Woman who asked for life time ban removed from casino after winning jackpot

[acroman08]

The woman voluntarily put herself in a lifetime self-exclusion from gambling in Pennsylvania, meaning she's banned from gambling in Pennsylvania(at least from what I understand). Now, according to the article, she gambled in Hollywood Casino Grantville and won a jackpot on a slot machine. After she was identified, the casino contacted the Pennsylvania State Police, and the woman was escorted out of the casino. The article said that it was unclear whether the woman was able to keep the jackpot she won, "but according to Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board spokesperson Doug Harbach, jackpots forfeited by people in her situation go to the board and are used to fight gambling addiction, WHTM reported".

There was a thread created recently about "Winning a jackpot as a self-excluded", I think what happened to this woman is a good example of that. So, should the woman be allowed to keep her winnings despite breaking the permanent self-exclusion she asked for?

GRANTVILLE, Pa. (Gray News) - A 69-year-old woman who put herself on a lifetime self-exclusion list was removed from a casino after winning the jackpot at a slot machine.

Pennsylvania State Police said the casino contacted Penn National after identifying that the woman had voluntarily banned herself from gambling for life in 2019, WGAL reported.

She was escorted off the Hollywood Casino Grantville property after winning a slot machine jackpot on May 31.

In Pennsylvania, people struggling with gambling addiction can voluntarily ban themselves from casinos for one year, five years or life. The bans do not expire.

According to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, “individuals who violate their self-exclusion terms will have any winnings confiscated and may receive a citation for criminal trespass.”

Police said a non-traffic citation for trespassing will be filed against her.

It is unclear whether the woman was able to keep the money, but according to Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board spokesperson Doug Harbach, jackpots forfeited by people in her situation go to the board and are used to fight gambling addiction, WHTM reported.

[Charles-Tim]

This is not a complete example unless I am still getting it wrong.

The woman self-exclusion was on land-based gambling site? If it is, it is not a complete example.

What if the woman self-exclusion was on an online gambling site and the woman did not make use of alternative accounts, but the gambling site allowed her to gamble and this happened? The gambling site would be blamed and be sued which is the opposite.

[acroman08]

This is not a complete example unless I am still getting it wrong.

The woman self-exclusion was on land-based gambling site? If it is, it is not a complete example.

What if the woman self-exclusion was on an online gambling site and the woman did not make use of alternative accounts, but the gambling site allowed her to gamble and this happened? The gambling site would be blamed and be sued which is the opposite.

I guess I should rephrase the "perfect example" with a "good example", but personally, I think what happened to that woman is the perfect example for that thread. I mean, she won a jackpot while being self-excluded, and the result is she got kicked out and her winning probably confiscated.

[freedomgo]

I’m just wondering, what if the woman lost a huge amount of money, will the casino have the initiative to contact the police?

I think in most cases they will not, as it will not do harm to them, and it is understandable because they are running a business so they will always aim for profit.
If the action is correct and justified, then all the blame is on the woman because she knows she should not have been gambling, but she still broke that responsibility.

[KTChampions]

So, should the woman be allowed to keep her winnings despite breaking the permanent self-exclusion she asked for?

I think this is a purely legal issue, or more accurately, a bureaucratic one - whoever digs up the most paperwork in their favor will win (obviously, the casino will defend its rights). I can assume that a settlement will be reached and she will receive a certain portion of the jackpot and both parties will save on the legal proceedings.
If we're talking about "everyday justice," I'd say the woman shouldn't receive the winnings because she violated the rules she established herself by taking advantage of the law (which is also written in her favor). Ideally, she should be held accountable for the violation/fined, but losing her winnings would already be sufficient (and harsh) punishment.

[leea-1334]

If they gave back all her lifetime spendings,,, I guess that is the most just way to deal with this situation, although I cannot see any justice in any situation. Lets see what the case ends up doing, I think her winnings should be awarded to charity, a charity dealing with gambling addiction.

[tabas]

I’m just wondering, what if the woman lost a huge amount of money, will the casino have the initiative to contact the police?

Nope, they won't care to people's losing money. But they would care if jackpots are hit because that's the house lost. IMHO, if it's not in the jurisdiction where she filed the self exclusion, she should have got the money. As the involvement is with these cities coordinating each other, they also have a point in it. Although it only happened because she's won significant amount of money. If the woman would find a good attorney on these disputes, I guess that she's got a chance and might even have more if they'll put that to the court and wins it.

