vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 5 AUG 2008

#21

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."

I agree that it is standing operating procedure for casinos to extend
this privilege to married people. The casinos are accustomed to doing
this, and that's just the way it is. Whether it is "fair" to the
unmarried is probably a meaningless discussion. Whoever said life is
fair?

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.

However I don't really think that someone can use this explanation
as "why" married people are typically extended this privilege by the
casinos. If it was truly because "you are one and the same" then
technically you would only be allowed one account (meaning one set of
mailers) which would have both names. So a more equitable
interpretation would be, if you want to play on each other's cards, you
get one, joint account, if you want two accounts, then you have to play
on your own cards.

"We should be able to play on each others cards, we're one and the
same!"

"OK, then you only get one, joint account."

"But we're two different people!"

lol

I really think that the only "explanation" is that casinos just choose
to allow married people this extra freedom to have their cake and eat
it too. If you are single and don't like it then get married! lol

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "staninnv" <arnot@...> wrote:

#22

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.

I think normally when there is a conflict in rules, the one that was
written explicitly for that particular scenario applies. You often
see writing on credit card pamphlets, warranties, etc... saying how
any rules in another section that implicitly disagree with a rule
under this specific, appropriate heading is not applicable in favor
of the rules specificly written for that circumstance.

In a similar way, I would not find it unthinkable for someone to
follow the rule written for the Jumbo Jackpot when trying to decide
on whether or not to pay the Jumbo Jackpot, regardless of how W2G
payments were handled. I agree that payment of the W2G, although a
different bird entirely from the Jumbo Jackpot, implies that the
Jumbo Jackpot could be handled the same way. But once again, one
rule implicitly applicable could easily be overruled by a rule
written explicitly for that circumstance without the decision being
viewed as hypocritical.

Congrats, Bob!

I agree. Congrats, Bob!

I'm not upset about Bob's win. I just feel bad for any Joe Shmoe
that might have already been denied a Jumbo Jackpot, because they
weren't Bob. And I certainly am wary of a decision that goes against
a written rule. That just allows far too much room for
discrimination. When they want to deny the jackpot, they can cite
the rule. When they want to pay, they can get away with breaking
it. I can just hear it now:

"Hey Boss, someone just hit the Jumbo Jackpot on another person's
card."

"Oh yeah, what color is he?"

I'm not saying it would happen, but rules are written to prevent
this. When rules can be broken at will, the underdog gets screwed.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "henryitkin" <henryitkin@...> wrote:

#23

I agree. Congrats, Bob!

I'm not upset about Bob's win. I just feel bad for any Joe Shmoe
that might have already been denied a Jumbo Jackpot, because they
weren't Bob. And I certainly am wary of a decision that goes

against

a written rule. That just allows far too much room for
discrimination. When they want to deny the jackpot, they can cite
the rule. When they want to pay, they can get away with breaking
it. I can just hear it now:

"Hey Boss, someone just hit the Jumbo Jackpot on another person's
card."

"Oh yeah, what color is he?"

I'm not saying it would happen, but rules are written to prevent
this. When rules can be broken at will, the underdog gets screwed.

And while it would be obsurd to think that hypothetical conversation
would ever take place, it would be pretty naive to think that
personal feelings would NEVER enter the decision making process if
allowed. Race, gender, whether or not you like the person, etc...
can all now influence whether you pay the Jumbo or not.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:

#24

I agree. The former is an "internal" jackpot which does not require a slot card whereas the latter is an "external" jackpot which reqires a slot card.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Curtis Rich
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 5 AUG 2008

  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]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#25

What every happened to the $1 million jackpot at Caesars that an underage person hit? Did Caesars ever have to put that jackpot amount into another jackpot since they never ended up paying it out?

Bill
Palms Moderator

···

--- On Thu, 8/7/08, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 5 AUG 2008
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 7, 2008, 11:46 AM

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, nightoftheiguana200 0 <nightoftheiguana200 0@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]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#26

IGT always distributes it somewhere. If you ever see one of their
jackpots jump up unexpectedly, that's why.
https://www.igt.com/gaminggroup/megajackpots/jackpotrecords.asp?pid=4.92

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

>
> 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

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Curtis Rich" <LGTVegas@...> wrote:

On 8/7/08, nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan O. Roemer" <public@> wrote:
> 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]

#27

Agreed; gotta be a complaint.

If it were me, I think I'd have written about something else that
day. In other words, I'd have kept my trap shut.

Cheers...Jeep
.
.
.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
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