so if I gain money from such a machine the casino would be ethically obliged to give me the money.

Wouldn't that logic lead to the conclusion that if you inserted $100 and the machine showed only $10 worth of credits, then you are "ethically obliged to give the casino" that $90? Didn't you willingly enter the agreement with the knowledge that you could lose money?

I'll agree with all the posters that if they programmed the machine to pay out at a rate higher than the casino intended, then there is no obligation at all to return the money. This miscalculation occurred before any gambling took place - the game had not started.

If you must insist on removing the ATM or grocery store analogy, then let's stick with the casino. If you sat at a blackjack table, laid $10 on the table and the dealer gave you $100 worth of chips (no cards were dealt, no game was played, you simply made a "buy in"), would you accept the chips?

[Ladewig]

P.S.

I forgot this was about ethics ..

So ladewig,

If you put $10 in a slot machine and got credit for $100 and rushed out and gave it to your favorite charity, who immediately used it to pay for the lifesaving dialysis treatment of
an indigent 10 year old with kidney disease; should we demand they give the $90 back and
transfuse the kid with a supply of dirty blood ?

I thought this was a valid question and the topic was worthy of discussion. If you think it is not, then either don't post or simply make a post saying that there is no ethical dilema. I see no need for snarky posts.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The nature of the contract between the casino and the gambler is that you play a game on their terms and on the understanding that through good luck you might gain some money.
The malfunction is not covered under the contract you describe. You specify that one play[s] a game in an attempt to win money through good luck. In this case, the "winning" of the money precedes the playing of the game. A gambler who inserts $10 and receives a $100 of credit has gained $90 without risking a dime. This is not in the nature of the contract.

[Robin]

Wouldn't that logic lead to the conclusion that if you inserted $100 and the machine showed only $10 worth of credits, then you are "ethically obliged to give the casino" that $90? Didn't you willingly enter the agreement with the knowledge that you could lose money?
Yes
If you sat at a blackjack table, laid $10 on the table and the dealer gave you $100 worth of chips (no cards were dealt, no game was played, you simply made a "buy in"), would you accept the chips?
Different case, at least you can understand that the luck involved is due to the shuffling of the cards. A slot machine is a black box. There is no expectation that the gambler will understand that the luck is due to the carefully programmed pseudo random number generater, the seed chosen and the time you happen to be sitting at the machine. It is a case of money in the box and money out the box.

But as I said before I would not personally take the money. I am just pointing out the ethics of the case.

[Hokulele]

The malfunction is not covered under the contract you describe. You specify that one play[s] a game in an attempt to win money through good luck. In this case, the "winning" of the money precedes the playing of the game. A gambler who inserts $10 and receives a $100 of credit has gained $90 without risking a dime. This is not in the nature of the contract.


Although there are many casinos that have offers such as "$40 of slot play for $20". Could it be argued that the player may have assumed such a deal was in effect?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Although there are many casinos that have offers such as "$40 of slot play for $20". Could it be argued that the player may have assumed such a deal was in effect?
I am not familiar enough with such deals and how they operate to adequately answer the question. 10:1 seems a bit extreme to me, enough to arouse suspicion, but someone who frequents casinos more than I would be better suited to respond.

[Robin]

The malfunction is not covered under the contract you describe. You specify that one play[s] a game in an attempt to win money through good luck. In this case, the "winning" of the money precedes the playing of the game. A gambler who inserts $10 and receives a $100 of credit has gained $90 without risking a dime. This is not in the nature of the contract.
I will admit that I haven't played a poker machine since the days that the lever was mechanically connected to the tumblers so I don't know the ins and outs of the modern machines.

But as far as I know the contract is that you put money in the box and if you are lucky you get money out the box.

And I would point out that at no time has the casino risked losing a dime except for the case of a malfunction. Otherwise it always knows for sure that it will make money.

[Hokulele]

I am not familiar enough with such deals and how they operate to adequately answer the question. 10:1 seems a bit extreme to me, enough to arouse suspicion, but someone who frequents casinos more than I would be better suited to respond.


I will admit, my experience is with Las Vegas casinos, and that is the only place I have seen such an offer, so I wouldn't know how it applies to other places. I believe the example in Ladewig's OP was somewhere else. In addition, I have only seen a 2:1 offer, but since such offer is available, there may be an argument that 10:1 isn't out of the realm of possibility.

(And before anyone starts handing me Gambling Addiction pamphlets, I work in a design/construction-related field, and most of the conventions, and a good deal of my work, is in the Las Vegas area. So is TAM. Yes, I am familiar with Nevada gaming, but generally only go there when I am paid to, either in cash or in skeptical enlightenment. I have yet to go to Las Vegas purely for entertainment purposes. :p Extremely random side note, one of the clients I work with is a large casino chain, and I always tell my husband that I will be coming home with house money!)

[Marquis de Carabas]

I will admit that I haven't played a poker machine since the days that the lever was mechanically connected to the tumblers so I don't know the ins and outs of the modern machines.

But as far as I know the contract is that you put money in the box and if you are lucky you get money out the box.
You omit the crucial middle step: you put money in the box; you pull the lever/press the button; if you're lucky, you get money. It is the middle step were the risk lies. Until you make it, you have risked nothing.

A malfunction of this nature gives you credit for having inserted more money than you actually did before you pull the lever/press the button.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I will admit, my experience is with Las Vegas casinos, and that is the only place I have seen such an offer, so I wouldn't know how it applies to other places. I believe the example in Ladewig's OP was somewhere else. In addition, I have only seen a 2:1 offer, but since such offer is available, there may be an argument that 10:1 isn't out of the realm of possibility.
The only time I remember seeing a 2:1 offer was on one of the boats in Louisiana. I did not go over and investigate, but it was confined to a specific roped-off section with one entrance and seemed to be very closely monitored, more so even than usual. If I found myself at a 10:1 machine with no such extra attention being paid to it, I'd assume a malfunction before I'd assume a generous casino.

Again, though, I am close to completely ignorant on the specific workings of such offers. The only gambling I did at TAM, for instance, was telling Phil to surprise me while he was tending bar.

[Robin]

You omit the crucial middle step: you put money in the box; you pull the lever/press the button; if you're lucky, you get money. It is the middle step were the risk lies. Until you make it, you have risked nothing.

A malfunction of this nature gives you credit for having inserted more money than you actually did before you pull the lever/press the button.
I also left out all the things that happen inside the machine from the moment I put in the money until I have won/lost money. So what?

You want to tell me the precise link between pressing the button and your chances of winning?

It might have no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the game. So why is pushing a button so key to the ethics of the situation?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I also left out all the things that happen inside the machine from the moment I put in the money until I have won/lost money. So what?

You want to tell me the precise link between pressing the button and your chances of winning?

It might have no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the game. So why is pushing a button so key to the ethics of the situation?
Because until you press the button, you have not played the game. You have not risked the money.