[Ronsbit]

If I get you clear here, she excluded herself from gambling and if I may ask, which of the platform did she do that because that is what would warrant her to have done that if it were online casino she excluded herself from or land bases because she knows the law and can not be ignorant of the decision she took herself and if the exclusion were a land casino then she is guilty of an offense which the casino had already taken the right step but of not the casino should be made to apologize for calling in the police to escort her out of their platform for winning a jackpot and her wins be redeemed to her.

This case is more of an addictive gambler who at all costs is eager and desperate to play games irrespective of whatever that have been down by them to limit their gambling lifestyle. It is only a self-willed individual that has determined to do away with gambling that can be able to keep of the casino both online and land based.

[Altryist]

 So, the casino allowed her to play despite the self exclusion, and there was apparently no issue with her participation while she was losing, but as soon as she won the jackpot, they suddenly enforced the exclusion and removed her from the casino because she was not supposed to be playing. Doesn't that seem like a double standard and a convenient interpretation of the rules by the casino?

In my opinion, she should be allowed to keep the jackpot because there appear to have been violations on both sides. The player broke the self exclusion agreement, but the casino also failed to enforce it. If they were able to verify her identity after the win, they should have performed those checks before allowing her to gamble in the first place. Perhaps this will serve as a lesson for them.

On the other hand, it would be important to understand how the relevant laws in Pennsylvania apply to this situation, since the legal outcome may depend on specific regulations. To me, the most revealing aspect of this story is something else: if a person truly wants to gamble, self exclusion alone may not be enough to stop them. They will often find a way to continue playing regardless.

[Sim_card]

Why did they allow the woman to gamble in the first place since she's on self exclusion. It was after she won the jackpot that they checked that she was on self exclusion which is unfair. Did the casino gave her back the money she used in gambling before hitting the jackpot. I believe, this is not the first time she has gambled since she got self excluded. Did the casino check her gambling records to pay her back all she lost. Hell No! The law is one sided.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

The casino is crap. If they knew they were going to cofisticate the winnings they they should have prevented her from playing in the first place. These same people would not return her money if she lost that amount in that casino which is very bad. All I see is them trying to avoid paying out a jackpot.

The woman should sue them for their incompetence and also for affecting her emotions negatively by showing her winnings that they know fully well they won't pay her out.

[Charles-Tim]

I guess I should rephrase the "perfect example" with a "good example", but personally, I think what happened to that woman is the perfect example for that thread. I mean, she won a jackpot while being self-excluded, and the result is she got kicked out and her winning probably confiscated.

What I mean is that if it is land-based the woman went for it, it will be seen differently. Also the woman was making us of another land based casino for it right? But what if it is online and that the woman make use of the same gambling site that she self-excluded herself? In this scenario, it would be a different thing entirely. People will question the reason the gambling site allow her to be gambling.

Another thing is that you said you did not know if the woman was given or was not given the money that she won? If I were the woman, I will still sue the gambling site. They still failed to do their duty until she won money. Her money should be given to her or she should sue them also. They are thieves.

[Russlenat]

So, the casino allowed her to play despite the self exclusion, and there was apparently no issue with her participation while she was losing, but as soon as she won the jackpot, they suddenly enforced the exclusion and removed her from the casino because she was not supposed to be playing. Doesn't that seem like a double standard and a convenient interpretation of the rules by the casino?

The casino probably does not know she was under self-exclusion, they only investigated when she won, that is my guess.

Because if I am the casino, I would not bother to check every gambler if they are under self-exclusion or not, but it is imperative that when someone wins, especially a jackpot, they have to look into the gambler and check if it was won fair and square.

Just unlucky that it was found out the woman was under self-exclusion, and that resulted in the casino maybe legally not paying the winnings.

[nimogsm]

Why did they allow the woman to gamble in the first place since she's on self exclusion. It was after she won the jackpot that they checked that she was on self exclusion which is unfair. Did the casino gave her back the money she used in gambling before hitting the jackpot. I believe, this is not the first time she has gambled since she got self excluded. Did the casino check her gambling records to pay her back all she lost. Hell No! The law is one sided.

Most likely because entry is free and anyone can enter without an ID check. Essentially, she violated her own ban, and her winnings don't count, as she's prohibited from all gambling. It'll be interesting to see what the court will say, as the situation is truly interesting. After all, if she had lost a large sum to the casino, there would have been no case before.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

From this incident which you brought here, @OP, I can see that this self exclusion was done through the assistant of land based authorities that are part of regulatory bodies for land based casinos and from what I understand here, there could be the terms and conditions on that self exclusion contract which forbids the individual from participating in any other land based casino because if they do, they won't get paid, so if that is actually how the terms is set there, it means the womam has broken the terms and policy of the contract.

