>>>>>>Why should the logic be one way ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxes are not supposed to be a game of chance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Slot machines are.
>>>>
>>>>Before we argue this further are we agreed that the $43m was an erroneous figure ?
>>>
>>>It depends. If the machine had signs on it, or it displayed *before* the wager was taken, that the maximum payout was $215K, then yes, it's an error.
>>>
>>>If there's no such display, the contract is, "I pay $X, I might win a lot of money". If the amount is unspecified, then if the machine announces a $43M win, that is clearly not an error, as it's clearly a lot of money.
>>>
>>>Bear in mind, it's in a casino's interest to tempt punters with higher potential payouts - it's more attractive to wager on a machine that might pay $10M than one that might pay $100K. Gaming commissions take a very dim view of any practices where punters are misled, even unintentionally.
>>
>>Doesn't the machine *have* to show (or at least make accessible) a pay table which would specify the maximum payout ?
>>
>>IAC, according to this link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/fortune-valley-casino-say_n_520182.html
>>"Colorado gaming authorities say the casino has no legal obligation to pay the $42.9 million. Don Burmania, a spokesman for the division, said the top prize of $251,000 was clearly posted in the casino and that a software malfunction is to blame for the glitch."
>
>So could they claim the same of any prize.

If the value was less than the max I don't think they could....

>
>Cash flows a bit bad. "Software glitches this week lads, reduce the payout by 10%"

Wouldn't be allowed - there's a legal minimum payout - and it's supposedly closely regulated. This applies to Nevada but I assume CO would have similar rules:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14_tech_stnds.doc