[Hokulele]

The only time I remember seeing a 2:1 offer was on one of the boats in Louisiana. I did not go over and investigate, but it was confined to a specific roped-off section with one entrance and seemed to be very closely monitored, more so even than usual. If I found myself at a 10:1 machine with no such extra attention being paid to it, I'd assume a malfunction before I'd assume a generous casino.


True from an ethical perspective, but in a legal sense, there may be an argument that could be made. I don't know the rules for Louisiana, and I am not sure if they would apply in wherever the OP was based. In the case of Las Vegas where I saw this in action, they made you sign up for a card, and they post the credits to the card. You can then go play at any slot machine that was designated with a little sticker on the machine. There didn't seem to be any monitoring, other than a display that listed your credits on the machine. My mother did that at the last TAM. I do not have any of those cards, so am not 100% sure as to the details of this program. I don't know if you can take the extra credits as cash, or if you must play them, but I would assume the latter.

Again, though, I am close to completely ignorant on the specific workings of such offers. The only gambling I did at TAM, for instance, was telling Phil to surprise me while he was tending bar.


You are more of a risk taker than I!

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't know if you can take the extra credits as cash, or if you must play them, but I would assume the latter.
That is my assumption of how the offers work as well, which I see as a crucial difference to this situation, where apparently one could just cash out immediately and have ten times the money they put in. If I am wrong on either count, it would quite change my view of the situation.

[Hokulele]

That is my assumption of how the offers work as well, which I see as a crucial difference to this situation, where apparently one could just cash out immediately and have ten times the money they put in. If I am wrong on either count, it would quite change my view of the situation.


I should ask my mother if she kept any copies of the sign-up form. I don't know if it was explicitly stated, or if the machines themselves kept people from doing this. In the former case, there would be no legal standing. In the latter, there may still be an argument. I guess I will find out next June, as I am sure she will sign up for any offers the Flamingo extends. :)

[Robin]

Because until you press the button, you have not played the game. You have not risked the money.
Written in stone somewhere? Written on the machine even? The game does not begin until the button is pressed?

Again I point out that the casino does not risk losing money but is considered to have entered into a game at some point.

Why doesn't the game begin when the money is inserted?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Written in stone somewhere? Written on the machine even? The game does not begin until the button is pressed?

Again I point out that the casino does not risk losing money but is considered to have entered into a game at some point.

Why doesn't the game begin when the money is inserted?
Because you can hit the cash out button and get the money you put in back out without risking it up until the point you spin the reels.

ETA: I suppose you do take some amount of risk simply by inserting the money: the risk of some mechanical failure that would prohibit you retrieving it if you so desired. Of course, in the event of such a failure, you would rightly expect and demand recompense from the casino.

[Dan O.]

My opinion is that if the money means so much to you that you would keep it when it wasn't deserved, you have no business in the casino in the first place.

Several years ago I was leaving a casino and boarding a shuttle van to return to the remote parking lot. I spotted a wallet in a crevice in the floor and immediately handed it over to the driver. It was very thick and could have easily held several thousand in cash. I never even looked inside.

On another instance, I found a $100 bill in front of the cashers booth. There I held up the bill and called up to the people that had just left to see if any of them were short the $100 then turned it in to the casher.

I have found machines programmed to the customers favor. One deuces wild video poker machine was programmed for slightly over 100% return in violation of the state law. This was reported to a casino employee (the bar tender).

[Ladewig]

All 2 for 1 slot offers (like all 2 for 1 table game offers) involve credits that cannot be turned into cash. In jurisdictions such as Nevada, you enter your casino player card into the machine and enter your $20 and then $40 dollars of credits appear on the machine. You can play these added credits but you cannot "cash them out."

I am very willing to admit that many (possibly most) players are not familar with the restrictions on those free credits.

For most posters in this thread, the following will make no difference in their decisions, but I include it for the pedants: all slot machines in the U.S. have a disclaimer on them that says "malfunction voids all play."

[Hokulele]

All 2 for 1 slot offers (like all 2 for 1 table game offers) involve credits that cannot be turned into cash. You enter your casino player card into the machine and enter your $20 and then $40 dollars of credits appear on the machine. You can play these added credits but you cannot "cash them out."

I am very willing to admit that many (possibly most) players are not familar with the restrictions on those free credits.

For most posters in this thread, the following will make no difference in their decisions, but I include it for the pedants: all slot machines in the U.S. have a disclaimer on them that says "malfunction voids all play."


<nitpick> What constitutes a malfunction? </nitpick>

[timhau]

Wouldn't that logic lead to the conclusion that if you inserted $100 and the machine showed only $10 worth of credits, then you are "ethically obliged to give the casino" that $90? Didn't you willingly enter the agreement with the knowledge that you could lose money?

No. I'd go and report it and demand my money back, and expect to get it. Similarly, if I put in $10 to a machine and when it shows $100 a casino employee taps me on the shoulder and says "I'm sorry, it appears that this machine is broken; please take this $10 token and use it on the machine over there", I'd have no objections.

However, if I don't notice until the next morning that the machine has been crediting me with only 10% of the inserted money, I deserve to lose the 90%. Similarly, if the casino takes hours or days to notice that the machines are making the error to the other direction, tough.

[qayak]

Because you can hit the cash out button and get the money you put in back out without risking it up until the point you spin the reels.

How about if you intended to push the button?

[Skeptical Greg]

..............

For most posters in this thread, the following will make no difference in their decisions, but I include it for the pedants: all slot machines in the U.S. have a disclaimer on them that says "malfunction voids all play."

A pedant would have to point out, that ethically, based on that disclaimer, the Casino should be trying to contact everyone who played the machine, and attempting to refund the losers as well as collect from the winners ...

[Skeptical Greg]

My opinion is that if the money means so much to you that you would keep it when it wasn't deserved, you have no business in the casino in the first place.
.....

What makes any money you win in a casino ' deserved ' ?

Are you more entitled to lose it than win it . Gambling as a business, depends on the assumption that you will lose most of the time.
What do they do to deserve your money ?

[brodski]

Interesting thought though: suppose you were given $10,000.00 extra by a cash machine and you had every intention of returning it to the bank but on the way out of the ATM you were robbed of all the money. Would you be morally obligated to pay back the bank with your own money? If you were outside the range of the security cameras when robbed, would you be legally responsible? :confused:

No and no.

Look at it this way, if a guest left their wallet in your house, and you were then burgled, would you be ethically or legally obliged to replace the wallet and its contents with your own money?

If eth ATM accidentally spat out extra money, this is the bank giving you something that you did not ask for, you have an obligation to take all reasonable steps to return their money, you are not under any legal or moral obligation to insure this money against theft.
proving that the money was stolen OTOH, may be tricky.

[Ladewig]

A pedant would have to point out, that ethically, based on that disclaimer, the Casino should be trying to contact everyone who played the machine, and attempting to refund the losers as well as collect from the winners ...

