Ask the Slot Expert: Grandson of slot jackpot denied playing with another's card

Question: I had a couple of thoughts about the denied jackpot I'd like to share.

Scenario 1

A few years back, in Missouri (I don't know the current rules because I haven't played there in years), every player needed to play with a players card because the state law apparently limited anyone's losses to $500 per day. So if you played with someone else's card, losses (or wins) weren't recorded under your name. Therefore it was important to play under your own name to comply with state law.

Scenario 2

In theory, the player was still playing with the uncle's money, since any payouts from the free play was money that the uncle had won with free play earnings. The difficulty of proving whose money was being used is another reason to restrict playing with another's card. Even if she was then using her own money, she was earning the uncle more free play during this use.

I totally agree that the reality is that randomness caused the jackpot to hit, but the rules aren't there to give the casinos an excuse to not pay jackpots, they are there to prevent people giving away play that the casino had given them (and it IS free play, not cash earned).

It's unfortunate that the situation caused a loss of a payday, but it's not unlike speeding. Maybe "everyone" does it, but the persons who get caught have to pay the fine.

I have looked at many of my players cards (corporate, individual and Native American) and just about all of them say "non-transferable" but do not specifically disqualify payouts. Maybe it is spelled out in the "complete rules can be obtained at the players club" statement.

Answer: I believe the state of Washington also required players to use a card while playing. In this case, it was a stored value card that players had to load with cash. Wagers were funded from the value on the card and winnings were credited back to the card.

Why can't I find anything online about this or whether Missouri, or any other state, required a players card to limit a player's losses?

No matter. The incident in question occurred in California. Another state's regulations are fun facts but irrelevant.

Let me repeat the quick recap: Slot jackpot denied playing with another's card. Uncle left card in machine for niece so she could play his free play. She continued playing on her own money. She hit a handpay for $1800. Casino denied paying jackpot because she was playing on someone else's players card.

In the casino's point of view, there is the casino's money and there is the players' money. The casino's money is in the vault, the cage, the chips in the dealers' racks, and the bill acceptor drop boxes. The players' money is in credit meters, tickets, and chips in their pockets.

There are two important points here. One, there is no such thing as "house money." Once you've won, the money is yours not the house's.

And two, the differentiation of "players' money" doesn't really go any deeper than the player level. You mention the "difficulty of proving whose money was being used." The casino has a simple solution to that problem.

It doesn't care. It doesn't want to know about any convoluted profit/loss sharing agreements players may have. What it can be sure of is who pressed the button. The casino can review surveillance footage to see who pressed the button on a winning spin. The jackpot belongs to that person regardless of whose money funded the spin.

The casino does care about that person's identity because of the tax form.

You know, I think I've always provided a photo ID (my driver's license) the first time I've won a W-2G jackpot at a casino. At Santa Fe Station, the slot attendant asked me if I had a Hungarian relative after she paid me. I said yes and wondered what kind of database she looked at to get that information. This was right after I was classified as an Advantage Player at another casino, so I was a bit paranoid.

I asked her how she knew that. She said it was because of the middle name on my driver's license. Her husband has Hungarian relatives with the same name.

Oh yes. In the early days of TSA Pre-Check, officials recommended having the exact same name on all of your IDs, so I changed my driver's license to have my full name, the same as my passport.

One time my photo ID was rejected. I won something in a drawing a few months after moving to Las Vegas. I had gone to the DMV to get my Nevada's driver's license, but it hadn't arrived yet. All I had was a piece of paper from the DMV and my NJ driver's license, which now had holes punched in it.

I figured photo trumps paper, but the casino wouldn't accept my canceled NJ license as ID. I told them the only other thing I had was a piece of paper with no picture from Nevada DMV. That'll do, they said.

Maybe I can squeeze in one more Olympics reference. A number of athletes were disqualified for breaking the rules. Sometimes the infractions were minor or quickly corrected. Nevertheless, the athletes were DQed.

I can see why officials would do this. If they didn't DQ someone for breaking a rule, someone else could break the same rule and then argue that officials didn't DQ so-and-so before. Why are you penalizing me?

It's much cleaner for officials to be sticklers for the rules and to say, "You broke the rule. Now go to Dairy Queen." There's nothing subjective about the ruling.

Getting back to the denied jackpot, let's say the casino paid the jackpot. No one is going to know that the casino paid the jackpot anyway. They won't be able to cite the case of Uncle-Niece v Casino to show why they too should be paid even though they were playing with someone else's card. Did the casino have to be so inflexible?

I think this situation is different from speeding. Exceeding the speed limit is clearly against the rules. In my first column, I quoted from the casino's rewards program rules page. It says that allowing another player to use your card is a violation of the rules and can result in "revocation of participation in Rewards Program." Nowhere does it say that this violation also can result in a loss of winnings.

Is playing on another's person's card really a valid reason to deny paying an otherwise legitimately won jackpot?

If you would like to see more non-smoking areas on slot floors in Las Vegas, please sign my petition on change.org.

Send your slot and video poker questions to John Robison, Slot Expert™, at slotexpert@slotexpert.com.

Copyright © John Robison. Slot Expert and Ask the Slot Expert are trademarks of John Robison.