When the Rules Are Enforced
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/5978ch">
http://tinyurl.com/5978ch</a>
************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes and doesn't
constitute an endorsement or approval of the linked article's
content by vpFREE. Any discussion of the article must be done
in accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
************************************************
WOW!!!
I expect that Station Casino's will be getting a big fine for doing
this. Nevada Gaming usually requires casino's to follow the posted
rules for all promotions. There clearly was no gray area here.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
When the Rules Are Enforced
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/5978ch">
http://tinyurl.com/5978ch</a>
Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty things about them?
At 12:13 PM 8/6/2008, you wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
>
> When the Rules Are Enforced
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5978ch
>
> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5978ch">
> http://tinyurl.com/5978ch</a>
>WOW!!!
I expect that Station Casino's will be getting a big fine for doing
this. Nevada Gaming usually requires casino's to follow the posted
rules for all promotions. There clearly was no gray area here.------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Bob's article is called, "When rules are enforced." But, it
should be "When rules are not enforced."
So, now Station Casinos will pay anyone who wins the
Jumbo Jackpot even if they are playing with someone
else's players card? Or, is this 'exception' to the rules only
for "Bob Dancer?"
In his article, Bob guesses that this same thing has certainly
happened to someone before. Personally, I really doubt it.
There are a hell of a lot more people playing with their own
cards inserted than there are playing with someone else's.
If Nevada Gaming really does require casinos to follow the
posted rules for all promotions, then YES, Station Casinos
should be fined. (Or, whatever is supposed to happen when
casinos break the rules.) Of course, if Station Casinos
*are* actually fined, we probably won't hear about it.
IMHO, if the promotion rules say you have to be playing with
your own players card, then Bob should not have been paid
the jackpot. How the casino's representatives treated Bob
in the past does not negate the promotion's rules. Just
because Bob was previously hand paid and issued W-2's
while playing with his wife's card has nothing to do with the
promotion's rules. However, if they paid Bob on a previous
Jumbo Jackpot (with the same rules), that would be different.
The bottom line is: If rules are not going to be enforced, the
casinos should not have them in the first place. If rules are
only applied to *some* customers, the casinos should be fined.
On 8/6/08, drich295 <drich2@aol.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
> When the Rules Are Enforced
> http://tinyurl.com/5978chWOW!!!
I expect that Station Casino's will be getting a big fine for doing
this. Nevada Gaming usually requires casino's to follow the posted
rules for all promotions. There clearly was no gray area here.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
things about them?
Whatever the reason, Stations has now set a precedent. I often play on
my wife's card, and she on mine, depending who has the higher
multiplier for that day. While we have seperate accounts, they
are "linked".
Now if one of us hits the Jumbo Jackpot playing on the other's card, I
expect to get paid.
Don the Dentist
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:
Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty
Big fine + Nevada Gaming + Casinos = Does not compute
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "drich295" <drich2@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@> wrote:
>
> When the Rules Are Enforced
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5978ch
>
> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5978ch">
> http://tinyurl.com/5978ch</a>
>WOW!!!
I expect that Station Casino's will be getting a big fine for doing
this. Nevada Gaming usually requires casino's to follow the posted
rules for all promotions. There clearly was no gray area here.
>
> Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty
things about them?Whatever the reason, Stations has now set a precedent. I often play
on
my wife's card, and she on mine, depending who has the higher
multiplier for that day. While we have seperate accounts, they
are "linked".Now if one of us hits the Jumbo Jackpot playing on the other's
card, I
expect to get paid.
Don the Dentist
Bravo! What is fair for the Pro is fair for all. I will fear no
more playing on my partners card.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dds2124" <dds6@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@> wrote:
<<Nevada Gaming usually requires casino's to follow the posted
rules for all promotions.>>
Nevada gaming didn't even involve themselves in promotions until very
recently, and they "usually" do nothing at all unless a complaint is filed.
Cogno
Yup, that's the theory. Although I'd be inclined to give it to him for
several different reasons, none of which involve him being a writer.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:
Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty things
about them?
Personally, I wouldn't imagine that factored in. As confirmed by the
replies on this board, I think it would be safe to assume that the
public would have little sympathy for any person knowingly playing on
another's card being denied payout if it was already in the rules that
you must be playing on your own card to qualify for the jackpot. The
public generally doesn't care when someone breaks the rules and gets
penalized for it, regardless of how "nasty" anything might be written
about it. I think people would feel that if someone is willing to play
on another's card in order to squeeze out more in mailers, then they
have accepted the risk of not getting paid on a long shot jackpot in
favor of the guaranteed monthly increase in offers, bounceback, etc...