Good call.

[chriswl]

Correct me if I am wrong, but some posters are of the opinion that if they put in $10 and the machine credited them with $100 (before play actually started) they would either withdraw the $100 or gamble with the $100 (but not tell the casino) and if they put $100 in a slot machine and the machine credited them with only $10, they would immediately tell the casino that the machine is broken and claim that they are owed $90.

My question is why do you distinguish between these two cases. Why is valid to accept the extra $90?
I think its important to avoid the notion that there is a single "valid" or morally correct way for the customer to behave here. Certainly no one is suggesting that giving the money back is wrong, just claiming that there is no moral issue involved. Give the money back if it makes you feel better.

There isn't any absolute right or wrong about the destination of the sums of money that enter and leave a Casino (or any other business, for that matter). If all parties are acting according to ground rules that they consensually agreed on then there is no moral issue. A machine that took in $100 and only credited you with $10 or, conversely converted your $10 credit to $100 could conceivably be part of the gambling experience, but there is a general acceptance, shared by the customers and the casino, that the game of slot machine gambling doesn't work that way. In knowingly operating these "bent" machines the casino would be misrepresenting the service they provide. They would be guilty of deception.

And what about the customers, who are well aware that the broken machines that give them free money are not supposed to work that way? I'd say, why is this their problem? In order to attract customers the casino makes certain implicit and explicit guarantees about how the gambling process works such as dice not being loaded and slot machines not simply deleting your credit. But what guarantee has the customer ever given to the casino that they will monitor the operation of the slot machines and inform the casino of anomolies? There is no symmetry here. Businesses have many more duties than customers for the very good reason that they willingly take on these duties in order to provide a more enticing service for their customers. The customer is always right, even when he's being sneaky. That's his privilege.

[Dan O.]

What makes any money you win in a casino ' deserved ' ? According to the US tax code, it isn't. You are taxed on the winnings and not allowed to deduct any of the losses. All casino patrons are cheating the government by not reporting all of their winnings.

Are you more entitled to lose it than win it . Gambling as a business, depends on the assumption that you will lose most of the time.
What do they do to deserve your money ? They provide entertainment.

[Ladewig]

I think its important to avoid the notion that there is a single "valid" or morally correct way for the customer to behave here. Certainly no one is suggesting that giving the money back is wrong, just claiming that there is no moral issue involved. Give the money back if it makes you feel better.

There isn't any absolute right or wrong about the destination of the sums of money that enter and leave a Casino (or any other business, for that matter). If all parties are acting according to ground rules that they consensually agreed on then there is no moral issue. A machine that took in $100 and only credited you with $10 or, conversely converted your $10 credit to $100 could conceivably be part of the gambling experience, but there is a general acceptance, shared by the customers and the casino, that the game of slot machine gambling doesn't work that way.
In knowingly operating these "bent" machines the casino would be misrepresenting the service they provide. They would be guilty of deception.

Yes, they would be legally guilty of deception for violating the state regulations about how slot machines are to function.

And what about the customers, who are well aware that the broken machines that give them free money are not supposed to work that way? I'd say, why is this their problem?

The state prosecuting attorneys are considering prosecuting the people for committing a fraud. That for one, would make it their problem.

In order to attract customers the casino makes certain implicit and explicit guarantees about how the gambling process works such as dice not being loaded and slot machines not simply deleting your credit. But what guarantee has the customer ever given to the casino that they will monitor the operation of the slot machines and inform the casino of anomolies? There is no symmetry here. Businesses have many more duties than customers for the very good reason that they willingly take on these duties in order to provide a more enticing service for their customers. The customer is always right, even when he's being sneaky. That's his privilege.

Are shoplifters always right when they are being sneaky. Yes, I understand that this analogy is not perfect because there may have been people playing that machine who honestly believed that everything happening was happening with the casino's consent. On the other hand, it is quite certain that some of the people saw the problem and used it as a way to increase their money without gambling. The story cites a woman who put in $100, did not play the machine, and cashed out $1000. For that woman, I think the stealing analogy is correct. It was her intent to take money from the casino that was not won by playing the slot machine.

If an electronics store mislables their 60-inch plasma screen TVs at $4 each, aren't the people who try to sneak through the checkout and pay only $4 going well beyond their "privledge to be sneaky"? Aren't they attempting to steal from the store? Isn't it immoral to attempt to buy the TV at this price?

[Skeptical Greg]

Some people think it's immoral to watch TV .. Therefore, immoral to buy one at any price..

Having a broken slot machine that pays out xtra $$$, or selling plasma TV's for $4 will probably bring a windfall of business to the principles, that will more than make up for the lost $$ before the mistake was discovered ..

Sort of an un-intended bait-and-switch ..

Is that un-ethical ?

[tsg]

A) would you play that machine if you knew it was broken?

No.

B) would you give back the money if asked?

It depends. Do I still have it in my possession or are they asking me two months later? How obvious is the error?

If we are talking about I put $10 in and immediately noticed that it had credited me with $100 and I knew it wasn't supposed to, then yes, I would give the money back.

If I had been playing for an hour without noticing the error, probably not. If pressed I would give them whatever I have left minus the $10 I put in or $90, whichever is less, provided they could sufficiently demonstrate the malfunction.

C) would you tell the casino of the problem?

No. Not my job. Casinos will ban you if they think you might be cheating but can't prove it (up to and including "you won too much money"). They go to great lengths to make sure they aren't being cheated. That should include making sure they aren't making mistakes. When they chase me down the street to return the $5 the dealer short-changed me, I'll tell them their machine is broken.

[Magic 9-Ball]

Interesting thread. I'd like to bring out a point similar to what Diogenes said.

When slot players have played fairly and won jackpots, the casino checks the machine. If the machine is working correctly, they are obligated to pay. However, if they determine that the machine was not correct or had a flaw, they have the right to refuse to pay out without them returning the money that the player has already spent on the faulty machine.

So if the mistake is in the casino's favor, they keep the money. If the mistake's in the player's favor, they're obligated to return the money? Can't be right. Personally, I'd play, and keep the money.

[chriswl]

Yes, they would be legally guilty of deception for violating the state regulations about how slot machines are to function.

The state prosecuting attorneys are considering prosecuting the people for committing a fraud. That for one, would make it their problem.
Well, we are talking about whether it's immoral, not whether it's illegal. So I suppose what I mean to say is not that it isn't their problem but that it ought not to be their problem.

Are shoplifters always right when they are being sneaky. Yes, I understand that this analogy is not perfect because there may have been people playing that machine who honestly believed that everything happening was happening with the casino's consent. On the other hand, it is quite certain that some of the people saw the problem and used it as a way to increase their money without gambling. The story cites a woman who put in $100, did not play the machine, and cashed out $1000. For that woman, I think the stealing analogy is correct. It was her intent to take money from the casino that was not won by playing the slot machine.
I don't think the woman did anything wrong. She knew that the machine was not operating in the way intended by the casino, but she has no responsibility to prevent herself getting a better deal than the casino intended. She is entitled not to care what the casinos intentions were.

