Hope this belongs here. I'm sure we all seen these ppl win a big slots jackpot and the casino refuses to pay as they're self-excluded. On one side it's too bad they're a degen but on the other, the casino is basically freerolling. What do you think should've been the fair result?

You just want opinions? This is not how it is, but how I think it should be:

Casinos should honor any and all bets they accept. Whether the bettor was 10 years old, the bettor was on a self exclusion list or involuntarily banned from the property, they have a moral obligation to honor it.

If a bettor is not mentally competent to place a bet they or their caretakers may sue to have losses returned to them. The casino is never mentally incompetent so they may not sue unless cheating was involved.

Yes, just want to see where everyone is at. Like I said, otoh, the person's a degen so kinda serves them right, but something doesn't sit right w/ the casino freerolling. I'm conflicted hahaha.

I think that if the casino can demonstrate they made an adequate attempt to prevent the self-excluded from playing, they shouldn't have to pay out.

You can put it in the self-exclusion forms, "we will screw you over if you play while self-excluded kthx." Then it's fair.

I always think that if a wager isn't valid, then the money bet should be returned. All of it. No free roll. They have to pay back all the bets, instead of just not paying out the jackpot.

Casino should be required to refund all losses that can be documented by the player since the date of exclusion. If casino can not verify that by tape and slot records, then refund a reasonable estimate based upon player's claims.

In addition, casino should have to donate 3X the amount of the denied jackpot to a valid charity of the player's choice.

Casino should be penalized for not enforcing the self-exclusion, but the player should not profit. However, the player should not be penalized--other than the time he wasted. Player should break even; casino should lose.

How, exactly, is a casino going to know if I walk in and start playing slots?

Who said they do? They still have records. They can return the money, less any winnings.

.

I am too lazy to dig into any regulations, but I think there is a requirement in most (all?) jurisdictions that casinos take reasonable actions to try to prevent self-excluded patrons from gambling. I doubt that any casinos do very much. After all, money is money.

Don't they have face scanners? I thought it would be easy to find out when certain ppl enter the premises?

Let me understand this correctly, you're saying if someone goes to a casino, self excludes, and then plays anyway, you want the player to break even?

Yes.

The player has presumably placed his faith in the casino not allowing him to gamble. Why else would they have a self-exclusion policy? If the casino can't enforce it, they shouldn't offer it.

The player should not be allowed to profit as he has signed an agreement that he should not be allowed to gamble. However, the casino should not be allowed to gain a monetary advantage from their mistake by not paying off a big win.

That does make sense.

We all know that casinos are in it fully for the money, so I actually find it hilarious they have these "moral" programs in place for degens, as when the moment of truth comes up, they show their true colors and practise freerolling, which is kinda sick. Not that I care for degens, but hate to see the casino profiting in shady ways, unless the degen is doing some Jason Bourne sh_t and can't be identified.

Because they are legally required to? Did you think they did it out of the goodness of their hearts?

I think you think way too highly of casinos.

The whole concept of self exclusion is weird, anyone can self-exclude from the casino by not going into the casino. So fundamentally, the people who sign up on self-exclusion lists don't really deserve that much sympathy.

In order to rigorously enforce an exclusion list - self-exclusion or other exclusions - the casino would have to impose a horrendous surveillance state around its games. Remember that the casino has unquestioned incentive to keep cheaters or other bannees out - that they haven't set up facial recognition for everyone entering the casino suggests it's possible but not practical.

Many people in society disagree, and believe casinos *prey* on people's weaknesses. They do use techniques like serving alcohol, pushing misleading advertising, and gimmicks like betting with chips instead of cash to confuse and devalue your concept of the money you're gambling with (mobile games do the same thing with 'gems' and other currencies, with weird denominations for sale).

And so we as a society often decide to force casinos to engage with problem gamblers in a constructive way, as a compromise between unrestricted gambling, and completely banned gambling. The people who see "problem gamblers" as victims of casinos get to have programs like self-exclusion, while the people who see them as morons still get to gamble.

Given that the whole thing is political, I don't think anyone should get a free roll out of it.

If they are legally required to, they should be legally required to do it correctly and enforce it, no?

You would be wrong. I despise casinos despite the fact that they have been a source of income to me.

Of course anyone can choose not to go. However, some people have issues (call it addiction, lack of self-control, or whatever) that regulators have recognized and decided that it is in the public's good to install safeguards to help prevent these folks from losing their last dime to an avaricious and unscrupulous industry. I don't get the implication that anyone is looking for sympathy--only a fair outcome given the law and the expectations derived from that. The casinos deserve no sympathy at all.

Then they should be provided an unquestioned incentive (read: stiff financial penalties) for not performing their required duties effectively.

Self-Excluded players typically do not play with a players card so there would be no way to track any losses (or small wins)((or play in general)).

Meh... They would just lose it back anyway...

I think this thread made me realize as much as I look down on degens, I don't like casinos freerolling.

Then our work here is done.

Not quite, since casinos are still legally allowed to freeroll without any repercussions, not that I want to be a shining advocate for degens though lol. I'm just pointing out the "injustice" here.

I was just referring to the education of an individual (you); not the resolution of the topic of discussion. Small victories!

Hey hey, I don't need no education haha. I'm just trying to be reasonable and don't like what the casino is doing, getting away with it.

Anyway, a simple solution is that all players must use their player's card for all games, and just deactivate the card. Otherwise, face scanners. How hard is that to implement?

Think about if this is something you want in a public place.

They already have scanners in some casinos. I don't treat it as public but in any event, if public, then there's no privacy anyway.