If anything, one would think an intelligent decision would actually
view the possibility of an article as a deterrent to pay. I would
expect more public uproar over the casino not following rules than over
a casino adhering to them. And of course knowing an article will be
written, I would be hesitant to establish a precedent of paying out the
jumbo to people playing on another's card. Anyone planning on playing
on another's card might want to consider printing out the article just
so you have a hard copy to pull out if you later find yourself in the
same situation.
I'm guessing that one influence on the decision was the fact that it
would cost them more if they didn't pay it. The machines had already
given out the freeplay for it being hit. If they rolled the jumbo
back, they wouldn't be able to take back all that freeplay. And they
would have to give out another set of freeplay when it hit legitimately
(likely at a higher jackpot as well). Add to that the cost of
resources in performing the rollback; which depending on how the system
is set up, might be a real pain. I'm not sure if the amounts in
question are really big enough to make it a major factor, but that is a
possibility as we know how casinos love to jump on any sort of cost
cutting without fully thinking about the long term effects.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:
Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty things
about them?
Bill Coleman wrote:
> Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty
> things about them?
paladingamingllc replied:
Yup, that's the theory. Although I'd be inclined to give it to him for
several different reasons, none of which involve him being a writer.
Ditto. His account actually gave me a chuckle when reading it. While
a bit on the obnoxious side, I thought to myself I'd likely have said
the same thing (with the thought in my mind that it was decent
insurance in the case that they were obtuse enough not to act in his
favor otherwise).
- Harry
Spouse's playing on each others card seems to be "standing operating
procedure" and even encouraged by casino management? I've had hosts,
GM's and slot club personnel say, "I hope you're both playing on the
same card."
As locals, we get the monthly mailers with multiple points days and
free play. But there's a point where you max out at the level you wish
to play at. So, it's only smart to play the max on one card and then
switch to the other spouse's card to max out their play for the month.
I don't play enough at Station's to maintain two Chairman levels and
found that two Presidents are better than one Chairman account. The
mailers just don't differ enough to warrant Chairman play.
Throughout the year, my wife and I have hit numerous "taxables" on
each other's cards and never had a problem with W-2's. I've asked
several times about, "what if I hit the jumbo with the spouse's card
in" and was told, "it's the person playing not the card that gets paid."
If I was playing on a friend's card or a child's card to help them
earn a benefit, then maybe, just maybe I wouldn't get paid. However, a
Marriage License makes us one and the same. Just ask the IRS at tax
time. You can discuss this all you want but that's just the way it is.
>
> Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty
things
> about them?
>Personally, I wouldn't imagine that factored in. As confirmed by
the
replies on this board, I think it would be safe to assume that the
public would have little sympathy for any person knowingly playing
on
another's card being denied payout if it was already in the rules
that
you must be playing on your own card to qualify for the jackpot.
The
public generally doesn't care when someone breaks the rules and
gets
penalized for it, regardless of how "nasty" anything might be
written
about it. I think people would feel that if someone is willing to
play
on another's card in order to squeeze out more in mailers, then
they
have accepted the risk of not getting paid on a long shot jackpot
in
favor of the guaranteed monthly increase in offers, bounceback,
etc...
If anything, one would think an intelligent decision would actually
view the possibility of an article as a deterrent to pay. I would
expect more public uproar over the casino not following rules than
over
a casino adhering to them. And of course knowing an article will
be
written, I would be hesitant to establish a precedent of paying out
the
jumbo to people playing on another's card. Anyone planning on
playing
on another's card might want to consider printing out the article
just
so you have a hard copy to pull out if you later find yourself in
the
same situation.
I'm guessing that one influence on the decision was the fact that
it
would cost them more if they didn't pay it. The machines had
already
given out the freeplay for it being hit. If they rolled the jumbo
back, they wouldn't be able to take back all that freeplay. And
they
would have to give out another set of freeplay when it hit
legitimately
(likely at a higher jackpot as well). Add to that the cost of
resources in performing the rollback; which depending on how the
system
is set up, might be a real pain. I'm not sure if the amounts in
question are really big enough to make it a major factor, but that
is a
possibility as we know how casinos love to jump on any sort of cost
cutting without fully thinking about the long term effects.
Suppose, a player didn't use a card at all, would they NOT pay him?
Suppose the player sat down at the machine, did not want to use his
card, didn't check the card slot, and there was a previous player's
card in the slot, would the not pay him then?
