|
|
|
Man won $10,000, but casino won’t give it to him due to this unusual reason |
|
Tags:
Canada, John Marando, Ontario Lottery and Gaming.
Posted on 14 March 2017 by "T".
|
 A man has been denied his $10,000 worth of winnings at a casino, and it's all because of something he did 17 years ago, which was - he had ‘self-excluded' himself. Two weeks ago, John Marando, 82, won the jackpot prize on a slot machine game at the Mohawk racetrack and casino in Ontario, Canada. The prize money was about £6,000 (or $10,000).
The casino staff was made aware of the win; however, when they recognized who won, Marando was told, "We can't pay you, you signed yourself out 17 years ago."
In order to control their gambling urges or to stop gambling altogether, people can "self-exclude" themselves from betting shops and casinos by means of handing over to the casino staff their photo and a letter of self-exclusion.
According to local laws, all gamblers who excluded themselves are ‘not allowed to win prizes'.
Paul Pellizzari of Ontario Lottery and Gaming said, "People who are self-excluded need to know that prizes will be dis-entitled if they're detected at a gaming facility and this is part of our support to them, part of our way of living up to the commitment to themselves to stay away from gambling."
The elderly Marando says that he had a brain operation in the intervening period and thus cannot recall ever self-excluding himself. Therefore, he is demanding that the casino pay up. This week, he hired an attorney to help him with his case and said, "I can't remember 17 years ago, I'm 17 years older and I've had a brain operation about eight years ago. I'm not going to let them get away with it."
Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gambler-who-won-10000-cant-9959951
Photo: CTV News
|
Related Articles:
30 comments on "Man won $10,000, but casino won’t give it to him due to this unusual reason"
| T3ddyKGB | 15/03/2017 19:11:44 GMT |
there may be raining thumbs down on me, but its his own fault. he excluded him self and should be aware of the rules (knowing that your not going to get paid out in case you win something). you cant have a babysitter for every single person who self exclude him self from gambling. yea casinos are dirty but cant blame them for the customers own stupidity.
|
| IceQueenAce | 15/03/2017 19:31:49 GMT |
he should sue for allowing him to play whilst self-excluded.
knowing America he would win way more
|
| pinotte | 15/03/2017 20:00:35 GMT |
I just read the rules of self exclusion in Ontario and i am very sorry for this man but when you ask for self exclusion for a period of time after this period you have to ask for a cancellation of this exclusion if not then you are still excluded.
So the casino had all the right to keep the prize won even if they did not see the guy entered and play. 
|
| pochui | 15/03/2017 21:04:49 GMT |
| yeah just as ice queen pointed this, a no lose strategy would be to sue the casino for letting him play, while knowing they cannot do it. probably even casino ceo will be ringing the doorbell with $10K to personally hand it if he decided to drop the case against the casino...
|
| damosk | 15/03/2017 21:16:14 GMT |
| Only in the Gambling business could such a thing happen. He really should sue. As IQA quite rightly states (as usual) he will probably win far more that way . Whatever happens good luck to him in whatever he decides to do. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this case is when it comes to an end.
|
| Mober | 15/03/2017 22:42:28 GMT |
A bit weird case here.
He has excluded himself from playing, but the casino was letting him play all this time,
probably cause he was losing.
When he finally won, they remembered the exclusion and refused to pay him.
Well they should pay him every single cent of it, plus a penalty if you ask me.
|
| Robbo1990 | 16/03/2017 02:27:24 GMT |
Posted by T3ddyKGB:
there may be raining thumbs down on me, but its his own fault. he excluded him self and should be aware of the rules (knowing that your not going to get paid out in case you win something). you cant have a babysitter for every single person who self exclude him self from gambling. yea casinos are dirty but cant blame them for the customers own stupidity.
|
as the article says, he had a brain operation and so cannot remember - if this can be proven then he will easily win the case + id imagine he would get more if they have been allowing him to play this entire time only stopping him when he wins
|
| T3ddyKGB | 16/03/2017 07:56:55 GMT |
Posted by Robbo1990: Posted by T3ddyKGB:
there may be raining thumbs down on me, but its his own fault. he excluded him self and should be aware of the rules (knowing that your not going to get paid out in case you win something). you cant have a babysitter for every single person who self exclude him self from gambling. yea casinos are dirty but cant blame them for the customers own stupidity.
