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

[maydna]

The money should be given to that woman, perhaps half of the winning even then she request for self-exclusions. She deserve that because she doesn't want continue to gamble.

I can say that is smart moves she did because she gets the win money then requesting for self-exclusions. But perhaps, she need to wait for few days before requesting self-exclusions so that will not attract much attention from regulator.

[acroman08]

Why do they keep going back.
It just tells me that self-exclusion is not an effective solution to gambling addiction. If you are addicted to gambling, seek proper help. These types of stories are discouraging to those who are thinking of self-exclusion. Let your strategies for fighting gambling addiction not stop at self-exclusion.

Self-exclusion was really never a solution to gambling addiction, it's just one of the precautions recommended to be used for gamblers that is showing concerning behaviors toward gambling and needs break from it. If someone has a gambling addiction, looking for professional help is still their best solution they can get.

And as for the casino, since the money is going into a useful cause, I would say that the woman should be the first recipient of it.

It would be good for he if it works like that, but I doubt that would happen like that.

[lombok]

The money should be given to that woman, perhaps half of the winning even then she request for self-exclusions. She deserve that because she doesn't want continue to gamble.

I can say that is smart moves she did because she gets the win money then requesting for self-exclusions. But perhaps, she need to wait for few days before requesting self-exclusions so that will not attract much attention from regulator.

Suspension that a game is immediately obtained after a big sale is a very strong preservation of capital strategy. An assurance of saving part of the profits and spending it in the future eliminates the temptation of reinvesting the money. The postponement of the self blocking request by a certain timeline is useful in reducing administrative suspicions of the national gambling regulators.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

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".

My question is this, why was she not identified before gambling and prevented from initially gambling rather than only identifying her when she's secured a Jackpot and calling the police. I agree she filled for exclusion and IMO it's the duty of the casinos around to stop these people from gambling in the first place, it's always the same story, they only remember they're self-excluded when Jackpot is secured, but we never get to hear how many times they still allowed her gamble and how much she lost from the time she self-excluded until she win the jackpot. We don't also hear the police arresting casino operators for allowing such people to gamble and refunding ask their loses, despite that they've indicated interest to be excluded. For me they should just give her the money, she's entitled to it.

[summonerrk]

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".

This is just an egregious situation, because she should have legally received her winnings. She was a fair winner, and Kay hadn't been told before that the very exclusion from gambling already applied to her. This is a very strange and truly egregious situation. Well, I understand that someone will say that since she requested self-exclusion (but she was trying to control herself anyway), she would have lost this jackpot anyway, but I'm surprised that such a case was allowed in such a cool country as the United States.

[Africolo]

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.

This is a bit critical because from the topic, it is said that the woman gave her consent to be banned or removed permanently in her life time from casinos, though she didn't specify whether she should only be banned on the casino in her country or in all the countries so I think she meant only to be banned for life in her country and she can literally go to other places which is not her country to gamble, if that's the case she is on track but if it includes every country then the woman went against her own rules and the actions taken against her is deserving.

I think we shouldn't be in a haste to take decisions that will harm us in the future, the lady in question shouldn't have asked to be banned if she knew she will still be gambling so she bear all the blames. The thing is that once you are addicted to gambling you can't exclude yourself from it except you seek a therapist and work on yourself before you can be free and have self control over gambling.

[uray]

The money should be given to that woman, perhaps half of the winning even then she request for self-exclusions. She deserve that because she doesn't want continue to gamble.

According to the report it says, she will not get the jackpot according to the law, because she excluded herself for a lifetime.

I can say that is smart moves she did because she gets the win money then requesting for self-exclusions. But perhaps, she need to wait for few days before requesting self-exclusions so that will not attract much attention from regulator.

What is even smart here, she lost her money gambling and she was an addict, so is the reason she reached out and self excluded herself, even then she was unable to resist herself and went on to gamble.

[Pandu Geddon]

So after the woman excluded herself, did she play again at a different casino or the same casino? Or is the exclusion rule applied for the entire area? Because she had already excluded herself, why was she still able to play and win the jackpot? If the case is investigated, there might be two issues. First, the woman did not receive her winnings, and second, the casino allowed a self-excluded gambler to continue playing there.

