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

[TastyChillySauce00]

This is the real example about how casino would not enforcing their rules to someone before they catched him/her win a jackpot. They let he/she played use all of his/her money. Once he/she won a jackpot, Casino was just simply calling police to escort him/her out of their place.
That's why i think that casino should be fined from inappropriate act to their customer. It's very sad regulators let this kind of casino to exist.

[Pumared]

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.

I think the same way. Before she won the prize, she knew she was wrong to gamble. So the winnings should really stay with the casino or go to a fund to combat addiction. But this only happened because to win the prize you need to have identification, but to have losses you don't. So it makes sense that the winnings don't belong to her.

[Fiatless]

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.

They should also investigate if it was the first time the woman had been playing at the casino after the ban. If she is not entitled to the wins, then the casino should also refund her for what she has lost. I find it unfair that the government or casinos will refer people to gambling laws when they win big. But they will remain silent when I don't favour the gambler.

The agency or establishment that is responsible for enforcing the life ban should also be held responsible. To be fair, the woman should receive some percentage of the jackpot.

[Satofan44]

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?

No, she should not. If you selectively let idiots slide, then the rules do not make sense and they collapse gradually similar to what happened to this forum. Therefore, it is clear that people should forfeit any and all winnings if they violate their own self-exclusion.

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.

So what in your view is the casino supposed to do? KYC and ID check in detail each and every person at the entrance? That is going to work out well for business! Self-exclusions are mostly nonsense since their enforcement is weak, and if the user is willing then they are able to use tricks to bypass it. Whether using fake ID to access local gambling avenues or simply going online, it only works if they person who want to be excluded is putting in the effort to do it. Nevertheless, the rules are the rules and as such this should be the minimum punishment for what she did. They should actually add jail time for self-exclusion violations, that will teach some of the idiots to behave.

[danherbias07]

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.

To make it worse, there will be a case that will be filed against her.

I don't understand this kind of problem, or maybe because I have not been there. They applied for self-exclusion, which I think is a big step if someone wants to stop gambling totally, but they still made it to the casino. Well, I pity the lady, but this is all on her. If she cannot resist it yet, she should have just stayed a gambler, but now there's double the trouble. Ouch!

But what is on my mind right now is why wasn't she flagged just after she came into the casino? I know they have lists of people who applied for self-exclusion. It means she got in and even found a way to exchange her money for the slot machine and won it. I think something's unfair about that.

[qwertyup23]

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.

This is an interesting situation given that the woman excluded herself to visit a casino but she won a jackpot afterwards. Now, they are refusing to honor her jackpot given that she gambled?

Hmm, I find this situation to be one for the books. A good lawyer may be able to at least help her win with the technicalities given that there should be a contingent or at least some sort of rule-breaking stipulation regarding self-exclusion.

What I see here is that, if the woman really wants to be self-excluded, then entrance to any kind of casino should be denied to her. The fact that she was able to visit a casino; gamble some money; and win the jackpot make it appear that the casino is trying their best to play with the technicalities in order not to award the jackpot.

[YOSHIE]

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

Of course we understand that every casino house has legal rules for its visitors, these are the general rules that every casino house applies, where we are registered as players, spectators, assistants and so on, these rules must be obeyed, breaking them means risk.

I think the woman will not get the jackpot win that she won, she should have entered with permission and registered as a player, so that the woman is safe in every win.

Situations like what happened to the woman often happen, initially they entered as visitors, not as players, after seeing the exciting game they tried and won, the owner found out in the process, automatically the winnings cannot be taken away, in contrast to small casino houses which have no official rules, if a casino like Hollywood Casino Grantville I think they have strict rules that must be followed, casinos are official and have valid statutes or laws, violations of which result in some other risks being jailed or fined.

[Su-asa]

The truth is that she's not supposed to take the money because it's an agreement. If she takes the money then she has broken the self exclusion rules. Self exclusion is like a contract, and if you continue gambling else were you have breaking the rules. I believe that the reason why she excluded her self from gamble was because gamble was getting her into serious financial troubles. If by any chance they allow her to go with the money others might try the same thing in the future.
Although for the fact that the casino didn't stopped her from entering and gambling is another serious argument here, but from my point of view, she's not supposed to take the money and the casino are not to blame either because they didn't force her to enter and gamble.

[robelneo]

This is an offline case, but there is an existing rule that says

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.”

So she is not entitled to her winnings, unfortunately. I'm sure she did not expect this regret and her action; she should have stuck to her plan, and now she has something to be depressed about. This is a lesson learned: if you want to quit gambling, just do it on your own without getting a self-exclusion term, so she can go back just for fun.

[Charles-Tim]

To make it worse, there will be a case that will be filed against her.

Maybe they want to make her leave the money and use that to make her be afraid not to go for a legal action, but I do not know.

I don't understand this kind of problem, or maybe because I have not been there. They applied for self-exclusion, which I think is a big step if someone wants to stop gambling totally, but they still made it to the casino. Well, I pity the lady, but this is all on her. If she cannot resist it yet, she should have just stayed a gambler, but now there's double the trouble. Ouch!

Nothing will happen to the woman. All that can happen is for her not able to receive the money she won.