Shoplifting is different. It rests on the generally accepted rule that we don't literally walk off with each others' property whenever we feel like it.

If an electronics store mislables their 60-inch plasma screen TVs at $4 each, aren't the people who try to sneak through the checkout and pay only $4 going well beyond their "privledge to be sneaky"? Aren't they attempting to steal from the store? Isn't it immoral to attempt to buy the TV at this price?
No, no and no. The customer picks up the item, takes it to the checkout and pays the amount requested by the cashier. The only difference from normal procedure is that the item was mislabelled. This is entirely the responsibility of the shop. You seem to be claiming that either 1) it is morally wrong to make money through the mistakes of others if you know they have made a mistake and/or 2) it is the joint responsibility of vendors and customers to ensure that goods are sold at reasonable prices. I would reject both of those principles. Take the example of playing poker for money - you want others to make mistakes that benefit you - this is OK. And businesses want to profit from their competitors mistakes. Opportunism within the rules is not theft and the "rules" of shopping don't say anything about not paying unrealistically low prices for things (but they do say "don't shoplift").

[Hokulele]

According to the US tax code, it isn't. You are taxed on the winnings and not allowed to deduct any of the losses. All casino patrons are cheating the government by not reporting all of their winnings.


Not true. You can deduct losses if you keep track of all of your money. You will need documentation to prove things to the IRS.

http://taxes.about.com/b/a/257221.htm

[Dan O.]

Not true. You can deduct losses if you keep track of all of your money. You will need documentation to prove things to the IRS.

http://taxes.about.com/b/a/257221.htm

Unless you are in a tax situation where you cannot itemize deductions. Or it forces you into paying alternative minimum tax. Or the winnings are in one year and the losses are in another tax year. Also, the itemized deduction does not fully cancel an equal gambling win (try plugging the numbers into your tax program and see for yourself).

Have you looked at the IRS requirements for keeping records? How are you supposed to have any fun if you need to pull out the ledger book to record everything?

These repressive tax codes are written by the fundamentalist religious cults that believe all gambling is sinning and want to punish the sinners. I say it's time we tax the churches.

[tsg]

Have you looked at the IRS requirements for keeping records? How are you supposed to have any fun if you need to pull out the ledger book to record everything?

Most professional poker players keep even more detailed records than the IRS requires just so they can tell how well they're doing.

[pgwenthold]

Sorry, the logic of the difference between the ATM and casino is serious. The "profits" comment is somewhat facetious. I would take $90 for $10, but I doubt I would do the $900 for $100 mentioned in the article. Then again, I seriously doubt I will ever be in a position to find out.

I agree, but then again, the reason why I wouldn't put in 100 and get out 1000 is that I would have to get a voucher, which means I would have to contact casino staff, and they might discover that the machine is malfunctioning.

[Hokulele]

I agree, but then again, the reason why I wouldn't put in 100 and get out 1000 is that I would have to get a voucher, which means I would have to contact casino staff, and they might discover that the machine is malfunctioning.


Good point, I hadn't thought of that aspect.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

At the risk of seeming to ride a high horse, I will offer my opinion, as was asked by the OP. Please note that this is not a rant and I do not think that my opinion makes me better than or superior to anyone else, I simply have strong convictions about honesty and personal ethics. I think that continuing to play a malfunctioning, over-paying slot machine is stealing. If you take winnings that were, according to law and/or casino policy, unfairly obtained, then that is theft.

Some seem to think it's fine to steal from a casino because casinos are evil and unethical and downright unfair. The last time I checked, honesty is about your own behavior. It's not about the store, seller, or other persons involved. I wouldn't steal from a casino, nor would I steal from a drug dealer, the IRS, an oil company exec, or Hitler (Godwin'd!). I also wouldn't steal from UNICEF, the American Red Cross, my friends, family, or anyone else on the planet for that matter. It doesn't matter from whom you steal, what matters is that you stole at all. Barring serious mental defect and assuming that you are an adult, you are responsible for your own behavior. No matter how much you try to justify it by blaming others, theft is theft.

Many here have tried to shift the blame to the casino. While I agree that casinos typically have policies which are unfair and the odds heavily favor the house, I do not agree that this gives people permission to behave unethically. Did the casino force you to enter? Did they force you to play the games? Are you not responsible for your own actions? By entering the casino property and playing their games, you are agreeing to abide by their policies, however unfair or unethical you may consider them. Even if you are ignorant of the actual policies and may have erroneous assumptions about them, you are still bound by them.

If I sat down, put money in a slot machine, and it showed a higher credit, I would alert an employee, just like if it was showing a lower credit. If I was playing a slot machine and it was giving me the wrong payouts (too high or too low), I would also alert a casino employee. If I was playing a table game and the dealer made a mistake, I would point it out. Behaving otherwise would not even be a consideration. I do not think that malfunctioning slots or dealer mistakes are just "good luck". Would you consider a non-paying malfunctioning slot to be just "bad luck" and shrug it off so easily? Remember, I am not talking about the unfair casino policy (to which you agreed), but about your personal ethics. What if your bank made a mistake and credited too much money to your account or if a cashier gave you too much change? Is that just "good luck", too? Simply because a bonus mistakenly lands in your lap does not absolve you of your personal responsibilities, nor does it render your personal ethics inapplicable. Just as you would want your mistakes handled honestly, you should handle others' mistakes honestly, as well. A "take the money and run" attitude is dishonest and selfish.

Identifying unethical behavior is often made easier by placing yourself in the other person's position. If you owned the casino or where otherwise responsible for the payouts, would you still think it was fine for your customer to knowingly milk a broken slot? Would you really consider it "just good luck" for the player and gracefully accept your loss?

[Garrette]

I was going to post that I agreed with Ladewig (I do) and that I also agree with MdC (I do), but now I'm posting that DmKrispin has said it best.

Illegal? I don't know.

Immoral/unethical? Yes. All the talk around it is just rationalization.

For the record: This particular casino is in Elizabeth, Indiana, which is just a few miles from me. I've been there twice, lost my allotted few dollars, got to smelling awfully smoky, had a generally decent time, and left. That was a few years ago.

If I can find out more specifics about this case, I'll let you know.

[Skeptical Greg]

I was going to post that I agreed with Ladewig (I do) and that I also agree with MdC (I do), but now I'm posting that DmKrispin has said it best.

Illegal? I don't know.

Immoral/unethical? Yes. All the talk around it is just rationalization.

For the record: This particular casino is in Elizabeth, Indiana, which is just a few miles from me. I've been there twice, lost my allotted few dollars, got to smelling awfully smoky, had a generally decent time, and left. That was a few years ago.