Just some thoughts.
Ted
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@> wrote:
I don't believe that it's possible to be selected to win, if a
player does not have a card inserted. I'm quite sure that one
of the parameters for winning the Jumbo Jackpot is that the
player must have a club card and that the card must be in the
machine when the jackpot is hit.
~Babe~
===============================================
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <gtdietz@...> wrote:
Suppose, a player didn't use a card at all, would they NOT pay
him? Suppose the player sat down at the machine, did not want
to use his card, didn't check the card slot, and there was a previous
player's card in the slot, would the not pay him then?
Ted,
To your first point, I believe that a machine cannot hit the Jumbo Jackpot
if a My Rewards card is not inserted.
As for your second point, I don't know about that one.
One question that I have is why does everyone assume that if Bob was not
paid, that they would need to "roll back" the Jumbo so it could it again?
I'd think there must be a "management reserves all rights" type of clause in
the rules that would allow the casino to disqualify the jackpot winner
without having to make the Jumbo hit again at the same or higher point. Why
couldn't they just have it reset as normal until the next one hit and just
have said, "Well, the Jumbo hit, so everyone got their free play, but
unfortunately the winner was disqualified per the rules so the actual
Jackpot is being withheld this time?"
Anyway, I'm personally glad that GVR decided to award the $$. I'm just
wondering about the "what if's." Congrats to Bob for the hit! I'm envious,
and I know he didn't do anything that I wouldn't have done to try to defend
a $90K hit on my wife's card!! Even if I knew I was breaking the rules, I'd
still be upset, if not with the casino, then with myself, or the cosmos, or
something, if I'd managed to beat the odds and win a Jumbo and then was
DQ'ed after the fact!!
From: Ted <gtdietz@optonline.net>
Reply-To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:49:30 -0000
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 5 AUG 2008
Suppose, a player didn't use a card at all, would they NOT pay him?
Suppose the player sat down at the machine, did not want to use his
card, didn't check the card slot, and there was a previous player's
card in the slot, would the not pay him then?
Just some thoughts.
Ted
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> , "pokegimp"
<wincerwj@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> , Bill Coleman
<vphobby2@> wrote:
>
> Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty
things
> about them?
>Personally, I wouldn't imagine that factored in. As confirmed by
the
replies on this board, I think it would be safe to assume that the
public would have little sympathy for any person knowingly playing
on
another's card being denied payout if it was already in the rules
that
you must be playing on your own card to qualify for the jackpot.
The
public generally doesn't care when someone breaks the rules and
gets
penalized for it, regardless of how "nasty" anything might be
written
about it. I think people would feel that if someone is willing to
play
on another's card in order to squeeze out more in mailers, then
they
have accepted the risk of not getting paid on a long shot jackpot
in
favor of the guaranteed monthly increase in offers, bounceback,
etc...
If anything, one would think an intelligent decision would actually
view the possibility of an article as a deterrent to pay. I would
expect more public uproar over the casino not following rules than
over
a casino adhering to them. And of course knowing an article will
be
written, I would be hesitant to establish a precedent of paying out
the
jumbo to people playing on another's card. Anyone planning on
playing
on another's card might want to consider printing out the article
just
so you have a hard copy to pull out if you later find yourself in
the
same situation.
I'm guessing that one influence on the decision was the fact that
it
would cost them more if they didn't pay it. The machines had
already
given out the freeplay for it being hit. If they rolled the jumbo
back, they wouldn't be able to take back all that freeplay. And
they
would have to give out another set of freeplay when it hit
legitimately
(likely at a higher jackpot as well). Add to that the cost of
resources in performing the rollback; which depending on how the
system
is set up, might be a real pain. I'm not sure if the amounts in
question are really big enough to make it a major factor, but that
is a
possibility as we know how casinos love to jump on any sort of cost
cutting without fully thinking about the long term effects.
Good questions. Also, what if I am senor citizen, just had their
champagne brunch, sit down at a machine with someone else's card, and
since I am soft, I think my card is in slot. I hit, do I get paidor
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <gtdietz@...> wrote:
Suppose, a player didn't use a card at all, would they NOT pay him?
Suppose the player sat down at the machine, did not want to use his
card, didn't check the card slot, and there was a previous player's
card in the slot, would the not pay him then?
Just some thoughts.
Ted
I have read all the posts on this amazing "happening." I say
amazing because, just as Bob Dancer said that although hundreds by
now must have hit this Jumbo Jackpot he doesn't personally know
anyone, I don't know anyone either. At least up to now!