[Betwrong]

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? ~

Yes, of course she be allowed to keep her winnings. She shouldn't be allowed to enter the casino, but since they made a mistake, they must pay for it. That's my personal opinion. I'm not a lawyer, I must say. Regarding the thread you are referring to, we were discussing online casinos there and, as you know, they are a bit different from the land-based ones.

[stadus]

So after the woman excluded herself, did she play again at a different casino or the same casino? Or is the exclusion rule applied for the entire area? Because she had already excluded herself, why was she still able to play and win the jackpot? If the case is investigated, there might be two issues. First, the woman did not receive her winnings, and second, the casino allowed a self-excluded gambler to continue playing there.

What I understand is she played in a different casino, but since they are covered by the law of the same state, then any casino regulated in that same state will have to comply with the law. And that means not paying the winnings to a woman who made herself self-excluded or banned from gambling. The casino will always have the right justification for their action, so they will not be charged legally.

But if they pay her despite knowing she is banned, I think they could be the one charged for knowingly allowing a self-excluded gambler to receive winnings.

[YellowSwap]

Whatever it may be, don't self exclude yourself from gambling, instead you should learn to control yourself, if that seem impossible to do make sure that you aren't living alone, move in with friends or family that can become your guardian.

Online casinos offering you self exclusion can take advantage of you because of this same self exclusion, make sure you learn to control yourself or avoid gambling completely, some people's life should be better but gambling wouldn't allow such.

They lack self control and it's already too late for them.

[Zadicar]

Whatever it may be, don't self exclude yourself from gambling, instead you should learn to control yourself, if that seem impossible to do make sure that you aren't living alone, move in with friends or family that can become your guardian.

Online casinos offering you self exclusion can take advantage of you because of this same self exclusion, make sure you learn to control yourself or avoid gambling completely, some people's life should be better but gambling wouldn't allow such.

They lack self control and it's already too late for them.

Not all people does have that strong mental will on which they can be able to stop immeditiately if they wanted to. We do know that each person does have that different tolerance when it comes to this matter on which at the moment that you do seek out for other options or features like self exclusion then you do really realize that you do need up some help to combat your addiction to gambling. Now going back into the situation on which you are requesting for exclusion and then you do win up some jackpot on other place on which it is that outside of the scope of such exclusion then you do have the full rights with the winnings. It would really be that a total BS if they wouldnt really be giving out that winning just because the other casinos had stated that they are on the exclusion condition? They arent that interconnected to each other not unless if there's a global rule for this one?

[acroman08]

So after the woman excluded herself, did she play again at a different casino or the same casino? Or is the exclusion rule applied for the entire area? Because she had already excluded herself, why was she still able to play and win the jackpot? If the case is investigated, there might be two issues. First, the woman did not receive her winnings, and second, the casino allowed a self-excluded gambler to continue playing there.

From what I understand, the self-exclusion applies in the whole area, meaning she is not allowed to gamble inside the state of Pennsylvania. As for why she was still able to play and win the jackpot, the casino is a land-based casino, and they don't really check every gambler's identity who goes inside their casino. The only probable reason why she got removed from the casino and her winnings confiscated is that the casino needed to check her identity after she won the jackpot, and they found out that she had asked to be permanently self-excluded from gambling in that state.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

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.

Yeah that would actually be a good idea, but never gonna happen since casinos are greedy fuks. As long as she was losing she was a welcomed customer, even despite the self exclusion. But once she won they suddenly chegcked her background and found reasons not to pay.
Sounds familiar right? In crypto gambling we see cases like this all the time. Depositing, gambling and losing will never lead to KYC, doesn't matter where you are from. But don't you dare and win, that's a big nono. They will want to see your documents so they can find a way not to pay you.

Classic.

[Cointxz]

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?