If I can find out more specifics about this case, I'll let you know.
Let's dance a little more ...

Do you agree it's unethical for the Casino to try to recover from the people who made money while not seeking to reimburse those who lost ?

What about a surge in business and profits ( if such a surge took place ), created by a a rush to see if there were any other broken slots ?

[Dan O.]

Would it make any difference ethically if the machine were called "Extra Money"?

Slot glitch costs Caesars Indiana $467,000 (http://www.gametechsummit.com/G_T%20News/Report%208_10_06%20A.htm)

[Hokulele]

I agree with DmKrispin on the ethics issue, and most of my arguments were focused on the legal/perceptional aspect of the topic, however, I don't personally agree with where she placed her line (any unearned credit should be reported). Again, personally, I would keep money, but would not stay at the machine to "milk it", and would certainly not reach over someone else who was sitting at the machine to put in my money. In the case of a dealer giving me too much money, I would call that to their attention, as making such errors can be held against them by the casino, and I would not want someone to have their job security compromised. This will probably get me pegged as a moral relativist, but hey, it is my honest answer. I would rather answer in a manner I find consistent with my past actions, that present an idealized view of how I should behave. :)

Looking at this another way, putting myself in the position of the casino, I would take responsibility if I had a machine out on the general floor with a flaw that should have been taken care of by me or my staff. It is ultimately my mistake for not monitoring my machines or my employees more carefully. Of course, I would probably also scold (or fire) the technician who put the flawed machine out there in the first place, and the security detail for not noticing it. I would not blame the customers, as they are technically playing within the rules (put money in, if you are lucky, take money out).

I have run my own business for 10 years, and I do know of at least one instance where I made a billing error in the customer's favor. I left out the state General Excise Tax calculation from the invoice. Rather than rebilling the customer, I paid for the error myself.


ETA: My opinions are not based on casinos as "evil" or "amoral", just looking at them and their business model from more of an implied contract standpoint.

[Skeptical Greg]

Would it make any difference ethically if the machine were called "Extra Money"?

Slot glitch costs Caesars Indiana $467,000 (http://www.gametechsummit.com/G_T%20News/Report%208_10_06%20A.htm)

Now that shines a whole new light on things ...

Ethical smethical ..:rolleyes:

P.S.

If we were really talking ' ethical ' here, it seems the people who reported the problem would be entitled to a hefty reward.. They may have saved the casino millions..

[Robin]

Because you can hit the cash out button and get the money you put in back out without risking it up until the point you spin the reels.

Again, I can see no law set in stone that says, game begins when one player's risk begins and even if it was, why is that player necessarily you? What if you pressed the button, risked the money but really did not have even a slim chance of winning? Would a game have begun in this case?

So how do you know what method the machine has for generating randomness, or pseudo-randomness and how do you know at what point in the process this occurs?

I would assume that the payoff schedule for these machines is carefully engineered within the legislation to pay out just enough to keep you hooked.

There is no way of knowing whether any particular button push will actually provide you with a chance of winning. So if you don't know at what point your chance of winning was determined, it seems somewhat one-sided to say that the game began at the point that you risked losing.

If it could be considered fair that the game began when you risked losing but the casino did not, then it should be equally fair that the game began when the casino risked losing and you did not.

When you play one of these machines you are accepting a set of invisible rules programmed into the box. The way the machine works is the rules.

As I said at the start, I would not accept the money from such a machine (were I ever to play, which I wouldn't) and I would imagine that the casino would refund money when the opposite situation occurred.

But I don't regard the ethics of the situation as clear-cut as some here would have it.

[Dogdoctor]

I have great difficulty thinking about what I might do in a casino since I very likely would never be there donating money to them. If this was a fundraiser for the police or firemen or some similar thing I would never continue once I knew it was broken and would give back the money however I am really not sure what I would do in a casino since I am so against donating money to them. Is it stealing? Was it defined to the people as stealing before they played? What was going on in the minds of the players? Were they thinking they were stealing?

[Skeptical Greg]

.... What was going on in the minds of the players? Were they thinking they were stealing?

Obviously, they were simply relieving the machine some of the the " Extra Money " that it was proclaiming to have ...

[Dan O.]

Again, I can see no law set in stone that says, game begins when one player's risk begins and even if it was, why is that player necessarily you? What if you pressed the button, risked the money but really did not have even a slim chance of winning? Would a game have begun in this case?

As far as I know, the Indiana statutes (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar45/ch5.html) are not written in stone. But according to the statutes, gambling requires an element of chance. It there is no chance to win or no chance to loose by the operation then it's not gambling.

[DavidS]

Do you agree it's unethical for the Casino to try to recover from the people who made money while not seeking to reimburse those who lost ?
Unethical? No. In the situation described by the OP, those who lost were afforded ten times the action they purchased (number of plays or value "wagered"); they got what they paid for and more and are due no reimbursement. In fact, I'm not sure it would be unethical for the Casino to seek reimbursement from the losers as well as winners. Worthwhile? Blood and turnips pop to mind.
What about a surge in business and profits ( if such a surge took place ), created by a a rush to see if there were any other broken slots ?
What about that would be relevant? Are you proposing that the casino should compensate folks who did more business with the casino because they had hopes of cheating successfully? (My personal suspicion is that's precisely why casinos don't try too hard to suppress talk of "advantage" techniques like card counting, dice control, and other "advantage" techniques that may be possible in principle but in practice are too difficult to reliably employ. For every MIT team that counts its way to winning blackjack for a while there are tens of thousands of deluded wannabes who will lose more trying.)

There seems to be a lot of rationalization in this thread that relaxed ethics are appropriate because the casino is wealthy or offers a nonzero-sum game, at least as far as knowingly exploiting the malfunctioning game.

As stated the OP queried whether I would (compare should, which seems obvious enough to me) knowingly play such a machine. I would not, but not entirely for ethical considerations. I would expect the malfunction to be noticed sooner or later, and I would avoid play to avoid being branded a fraud or forced to deal with any uncomfortable payback issues.

The ethics of giving back "the" money if asked might be a little more gray if we permit the possibility of a naiive player who did not recognize the malfunction during play.

The OP queried whether I would give "the" money back if asked. If I learned of the malfunction during play, but before having played more than my duly purchased action, I would immediately report the malfunction and resist demands to return any winnings (though I'd be agreeable to recouping losses by returning my original stake to restore status quo ante). If I'd played more than my due, I'd report timely and resist demands to return winnings absent evidence they were won during "unearned" play (though I might be forced to accept status quo ante, so I might be agreeable to some intermediate settlement). If I'd completely played and departed unknowing, I would resist any settlement worse than returning my stake; if I'd lost or won materially I would report subsequent knowledge to avoid reputation of fraud, and try to negotiate some settlement to keep part of my winnings or avoid all of my losses. Again, ethics need not rise to the fore when enlightened (IMO) self-interest leads to the same behavior. (No, I do not see any ethical problem with a settlement agreement that recoups my losses in return for reporting a potentially damaging malfunction.)