But I want to give my opinion on the paying (or not paying) of the
jackpot. Although I am somewhat biased as I consider Bob Dancer a
friend of mine, I think my opinion is the right one or at least the
most logical one.
A casino will have many, many rules and will set up rules on
everything from ordinary play, to Jumbo Jackpot promotions. In many
cases, just by the number of rules that are set up and, very likely,
different people writing up the rules, some of the rules conflict
with others. In his specific case, there were rules allowing paying
of jackpots (W2-G's) when playing on a spouse's card. This is
undeniable because he has been playing and qualifying both himself
and Shirley month after month for years! That alone sets up a
standing rule and makes the precedent that Station Casinos has no
formal objection to spouses having this type of activity. Now,
buried in the rules of their Jumbo Jackpot is a rule saying you must
play on your own card. But this conflicts with their standing rule
on jackpots so most obviously, one rule must give way in favor of
the other.
To deny a BIG jackpot, while for years routinely paying the small
jackpots would be hypocritical and, in my opinion, unthinkable.
Even more so because he plays there so much, is so well known (well
known for his significant play not because of his celebrity status),
and recognized by so many floor people as a regular patron. The
other factors of the various costs involved or difficulty in whether
or not to reset the Jackpot are neglible factors completely dwarfed
by this major one. While naturally envious of his win, I would be
furious if he had been denied the win. I would much rather be a
little envious than absolutely furious. This is especially true
because he is a friend, but also because he works so hard at his
play and at keeping good relationships with casino personnel and
being polite to other players. He deserves this nice win.
Sure, it's lucky. But with the number of hours of play he puts in,
and he overlooks nothing while going after acceptable plays, the
luck comes eventually and naturally along with the play.
Congrats, Bob!
Ted,
To your first point, I believe that a machine cannot hit the Jumbo
Jackpot
if a My Rewards card is not inserted.
As for your second point, I don't know about that one.
One question that I have is why does everyone assume that if Bob
was not
paid, that they would need to "roll back" the Jumbo so it could it
again?
I'd think there must be a "management reserves all rights" type of
clause in
the rules that would allow the casino to disqualify the jackpot
winner
without having to make the Jumbo hit again at the same or higher
point. Why
couldn't they just have it reset as normal until the next one hit
and just
have said, "Well, the Jumbo hit, so everyone got their free play,
but
unfortunately the winner was disqualified per the rules so the
actual
Jackpot is being withheld this time?"
Anyway, I'm personally glad that GVR decided to award the $$. I'm
just
wondering about the "what if's." Congrats to Bob for the hit!
I'm envious,
and I know he didn't do anything that I wouldn't have done to try
to defend
a $90K hit on my wife's card!! Even if I knew I was breaking the
rules, I'd
still be upset, if not with the casino, then with myself, or the
cosmos, or
something, if I'd managed to beat the odds and win a Jumbo and
then was
DQ'ed after the fact!!
From: Ted <gtdietz@...>
Reply-To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:49:30 -0000
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 5 AUG 2008Suppose, a player didn't use a card at all, would they NOT pay him?
Suppose the player sat down at the machine, did not want to use his
card, didn't check the card slot, and there was a previous player's
card in the slot, would the not pay him then?
Just some thoughts.
Ted--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%
40yahoogroups.com> , "pokegimp"
<wincerwj@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%
40yahoogroups.com> , Bill Coleman
<vphobby2@> wrote:
> >
> > Think maybe they gave it to him to keep him from writing nasty
things
> > about them?
> >
>
> Personally, I wouldn't imagine that factored in. As confirmed by
the
> replies on this board, I think it would be safe to assume that
the
> public would have little sympathy for any person knowingly
playing
on
> another's card being denied payout if it was already in the rules
that
> you must be playing on your own card to qualify for the jackpot.
The
> public generally doesn't care when someone breaks the rules and
gets
> penalized for it, regardless of how "nasty" anything might be
written
> about it. I think people would feel that if someone is willing
to
play
> on another's card in order to squeeze out more in mailers, then
they
> have accepted the risk of not getting paid on a long shot jackpot
in
> favor of the guaranteed monthly increase in offers, bounceback,
etc...
>
> If anything, one would think an intelligent decision would
actually
> view the possibility of an article as a deterrent to pay. I
would
> expect more public uproar over the casino not following rules
than
over
> a casino adhering to them. And of course knowing an article will
be
> written, I would be hesitant to establish a precedent of paying
out
the
> jumbo to people playing on another's card. Anyone planning on
playing
> on another's card might want to consider printing out the article
just
> so you have a hard copy to pull out if you later find yourself in
the
> same situation.