This is tricky situation since he was applied a self exclusion in general to Pennsylvania meaning it’s not for a specific casino therefore casino will only know that she is on self exclusion if they run deep check on the player background since player can enter on physical casino without being check immediately unless they won a huge amount same on how the online casino work.

Since the user is on self-exclusion I think refunding all the players lose is the right thing to deal with this situation if they will forfeit the jackpot like what @leea-1334 suggested.

[Pumared]

So after the woman excluded herself, did she play again at a different casino or the same casino? Or is the exclusion rule applied for the entire area? Because she had already excluded herself, why was she still able to play and win the jackpot? If the case is investigated, there might be two issues. First, the woman did not receive her winnings, and second, the casino allowed a self-excluded gambler to continue playing there.

I believe they only checked her identity after she won, not when she entered the casino, from what I understand. To avoid this type of problem in the future, there should be verification at the entrance, preferably facial recognition. I think that would solve this type of occurrence once and for all.

[Wakate]

So after the woman excluded herself, did she play again at a different casino or the same casino? Or is the exclusion rule applied for the entire area? Because she had already excluded herself, why was she still able to play and win the jackpot? If the case is investigated, there might be two issues. First, the woman did not receive her winnings, and second, the casino allowed a self-excluded gambler to continue playing there.

I believe they only checked her identity after she won, not when she entered the casino, from what I understand. To avoid this type of problem in the future, there should be verification at the entrance, preferably facial recognition. I think that would solve this type of occurrence once and for all.

If live casinos start enforcing individual verification at the entrance of their casinos, this could look like the casino is working on suspicion motive which some gamblers may not find as okay for them. This could also cause the  extrance of the casino to be crowded which I don't think it's good for their business. A better option can be introduced that will make it eaiser to verify their players.

[Satofan44]

The money should be given to that woman, perhaps half of the winning even then she request for self-exclusions. She deserve that because she doesn't want continue to gamble.

She does not deserve any money, to believe otherwise is to be delusional. Winning while breaking the rules does not mean that you "deserve" something, that is 3rd world mentality bullshit -- the only thing that rule-breakers objectively deserve is punishment.

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.

Yeah that would actually be a good idea, but never gonna happen since casinos are greedy fuks. As long as she was losing she was a welcomed customer, even despite the self exclusion. But once she won they suddenly chegcked her background and found reasons not to pay.

Nonsense and a classic example of how many users here shift away responsibility from their own mistakes which is a prevalent issues on this forum and in the wider world. She should not be given back anything, by giving back something to her you are punishing the victim (the casino) for the errors created by the perpetrator (this woman). Stop being biased idiots as it is assured that you would be arguing otherwise in any other case where you are the victim. Imagine that I rob you, and then they make you also pay me money for robbing you. Would you like that? That is the equivalent of undoing revenue on a business that did not do anything wrong.

The woman is entirely at fault, and people need to be given high consequences so they learn to fucking behave -- most act like savage animals due to a lack of significant consequences for various behaviors.

[taufik123]

-snip-
The only probable reason why she got removed from the casino and her winnings confiscated is that the casino needed to check her identity after she won the jackpot, and they found out that she had asked to be permanently self-excluded from gambling in that state.

That's how land-based casinos are, they don't really proproper checking who is playing, they just want customers who deposit money to them.
Then if there is a big win then a complete identity will be needed. Moreover, there is a ban that has been agreed upon permanently,
I am sure that when the woman does not win any of the games she plays, she will not have any problems and there will be no ban whatsoever.

When you win big, where is your identity and if it is known that it is permanently banned in all regions, your victory is forfeited and you will not get anything.
But if you lose thousands of dollars, nothing will happen, profits remain for the casino

[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.

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.

You are not having a hard time, you understood most of what I am saying. You did have a hard time understanding what I said the money should go to though (which is to combat this type of addiction). Not to her but to the fight against this kind of thing. Which was the very next sentence you cut off from the post you quoted

The casino actually did the right thing, but remember, only after she won the jackpot. If she had lost her money, bet you they would not have checked. Are they supposed to check first before allowing people to play? I think the law says so. And seems others like @qwertyup23 agree.