The ethics of reporting the malfunction would seem to depend on whether one had exploited the malfunction. Of course, one can't be expected to report things one doesn't know. One who knows of the malfunction and plays the machine has knowingly taken more than his due and ethically should right the wrong. One who knows of the malfunction but doesn't "play" the machine arguably has no duty to act in the casino's interest, however; what I would do would probably hinge on pretty arbitrary criteria (e.g. whether I intended to play more at the casino, appearance and demeanor of casino staff or exploiting players, relative humidity, hope for reward, etc.).

[Dogdoctor]

Obviously, they were simply relieving the machine some of the the " Extra Money " that it was proclaiming to have ...

Perhaps I have some trouble seeing what appears to be obvious because I had a friend with a slot machine yet I have never gambled on a slot machine and never been to Vegas so from my limited experience I am unable to see that there is no way that some people would not know they were cheating.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Again, I can see no law set in stone that says, game begins when one player's risk begins and even if it was, why is that player necessarily you? What if you pressed the button, risked the money but really did not have even a slim chance of winning? Would a game have begun in this case?
Well, there's no law set in stone, but it's pretty much inherent in the definition of game of chance that the game involves a chance, or risk, being taken. Before the risk is assumed, there is no reason to contend that the game has commenced.

As to all your speculation about when and where the outcome of the game is determined, it is utterly irrelevant. What determines whether I am taking a risk is whether I give up control. That control is not surrendered until and unless the button is pressed. Prior to that, I can choose what happens to the money. After that, it is out of my hands, and whether its fate is random, pseudo-random, or completely predetermined makes no difference whatsoever.

[Robin]

As far as I know, the Indiana statutes (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar45/ch5.html) are not written in stone. But according to the statutes, gambling requires an element of chance. It there is no chance to win or no chance to loose by the operation then it's not gambling.
The statutes say that the machine has to work using an element of chance, it does not say that any specific game has to provide a chance to win.

An electronic slot machine works using a computer and a pseudo-random number generator. The spindles are just there for show, they stop where the computer tells them to stop. So if the PRNG is seeded on system start up (perhaps using the system clock) then it will produce a determinate series of pseudo-random numbers.

So when you enter your money the system may have already decided what the spindles are going to show. So there is an element of chance that you have entered your money and pressed the button at a time that the PRNG stream has delivered the appropriate number.

But that would still mean that in any specific game you may simply not have a chance of winning, ie the system has chosen the spindle position before you press the button.

[Robin]

Well, there's no law set in stone, but it's pretty much inherent in the definition of game of chance that the game involves a chance, or risk, being taken. Before the risk is assumed, there is no reason to contend that the game has commenced.
You forgot to mention that inherent in the definition is also a chance of winning.
As to all your speculation about when and where the outcome of the game is determined, it is utterly irrelevant.
So what you are saying is that if I am involved in some specific game where I do not have even a slim chance of winning, I am still involved in a game of chance? Is that right?
What determines whether I am taking a risk is whether I give up control. That control is not surrendered until and unless the button is pressed. Prior to that, I can choose what happens to the money. After that, it is out of my hands, and whether its fate is random, pseudo-random, or completely predetermined makes no difference whatsoever.
Let me get this straight. A game where the result is completely pre-determined might be, by definition, a game of chance?

Fine. So by definition, the casino given up control when they set up the machine and make it available to the public, they are now risking their money so at this point, by your definition, the game has started.

And even though the result is completely predetermined by the goof in setting the machine up, it is still a game of chance.

[Dogdoctor]

If a casino discovers a slot machine is broken and the players are getting paid less than they should or even not at all do you suppose they will even attempt to repay the customers who were ripped off? Have you ever heard a news story to that effect?

[Robin]

If a casino discovers a slot machine is broken and the players are getting paid less than they should or even not at all do you suppose they will even attempt to repay the customers who were ripped off? Have you ever heard a news story to that effect?
I can't supply a news story, but I have heard that it does happen, when players use some kind of membership card to play.

[Dogdoctor]

I can't supply a news story, but I have heard that it does happen, when players use some kind of membership card to play.

I see you have some kind of magnetic stripe card that positively identifys you when you play and they are only trying to collect from those and they are only willing to pay back those. OK it doesn't seem so bad to me now. Still you would never see me in there donating money to them and if by some freak occurance I were I certainly would never have a card.

[Garrette]

Unethical? No. In the situation described by the OP, those who lost were afforded ten times the action they purchased (number of plays or value "wagered"); they got what they paid for and more and are due no reimbursement. In fact, I'm not sure it would be unethical for the Casino to seek reimbursement from the losers as well as winners. Worthwhile? Blood and turnips pop to mind.

What about that would be relevant? Are you proposing that the casino should compensate folks who did more business with the casino because they had hopes of cheating successfully? (My personal suspicion is that's precisely why casinos don't try too hard to suppress talk of "advantage" techniques like card counting, dice control, and other "advantage" techniques that may be possible in principle but in practice are too difficult to reliably employ. For every MIT team that counts its way to winning blackjack for a while there are tens of thousands of deluded wannabes who will lose more trying.)

There seems to be a lot of rationalization in this thread that relaxed ethics are appropriate because the casino is wealthy or offers a nonzero-sum game, at least as far as knowingly exploiting the malfunctioning game.

As stated the OP queried whether I would (compare should, which seems obvious enough to me) knowingly play such a machine. I would not, but not entirely for ethical considerations. I would expect the malfunction to be noticed sooner or later, and I would avoid play to avoid being branded a fraud or forced to deal with any uncomfortable payback issues.

The ethics of giving back "the" money if asked might be a little more gray if we permit the possibility of a naiive player who did not recognize the malfunction during play.

The OP queried whether I would give "the" money back if asked. If I learned of the malfunction during play, but before having played more than my duly purchased action, I would immediately report the malfunction and resist demands to return any winnings (though I'd be agreeable to recouping losses by returning my original stake to restore status quo ante). If I'd played more than my due, I'd report timely and resist demands to return winnings absent evidence they were won during "unearned" play (though I might be forced to accept status quo ante, so I might be agreeable to some intermediate settlement). If I'd completely played and departed unknowing, I would resist any settlement worse than returning my stake; if I'd lost or won materially I would report subsequent knowledge to avoid reputation of fraud, and try to negotiate some settlement to keep part of my winnings or avoid all of my losses. Again, ethics need not rise to the fore when enlightened (IMO) self-interest leads to the same behavior. (No, I do not see any ethical problem with a settlement agreement that recoups my losses in return for reporting a potentially damaging malfunction.)