But what is on my mind right now is why wasn't she flagged just after she came into the casino? I know they have lists of people who applied for self-exclusion. It means she got in and even found a way to exchange her money for the slot machine and won it. I think something's unfair about that.

This is how the court will know that the gambling platform are thieves. The woman should sue them on time first.

[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.

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.

This is why the best way to be on self exclusion is to do it manually by not telling the casino to put you on self exclusion. You should just stay away from gambling platforms or casinos be it land base or online casinos. This will help a lot so that, if you're tempted to gamble, you can just easily gamble without any problems and withdraw your wins if you hit the jackpot. The woman caused all these for herself because she shouldn't have go gamble in the first place.

[Cryptomultiplier]

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.

This is why the best way to be on self exclusion is to do it manually by not telling the casino to put you on self exclusion. You should just stay away from gambling platforms or casinos be it land base or online casinos. This will help a lot so that, if you're tempted to gamble, you can just easily gamble without any problems and withdraw your wins if you hit the jackpot. The woman caused all these for herself because she shouldn't have go gamble in the first place.

I find it really funny how people claim to be repentant one minute and go back to their vomit the next because they just could not control their desires and immediate urges and then put themselves in situations where they know the tide is against them both legally and structurally to say the least.
Self exclusion is the highest form of self ban any gambler can impose on themselves Incase they don't know what it means and going back to gamble after banning yourself should even lead to the gambler being arrested and  prosecuted and mentally tested if they are okay.
It doesn't make much sense why a gambler would go through extreme measures to ban themselves and still want to claim a jackpot win. It's absolutely wrong. The casino obviously can't pay the jackpot win to the self excluded gambler because it is lawfully their right to contest against it.

[Filicius]

This is the real example about how casino would not enforcing their rules to someone before they catched him/her win a jackpot. They let he/she played use all of his/her money. Once he/she won a jackpot, Casino was just simply calling police to escort him/her out of their place.
That's why i think that casino should be fined from inappropriate act to their customer. It's very sad regulators let this kind of casino to exist.

In the end, the one who pays the blame for the casino's negligence is the woman, which doesn't make much sense. Although not only, because it seems that the prize will have to be paid, but for other causes. In short, in the end it is the Government that benefits, what a surprise!

[aioc]

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?

I created that thread its about exclusion in online casinos. This one is about offline discussion, based on that story, she was granted a self-exclusion term, and the only way to take that exclusion is through a request, and it should be granted for her to play again.
Since the exclusion is already in place and there is a law that governs that winning will be forfeited if she decides to play, then her winnings were forfeited; it's her fault, she should request to lift the ban first before playing, unless she does it for fun and no expectation of winning.

[EluguHcman]

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

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.

Judging from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board she had violated the gaming policy and for the fact she had been caught she should not even be agitating to walk away with the win but hopeful not to be penalized for her criminal exhibition according to to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control polices.

But if you ask me from my own view, she should be let go with her jackpot prize afterall it is her resources she is risking but in the other hand, think about it... If she had suffered significant looses i believe she would even afford to sue the casino for granting her the access to still gamble even after she had requested for lifetime ban.

[serjent05]

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 think there is no exception. The case is the same, it is that this one is in land-based casino and in the other thread it is online.  Still, if we look at the situation they are in the same case.  

Player requested and granted the lifetime ban ( equivalent of self-exclusion, though temporary, but still has the same effect as the exclusion is in effect).
The player should stop going to the casino (land-based), and the same goes with the online gambler, he must not access the site.
As we can see, the regulatory board state that the jackpot is normally forfeited.  I also think the same thing (jackpot forfeited) will be done to the person who were approved of the self-exclusion request and still accessed the site, winning the jackpot.

[Oasisman]

Nevertheless, the rules are the rules and as such this should be the minimum punishment for what she did. They should actually add jail time for self-exclusion violations, that will teach some of the idiots to behave.

This sounds just right. Since the self-exclusion enforcement is weak for most of the casinos, and users who opt to use such a feature can still cheat their way back without being noticed immediately, then they should impose strict legal consequences on those who break the agreements they set for themselves. These self-exclusion things have already been abused by numerous people, acting like they can't control their addictions. Well, I guess imposing such harsh legal actions will somehow make them contemplate whether to break it or not.

[Z-tight]

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.

I'm having a hard time understanding you here, are you suggesting they give her back all she has spent gambling? Why should they do such a thing. I don't get why you would suggest that, if i understood you correctly. The casino did the right thing, she broke the law and even if she won, it does not change what she did, so i believe she has to forfeit the money. It would surely hurt her, but that is the right thing to do.

[Joy_learns_crypto]

Did she put herself on lifetime ban or she was forced to put herself on life time ban by her family. Why will she put herself on lifetime ban and still go on playing without atleast trying to lift the lifetime ban she placed on herself.
Also the police department that was called in should investigate if the jackpot she won was her first game after putting herself on life time ban because she should not be allowed to play and if she had played and lost before the jackpot she should refunded what she lost.

[Renampun]

That casino only used the excuse that she was self-excluded to be able to refuse their obligation to pay the jackpot to the woman.. because if on the other hand it was the woman who suffered a loss, then the casino would definitely say that it was her fault that she continued to gamble even though her position was self-excluded. this is quite tricky, because the woman should be able to get her winnings, but because the casino found a loophole in the rules, they are not obliged to pay out the winnings.