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

[Suleiman the Magnificent]

Where was the casino until the woman won? They should have done this before the woman won. Someone who shouldn't have been playing there played and won. And they, in a despicable way, reported the woman. It truly is a completely despicable act.

[knuckey]

From what I've read in the article you shared, it seems the woman was banned from gambling after she won the jackpot. Her assets shouldn't have been confiscated because she didn't break any rules (unless she gambled after registering on the gambling site). So far, this is what I understand from the article. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but this article is actually difficult to understand.

[nara1892]

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.

Obviously not. Casinos are unlikely to contact the police to resolve the issue of customers who lose large sums of money gambling. As you mentioned, the goal of casinos is to make money, and they do so by relying on gamblers' losses. Simply put, the more gamblers lose, the happier the casino is.
However, it's a bit confusing if, for example, the situation is like the OP's description: there's nothing the woman can do because she's on the wrong side of the coin. Unfortunately, the luck came at the wrong time.

[boyptc]

Where was the casino until the woman won? They should have done this before the woman won. Someone who shouldn't have been playing there played and won. And they, in a despicable way, reported the woman. It truly is a completely despicable act.

It was unexpected that she'll won.

But I agree that she should have been banned before allowed to gamble into casinos. If they can have a communication with their respective nearby cities, polices and casinos.

Then, they should have done that before any unforeseen event like her winning a huge jackpot.

IMHO, they did the woman a dirty job.

[Findingnemo]

In land-based casinos, the users will get to keep their winnings but never allowed to gamble again. However, it is not sure how the self exclusion works in land based casino and if it was enforced, then they shouldn't have allowed for her to gamble unless the person tried to look as completely different individual.

[Miles2006]

A lifetime self exclusion is really difficult, sometimes I wonder why people love to always make things difficult like why a self exclusion when you simply can’t do without gambling. Self exclusion will be the last advice I can give to an addict except there’s no option, the casino is to be blamed obviously they can’t afford to lose such high amount at once reason why they had to investigate and find a fault, best believe if the lady had no self exclusion problem they will still find some other fault reason why we get a lot of withdrawal problem with casinos nowadays. This kind of problem can happen to anyone mostly when you’re already guilty and full rights has been given to the casino, I doubt if she’s getting her money back when it’s clearly stated she had a self exclusion ban, not fair though.

[Wiwo]

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 the women's self-exclusion covers all, both online and physical casinos, that is why the casinos operators invited police on her.

The women should have use another player may be a family member to claim her jackpot winning, because she had been gambling and losing yet the casino never bothered about her until she hit the jackpot suddenly identity verification was triggered.

[Sonia_123]

Both the casino and it the woman are to be blamed for her actions because was it not her identity she used to place the bet, were they not aware that she has self-exclusion in gambling in her state before accepting her to gamble maybe if she had not won a jackpot the casino would have being calm and then celebrate her loss.

The woman gave  herself such embarrassment , you should be able to stand by your word and avoid the casino.

[promise444c5]

I can agree with these act only if the woman is also allowed to sue any casino that eventually allows her to gamble  after the self-exclusion.. Which means she would have done same if she lost a huge amount on money on  a slot machine , playing continuously with Zero luck.

I don’t know who is to blame at the moment, yet I think both but most especially the Casino for allowing her to gamble then digging out some document Or there’s possibility that checks were only made when the woman requested for the huge win which eventually led to that… I still shift some blame’s on the Casino anyway.

[Grace333]

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.

It's sad thar this is how most organizations behave not just casinos or gambling platforms. They'll act as though they care about your well-being whereas they are only providing you services of their own benefits but when the table flips over to you they immediately show their self(wolfs under sheep clothing) irrespective of the bonuses they claim to be giving their bettors it is still no match to what they are actually extracting from the masses, but they'll always be on the right side because they didn't force you to gamble or use their services so it's all on you to make decisions whether or to fall for their pretends or to gamble responsibly.

[Muba20]

A person who wants to abstain either lacks self-control or wants to stay away from gambling because of aversion. But when that person repeatedly plays the casino and wins a big jackpot, it's natural to debate the value of that winning. With this kind of behavior it is easy to understand that the person who won the jackpot may suffer from gambling so he will ask to restrict himself from gambling for the rest of his life. In this situation, the concerned authorities should try to reconsider the matter. He was a gambler he could not control himself and the prize he got was invalid because of his gambling limitations.