The ethics of reporting the malfunction would seem to depend on whether one had exploited the malfunction. Of course, one can't be expected to report things one doesn't know. One who knows of the malfunction and plays the machine has knowingly taken more than his due and ethically should right the wrong. One who knows of the malfunction but doesn't "play" the machine arguably has no duty to act in the casino's interest, however; what I would do would probably hinge on pretty arbitrary criteria (e.g. whether I intended to play more at the casino, appearance and demeanor of casino staff or exploiting players, relative humidity, hope for reward, etc.).Diogenes,

You make take this as my answer to your post which was directed toward me.

Well said, DavidS.

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes,

You make take this as my answer to your post which was directed toward me.

Well said, DavidS.

I'll add him to the list of people speaking for you..

DmKrispin
DavidS


Interesting mix: Gambling, and ethics ...

Hold on to that ethics stick, no matter what ...

[Marquis de Carabas]

You forgot to mention that inherent in the definition is also a chance of winning.
I took it as read, but so be it; I accept your addendum.

So what you are saying is that if I am involved in some specific game where I do not have even a slim chance of winning, I am still involved in a game of chance? Is that right?

Let me get this straight. A game where the result is completely pre-determined might be, by definition, a game of chance?
That is neither right nor straight.

A game where the result is completely pre-determined can still involve a risk. Games of chance involve a risk; not all things that involve a risk are games of chance. The point is that the method of determining the outcome is irrelevant to the determination of when the risk is assumed, and this is true whether or not it is a game of chance.

Fine. So by definition, the casino given up control when they set up the machine and make it available to the public, they are now risking their money so at this point, by your definition, the game has started.
Until the gambler pushes the button, the game has not started, unless it's a game of solitaire. Only when both parties have assumed the risk is the game afoot.

Also worth asking is what risks are within the "contract". Assuming risk does not mean accepting consequences of all risks without complaint. There is a rather narrowly defined set of risks which can be said to be part of the game. On the casino's side, for example, the risk that you will prise open the machine and abscond with the money is not a risk they assume and accept. On the gambler's side, the risk that a certain combination of reels will result in casino toughs forcibly removing their wallets is not assumed nor accepted.

The risk the casino takes is that by a gambler's pushing of a button, a result will obtain in which the gambler will be awarded some of the casino's money. The risk the gambler takes is that by pushing that button, he will never see that dollar (or quarter, or what have you) again.

There is no reason to believe that the risk of machine malfunction is part of the game, part of the assumed risk of the casino. In fact, given the stickers Ladewig referenced earlier, there is excellent reason to believe it is explicitly not part of the game.

[Cuddles]

There's an entirely selfish reason for not playing and reporting the fault. There's a good chance that a reward for reporting it will be higher than the money gained from exploiting it.

[Garrette]

I'll add him to the list of people speaking for you..

DmKrispin
DavidSYou forgot Ladewig and Marquis de Carabas. I'm never ashamed to admit that someone expresses my thoughts better than I could. It doesn't mean they aren't my thoughts.


Interesting mix: Gambling, and ethics ...Interesting you think they are mixed. You have made it clear you would not apply the latter in the context of the former.


Hold on to that ethics stick, no matter what ...I'm hardly an absolutist. Your attempt to trivialize my position does not advance your own in the slightest.

[Skeptical Greg]

You forgot Ladewig and Marquis de Carabas. I'm never ashamed to admit that someone expresses my thoughts better than I could. It doesn't mean they aren't my thoughts.


Interesting you think they are mixed. You have made it clear you would not apply the latter in the context of the former.


I'm hardly an absolutist. Your attempt to trivialize my position does not advance your own in the slightest.

I have a feeling you don't feel ' all's fair in love and war' either ..:D

[Skeptical Greg]

There's an entirely selfish reason for not playing and reporting the fault. There's a good chance that a reward for reporting it will be higher than the money gained from exploiting it.

I mentioned earlier that the people who reported the problem might have saved them millions.

I don't see where they were rewarded ...


I suggest that a casino saying ' they lost a half mil' ' , is comparable to a socialist saying ' a failure to increase an entitlement is a cut in benefits '...

[Garrette]

I have a feeling you don't feel ' all's fair in love and war' either ..:DFair, yes. Advisable, no.

The smiley indicates I shouldn't take it seriously, so I won't, but I honestly don't get the joke.

I'm dim that way...

[DavidS]

I'll add him to the list of people speaking for you..
DmKrispin
DavidS
Your lists are, of course, your own, and my posts are public fodder, but speaking on my own behalf is burden enough for me.
Interesting mix: Gambling, and ethics ...
Now *that's* interesting... are you suggesting that gambling is inherently unethical? Is there a basis for that drawn from other ethical principles, or do you consider gambling unethical by axiom?

What about gambling would make it more unethical than, say, buying a ticket to a movie? Neither are compelled to participate, both are offered some measure of entertainment (of subjective value) for their stake; the moviegoer gets only the entertainment in return, the gambler might get back his money and more... or he might not. I don't see how such a transaction raises any ethical issues if entered freely by both parties.

Now, if you don't think the entertainment value of gambling is sufficient to warrant the risk, your rational choice is to not play. As long as you're free to make that choice, that's an economic decision, not an ethical one.

Is your concern that some people may be unable to enter such transactions freely (e.g. a compulsive gambler)? I concur that knowingly gambling with a compulsive gambler may be ethically questionable, particularly if the game is biased (as casino games all are). It's unclear to me how that makes gambling inherently unethical, unless one imposes ethical duties to judge other parties' abilities that would raise similar issues for any other interaction with parties of diminished capacity.

Actually, it seems to me that to knowingly play the malfunctioning machine would be very much like knowingly gambling with a compulsive gambler, from an ethical perspective. The gambler's compulsion robs his ability to decline the play; the machine's malfunction robs its ability to decline unpaid play.

[Ladewig]

I mentioned earlier that the people who reported the problem might have saved them millions.

I don't see where they were rewarded ...

Neither story says the person was rewarded. I am inclined to believe that she wasn't rewarded, but have no proof either way.


I suggest that a casino saying ' they lost a half mil' ' , is comparable to a socialist saying ' a failure to increase an entitlement is a cut in benefits '...


I hadn't thought of that. The machine was installed on Saturday, July 21 and was shut down on Monday, July 23. Could enough people, in this northern Indiana casino, have used the machine to walk off with $467,000? I don't know.

Also, in calculating the loss, the casino should have subtracted 10% of money paid out. It is hard to tell if they did that or not.

[Garrette]

. Could enough people, in this northern Indiana casino, have used the machine to walk off with $467,000? I don't know.It's southern Indiana. Harrison County, about 20 minutes from downtown Louisville Kentucky.

It's locale is a bone of contention. It is geographically in Harrison County (a very rural and not too wealthy county) but functionally in Floyd County which is a bit less rural and a bit less poor. The only road to it is primarily in Floyd County and all the traffic problems are Floyd County problems and not Harrison County problems.

That said, you can look at this site (http://www.in.gov/gaming/publications/casino_eval/caesars-3.pdf). It's from 2001 but gives an idea of the tax revenues.