>
> I'm guessing that one influence on the decision was the fact that
it
> would cost them more if they didn't pay it. The machines had
already
> given out the freeplay for it being hit. If they rolled the
jumbo
> back, they wouldn't be able to take back all that freeplay. And
they
> would have to give out another set of freeplay when it hit
legitimately
> (likely at a higher jackpot as well). Add to that the cost of
> resources in performing the rollback; which depending on how the
system
> is set up, might be a real pain. I'm not sure if the amounts in
> question are really big enough to make it a major factor, but
that
is a
> possibility as we know how casinos love to jump on any sort of
cost
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan O. Roemer" <public@...> wrote:
> cutting without fully thinking about the long term effects.
>
again?
Because Gaming Control requires them too. Otherwise it would be false
advertising and detrimental to the industry. If they advertise a
jackpot that is guaranteed to hit, it must be payed in some way to the
public, the casino can't decide to just keep it. This happens all the
time when progressives are shutdown, the progressive fund must be put
elsewhere. Of course they can take a progressive off of a full pay
machine and put it on a short pay machine.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan O. Roemer" <public@...> wrote:
One question that I have is why does everyone assume that if Bob was not
paid, that they would need to "roll back" the Jumbo so it could it
I believe that there is a big difference between regular
jackpots (such as W-2G hand pays) and promotional
prizes (such as Station Casinos' Jumbo Jackpot).
In one instance, winning is dependent on placing a
specific wager. In the other, winning is completely
random and is awarded to a player who just happens
to have a players card inserted at the moment the
Jumbo Jackpot hits.
Obviously, it is not a conflict when a casino has a rule for
a promotion which differs from the 'regular' casino rules.
Casinos can certainly have different rules, depending
on the circumstances.
Curtis
On 8/7/08, henryitkin <henryitkin@cox.net> wrote:
I have read all the posts on this amazing "happening." I say
amazing because, just as Bob Dancer said that although hundreds by
now must have hit this Jumbo Jackpot he doesn't personally know
anyone, I don't know anyone either. At least up to now!But I want to give my opinion on the paying (or not paying) of the
jackpot. Although I am somewhat biased as I consider Bob Dancer a
friend of mine, I think my opinion is the right one or at least the
most logical one.A casino will have many, many rules and will set up rules on
everything from ordinary play, to Jumbo Jackpot promotions. In many
cases, just by the number of rules that are set up and, very likely,
different people writing up the rules, some of the rules conflict
with others. In his specific case, there were rules allowing paying
of jackpots (W2-G's) when playing on a spouse's card. This is
undeniable because he has been playing and qualifying both himself
and Shirley month after month for years! That alone sets up a
standing rule and makes the precedent that Station Casinos has no
formal objection to spouses having this type of activity. Now,
buried in the rules of their Jumbo Jackpot is a rule saying you must
play on your own card. But this conflicts with their standing rule
on jackpots so most obviously, one rule must give way in favor of
the other.To deny a BIG jackpot, while for years routinely paying the small
jackpots would be hypocritical and, in my opinion, unthinkable.
Even more so because he plays there so much, is so well known (well
known for his significant play not because of his celebrity status),
and recognized by so many floor people as a regular patron. The
other factors of the various costs involved or difficulty in whether
or not to reset the Jackpot are neglible factors completely dwarfed
by this major one. While naturally envious of his win, I would be
furious if he had been denied the win. I would much rather be a
little envious than absolutely furious. This is especially true
because he is a friend, but also because he works so hard at his
play and at keeping good relationships with casino personnel and
being polite to other players. He deserves this nice win.Sure, it's lucky. But with the number of hours of play he puts in,
and he overlooks nothing while going after acceptable plays, the
luck comes eventually and naturally along with the play.Congrats, Bob!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What would happen if an underage person won a Megabucks
Jackpot? By the time the casino confirms that the player is ineligible
to receive the money, the meter will have already been reset.
Curtis
On 8/7/08, nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan O. Roemer" <public@...> wrote:
If they advertise a jackpot that is guaranteed to hit, it must be payed in
some
way to the public, the casino can't decide to just keep it. This happens
all the
time when progressives are shutdown, the progressive fund must be put
elsewhere. Of course they can take a progressive off of a full pay
machine and put it on a short pay machine.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]