[Maslate]

I’m just wondering, what if the woman lost a huge amount of money, will the casino have the initiative to contact the police?

I think in most cases they will not, as it will not do harm to them, and it is understandable because they are running a business so they will always aim for profit.
If the action is correct and justified, then all the blame is on the woman because she knows she should not have been gambling, but she still broke that responsibility.

They might never think of that, but would love the gambler to even bet more and add bigger income to the casino. But since the woman hit the jackpot, after verifying its true identity, they will do all means to secure proofs that this woman has requested for a lifetime ban in gambling, and that could be used against the woman itself.

However, I guess the woman has filed its application on a major regulatory body and government-based casino that's why all its under operating casinos immediately linked to its filed request, but if she goes direct to a certain casino and file there, then the effectivity of her lifetime ban will only be limited on that casino, but she's still free to bet on other casinos.

[Zadicar]

From this incident which you brought here, @OP, I can see that this self exclusion was done through the assistant of land based authorities that are part of regulatory bodies for land based casinos and from what I understand here, there could be the terms and conditions on that self exclusion contract which forbids the individual from participating in any other land based casino because if they do, they won't get paid, so if that is actually how the terms is set there, it means the womam has broken the terms and policy of the contract.

If that exclusion would be totally covered up with other land based casinos then pretty sure that the woman had already violated that exclusion but if its just that one place or simply specifically on a certain casino then she decided to play on the other one then i dont think that it would be  that valid not unless if there would be t hat total ban in all land based casinos then there's that violation but if there's none then this woman would definitely be fighting it out on legal matter specially if the jackpot or amount is something that she could fight for. This is why whenever you do request for some exclusion whether for online or offline then it would be better to look or read up the terms on which you would be wary on what it is or on whats the scope of it. I have read up the other thread but that talks about online casino exclusion on which we do say that there might be that differences if we do speak or talk about physical casinos.

[alegotardo]

The woman voluntarily put herself in a lifetime self-exclusion from gambling in Pennsylvania, meaning she's banned from gambling in Pennsylvania(at least from what I understand). Now, according to the article, she gambled in Hollywood Casino Grantville and won a jackpot on a slot machine. After she was identified, the casino contacted the Pennsylvania State Police, and the woman was escorted out of the casino. The article said that it was unclear whether the woman was able to keep the jackpot she won, "but according to Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board spokesperson Doug Harbach, jackpots forfeited by people in her situation go to the board and are used to fight gambling addiction, WHTM reported".

There was a thread created recently about "Winning a jackpot as a self-excluded", I think what happened to this woman is a good example of that. So, should the woman be allowed to keep her winnings despite breaking the permanent self-exclusion she asked for?

In my opinion, the woman and the casino acted wrongly, but in any case, she is not entitled to the prize.

I will explain my opinion....

Just as casinos need to prevent minors from entering, they should also verify if they are "eligible" to gambling. Therefore, the fact that she entered into casino with an order of self-exclusion already means that casino failed in its security measures.

I also think that woman should not be entitled to the prize because she broke a rule: she was prohibited to gambling. This is no different from someone who uses cheating to win... if she should not have been gambling, then the prize she won is illegal.

In short, she would not be entitled to the prize anyway, bu casino could have prevented this problem.
Perhaps the fairest thing would be to also fine the casino, since they wanted to take an unfair advantage, letting her in on purpose to win the money from the bets and taking action  only when they saw that she had won.

[Dunamisx]

Had it been she didn't won a jackpot maybe she wouldn't have made mention of self-exclusion from gambling, I must confess that she is wise in her decision, what else do you expect when she already won a jackpot, women always have a conservative mindset towards money and this is why they cannot afford to lose and she know that if she should continue without taking this decision may lead to more losses and eventually lose their entire money back to gambling.

[AmaGold70]

I think the casino company did the right thing, different countries has their different rules, and since she has placed herself permanently on casino self exclusion, she was not suppose to gamble any longer. This woman has violated the rules of self exclusion, and could attract some penalty depending on the terms, and conditions surrounding the rule.
Before making any decision, it is necessary we examine ourselves very well, and know if we can actually maintain, and stick to the decision we want to take.
Ordinarily, many of us who are gamblers have stopped gambling at one point or the other, and latter went back again to gamble, but where your decision is attached to a constitution, it shouldn't be taken for granted.