[uneng]

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

No, because if it was a loss, she wouldn't wish to take that, justifying the casino was abusing her, because she already had a permanent self-exclusion, therefore they couldn't allow her to play. It has already happened in other cases where the gambler was at loss, so it's fair that gamblers also don't receive the winnings when the situation is favourable to them.

I think the measure in this case was quite decent, since the jackpot is going to fund programs which fight gambling addiction. It means the money is going to be useful somehow, instead of just fueling further gambling addiction of this woman.

[Charles-Tim]

I think the women's self-exclusion covers all, but online and physical casinos, that is why the casinos operators invited rhe police on her.

But if the woman continued to lose, they will not call police in her, but they can call police on her after winning jackpot. If I were the woman, I will still sue the gambling site. They only look for means to make money from people, but they have negligence to know people that are on self-exclusion that are losing money.

[bitbollo]

Self exclusion have clear rules based on country.
It seems anyway impressive to read these news. jackpots are rare events to say at latest and it was win... by some one excluded!
what is worst it seems there is no way to "win"... there are many issues to collect and probably there is only one ticket for the lottery that could pay

[Nwada001]

The story is not complete; the woman is supposed to be given the money won from the jackpot as long as they did not detect her when she walked in there and had gambling until she won the jackpot.

She should be allowed to take the money, or they should calculate all the money she spent in the casino that day and give it back to her. It might not be fair, but that's something worth doing if they are not going to pay the winnings due to her self-exclusion request.

[Wakate]

From what I've read in the article you shared, it seems the woman was banned from gambling after she won the jackpot. Her assets shouldn't have been confiscated because she didn't break any rules (unless she gambled after registering on the gambling site). So far, this is what I understand from the article. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but this article is actually difficult to understand.

I do not support the idea of allowing the woman to leave the casino without paying her the money she won in the jackpot.
Gambling should not be rigid and even when you are on self exclusion, that do not mean that you can not gamble again.
I think the casino are trying to take her money since they have gotten the information of she not fit enough to gamble.

[Wiwo]

I think the women's self-exclusion covers all, but online and physical casinos, that is why the casinos operators invited rhe police on her.

But if the woman continued to lose, they will not call police in her, but they can call police on her after winning jackpot. If I were the woman, I will still sue the gambling site. They only look for means to make money from people, but they have negligence to know people that are on self-exclusion that are losing money.

Exactly my point, the casino can overlook a player who is on self-exclusion while they are losing, but the moment they win something it becomes a problem to get their winnings paid.

This are the point we made in the other thread that discussed the approach that casinos take while dealing with self exclusion players in term's pf pay out of winnings and loses.

[Hispo]

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 don't think people who ask for life time self-exclusion actually understand what they are signing up for. They believe self-exclusion could be something flexible for them to mess with and only use against casinos when the administration of the casino fails to identify and exclude gamblers.

That woman had no actual intention to exclude herself for life as she told the administration of the casino, and she was not supposed to be allowed to walk into the casino in the first place.

If I had to bet, I would assume her money was seized and used in favor of social programs, as if the state allowed her to keep that money, then it would pretty much give the wrong message to gamblers who may think of self-exclusion, it would undermine the functionality of self-exclusion itself.

[Akbarkoe]

For me, I need to look at who is at fault here, and what I'm saying is that it's not the winnings, it's not the casino, it's not the law enforcement, and it's not the jackpot itself, but it's clearly the fault of the woman herself who had previously signed up for lifetime self-exclusion, which was clearly her own personal decision in the past, and her winnings being confiscated is a form of consequence that she has to accept.

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 don't think the exclusion is independent of online and land-based casinos, they are all the same which refers to gambling activities.
This is very interesting, if it happened like that, like the casino did not check every registered account is on the self-exclusion list, this is the fault of the site which should have been automatically banned from entry especially in regulated casinos in the country.

[Joy- maker]

My question is how were they able to find out that she has voluntarily banned her from gambling in Pennsylvania? at the very least, the source should have explain how the Hollywood Casino was able to identify her.

Secondly, why didn't Hollywood Casino first verify that she was on the self-exclusion list and then contact the police to come escort her out, some things do not just make sense to me the Hollywood Casino should pay the woman her jackpot.  I blame the casino, not the woman. they should have checked the self-exclusion list first before allowing her to play, why did they decide to check after she won?