In 2001, Harrison County spent nearly $17M dollars from "The Riverboat Fund." In addition, nearly $4M went to neighboring counties as part of the fund sharing agreement.

Bear in mind that those represent only county taxes and do not include state or federal taxes which are larger. Nor does it include the township tax rate. (Caesar's is in the town of Elizabeth).

In addition, Caesars itself doled out about $1.5M in grants and awards.

They make a LOT of money.

FYI: It is still branded as Caesars because that's how it has come to be known locally, but it is now owned by Harrah's.

[Cuddles]

I mentioned earlier that the people who reported the problem might have saved them millions.

I don't see where they were rewarded ...

Neither do I. That doesn't mean it's not a possibility though. It's basically a choice of a small but guaranteed profit from the machine against the possibility of a much larger profit from reporting it. In a casino.


I suggest that a casino saying ' they lost a half mil' ' , is comparable to a socialist saying ' a failure to increase an entitlement is a cut in benefits '...

You might suggest it, but you are wrong. Your analogy would be equivalent to the casino failing to collecy half a million due to a broken machine. That was not the case here, they actually gave out half a million of money that they already had. It's more like a socialist saying "A decrease in an entitlement is a cut in benefits". Which is fairly accurate really.

[qayak]

Neither do I. That doesn't mean it's not a possibility though. It's basically a choice of a small but guaranteed profit from the machine against the possibility of a much larger profit from reporting it. In a casino.

One of the articles said that they got $200.00 and a free stay in the casino.

[qayak]

I hadn't thought of that. The machine was installed on Saturday, July 21 and was shut down on Monday, July 23. Could enough people, in this northern Indiana casino, have used the machine to walk off with $467,000? I don't know.

At a 10 - 1 payout, people only had to drop $46,700.00 into the machine. Doesn't seem too far fetched.

[Ladewig]

At a 10 - 1 payout, people only had to drop $46,700.00 into the machine. Doesn't seem too far fetched.

Actually, $51,370 would have to be put into the machine to account for losses of $467,000 - ten percent of each cashout would be money that the customer entered into the machine. In a big city casino, I could easily see that amount going in. I guess what makes me hesitant is that I am used to Las Vegas style security systems. I am rather surprised that the casino never did figure it out. I wonder how long it would have gone if the customer never mentioned it.

ETA: I'll consider the numbers very possible.

[Robin]

I took it as read, but so be it; I accept your addendum.
I would rather you addressed the point.
That is neither right nor straight.

A game where the result is completely pre-determined can still involve a risk.
But the question I asked was, can a game where the result is pre-determined involve chance?

But no, a game where the result if predetermined cannot even involve risk. For example if I put down $10 on a crooked shell game, I am not risking $10. I am blowing $10.

I am not suggesting the slot game is crooked, I am just demonstrating that risk depends on chance.
The point is that the method of determining the outcome is irrelevant to the determination of when the risk is assumed, and this is true whether or not it is a game of chance.
No, the method of determining the outcome of games of chance is normally one of the key factors in the decision about accepting risk. There would be quite a different dynamic if the black jack dealer didn't shuffle the cards, but simply put in a set of pre-arranged cards in the shoe. If instead of throwing two dice people were just shown a screen display of a previously selected set of numbers they would view the game differently.

A major part of the cost of building a slot machine is to make reels that realistically give the impression of the randomisation procedure happening in front of your eyes. If this was irrelevant they could just save their money and display the pre-selected values.
Until the gambler pushes the button, the game has not started, unless it's a game of solitaire. Only when both parties have assumed the risk is the game afoot.
Well at least you are now acknowledging my point that both parties have to assume the risk. I am not sure that a casino ever has a risk from one of these machines as long as it doesn't malfunction.

I used to know someone who designed these machines and his opinion was that the purpose of the button was to give the punter the illusion of having some control over the process.

A game of chance will involve:
1. At least two players (one of whom may be the house)
2. Money
3. A set of rules
4. A randomisation procedure

In a normal game these are pretty transparent, but in a slot machine the rules and randomisation procedure are hidden within the machine (although as I said, they go to lengths to show a fake randomisation procedure).

So if the real randomisation procedure may have occurred before the button is pressed then clearly the game might have begun before the button was pressed.
Also worth asking is what risks are within the "contract". Assuming risk does not mean accepting consequences of all risks without complaint. There is a rather narrowly defined set of risks which can be said to be part of the game. On the casino's side, for example, the risk that you will prise open the machine and abscond with the money is not a risk they assume and accept.
And certainly, if the question was, "would you prise open the machine and abscond with the money?" I would have replied no.

Normally the contract is the rules. The rules of this game are hidden, so the rules are basically, whatever this machine will give you by pressing the buttons that you are permitted to press, you get to keep.
The risk the casino takes is that by a gambler's pushing of a button, a result will obtain in which the gambler will be awarded some of the casino's money.
Which appears to be just what happened in this case. It just wasn't the button the casino had in mind.
The risk the gambler takes is that by pushing that button, he will never see that dollar (or quarter, or what have you) again.
And the chance the gambler has is that by pressing a button he will get more than he put in.
There is no reason to believe that the risk of machine malfunction is part of the game, part of the assumed risk of the casino. In fact, given the stickers Ladewig referenced earlier, there is excellent reason to believe it is explicitly not part of the game.
Certainly if that rule is made explicit then that changes the situation.

Mind you, this wasn't actually a malfunction. From the article it seems that a technician had mistakenly changed a switch from it's normal "rob the punters blind" setting to the little used "give the punters money" setting.

It seems a stretch to term these machines a "game of chance" in the normal sense. To the casino they are simply machines into which money can be deposited and which will keep a portion of that money and give some of it back according to a predetermined set of rules.

The payback schedule is designed along Skinnerian lines to keep the punter hooked as long as possible, but to the casino it does not matter if one player plays only one game as long as there is a steady stream of income it is assured of a reliable profit stream.

If there was some gentlemanly gaming contract involved here then the casino would seem to have broken it already by having the simulated randomisation procedure.

As I say, hidden rules, hidden (or fake) randomisation procedures then ethically the rules revert to - whatever the machine will give you by operation of the buttons on the front panel, you get to keep.

And let me repeat, that personally, I would not take the money, I would report the fault.

[Robin]

Actually, $51,370 would have to be put into the machine to account for losses of $467,000 - ten percent of each cashout would be money that the customer entered into the machine. In a big city casino, I could easily see that amount going in. I guess what makes me hesitant is that I am used to Las Vegas style security systems. I am rather surprised that the casino never did figure it out. I wonder how long it would have gone if the customer never mentioned it.

ETA: I'll consider the numbers very possible.
What surprises me is that I had assumed that all payouts in casinos were fed into some central computer that could detect statistical anomalies and generate alerts. I never imagined that these machines were stand alone or unmonitored.