>>>>>>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 ?
>
>I don't know. That might depend on the gaming jurisdiction.
>
>>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."
>
>Hmm, has anyone seen a picture of the interior of that casino where the maximum payout is "clearly posted"? If it's posted in a EULA-esque fashion, that could be challenged.

From Colorado Department of Revenue (Gaming Division) Rule 12 47.1-1233 (2):
"The paytable for a slot machine game program must be displayable prior to making a wager and must include an explanation of any special features and the amount of the awards for all winning combinations."

So the maximum amount paid out is stated by the operator. Obviously a player could not claim that the maximum amount should not apply simply because they had not bothered to read the paytable.

>Assuming the $43M is wrong, then what's not in doubt is that there was a software error. That, in turn, makes it clear that the machine was not programmed properly to generate its expected payout.
>
>So, not only do we not know how much money was supposed to be paid out in this particular instance, there's no way to know whether any previous punters were ripped off or overpaid. IOW it's a rogue machine.

The document referenced above also lists in detail the required software specification including error checks and acceptable error rates. The error could have been caused by a stray quark for all we know and, given the specs, it's extremely unlikely that any previous error on that machine would not have been caught.

>The gaming commission probably has rules concerning what happens with rogue or malfunctioning machines, but a punter can't be expected to know what they might be.
>
>Ideally, from the POV of the gaming commission and casino operators, they would like to declare any bets placed on a malfunctioning machine to be null and void, so they wouldn't have to pay anything.
>
>In practice, to avoid problems with real or implied contracts, they are probably obliged to pay back any money wagered by that punter during that session, as the machine was clearly not capable of properly handling wagers.
>
>From a PR POV, the punter should probably be awarded a reasonable sum to compensate for her time and anguish. I dunno, maybe 1% of the displayed "win"? < beg >
>
>From the gaming commission POV, incidents like this are bad for business, which will cost the GC money. To discourage problems like this from recurring, I'd be inclined to fine the machine maker and/or casino.

AFAICS, there was nothing to indicate that the casino operators had not complied with the gaming division rules for the device so it's difficult to know what they could be charged with ?

From the PR POV I think the punter should probably have been given the max payout.
From a strictly legal POV I don't know but I would be very surprised if any court awarded more than that - in fact I'd assume that it would be substantially less.
And then there's the moral POV - but that doesn't seem to apply these days when it comes to money :-}