|
as the article says, he had a brain operation and so cannot remember - if this can be proven then he will easily win the case + id imagine he would get more if they have been allowing him to play this entire time only stopping him when he wins |
he will easily win? i doubt it. they are not responsible for his brain operation. he signed a self exclusion, so all rights by the casino.
most interessting part is missing in the article to allow us a judge: did he play all the time in the casino? well, then take a lawyer and squeeze every cent out of the damn casino. if it happenend only once or twice the casino did not see him, then i doubt hes gonna get cent from the casino.
|
| marqis | 16/03/2017 08:47:49 GMT |
Posted by T3ddyKGB:
there may be raining thumbs down on me, but its his own fault. he excluded him self and should be aware of the rules (knowing that your not going to get paid out in case you win something). you cant have a babysitter for every single person who self exclude him self from gambling. yea casinos are dirty but cant blame them for the customers own stupidity.
|
Good point. I'm not sure if it's possible to prevent selling any chips to self excluded players (do they check ID at that point?). The no-payout rule should be effective, since self excluded players will have no incentive to play.
In this case though an argument could be made to refund the money he spent after the surgery, since there was never going to be any payout, but it might be hard to prove the amount (or that he indeed has no memory of self excluding himself, he did after all seem to remember he liked gambling there...).
|
| Gerimantas | 16/03/2017 09:40:29 GMT |
| Al always casinos do not like people winning and think of all possible ways to stop the money going out of casino, nothing new here. I hope this guy gets his money some way, he won it legally bu playing games that are on offer, casino allowed to play so they have to give the money
|
| jomull57 | 18/03/2017 05:30:01 GMT |
Posted by IceQueenAce:
he should sue for allowing him to play whilst self-excluded.
knowing America he would win way more |
I think you have a very good point ther they sue for everything
|
| Heskor | 18/03/2017 06:53:47 GMT |
| Man that sucks big time winning a big amount and not getting anything after all, that is why i tends to move away from casino games or bonuses as edge are with the house and you will always get problem cashing out when you wins big , if you are lucky enough and all, anyway good luck have fun hope you make some money on casino, i have bad experience on games anyway have a nice weekend guys!
|
| DaCapo71 | 18/03/2017 09:24:01 GMT |
This sounds verry unserious and i hope this casino goes bankrupt in the near future. And it was a warning for all gamblers there: don't believe that guys from this casino in Ontario 
|
| IceQueenAce | 18/03/2017 12:06:56 GMT |
| Everyone is blaming the casino also, but, if it is the law, they are being prevented from paying out whether they want to or not?
|
| damosk | 18/03/2017 12:23:18 GMT |
| It's the typical case of rules exists to prevent players gambling more than they can afford to lose, using a process that allows players to protect themselves, being used to try and overturn a decision that doesn't suit one or more of the parties to the agreement. This is why case law is so very exciting cos it allows us to take a view on what is right and what is wrong and then look on aghast when we see what the courts think!
|
| Mober | 18/03/2017 18:49:48 GMT |
Posted by IceQueenAce:
Everyone is blaming the casino also, but, if it is the law, they are being prevented from paying out whether they want to or not? |
Not really. From the moment the casino allowed the specific player, to play even a single game,
they have to pay him.
It was their job to prevent him from playing.
|
| Gerimantas | 18/03/2017 19:10:37 GMT |
| I too think that Mober is saying correct words, if casino allows you to olay every game you play and win money casino has to pay it, i don't understand how it is possible to let play and don't pay? This is just crime, something like stealing money, if you play and lose do they say you can't play so we give back the money you lost and now go out?
|
| T3ddyKGB | 18/03/2017 19:47:04 GMT |
Posted by Mober: Posted by IceQueenAce:
Everyone is blaming the casino also, but, if it is the law, they are being prevented from paying out whether they want to or not? |
Not really. From the moment the casino allowed the specific player, to play even a single game, they have to pay him. It was their job to prevent him from playing. |
he played a slot machine. as far as i know you can use chips and money to play. that may sound funny, but if they didnt see him playing, it would be "their job" not to pay him out.
the way you describe would be: anyone with a self exclusion can take the winnings and if he didnt win, he can ask to refund his loss ? makes no sense for a casino 
im gonna make a self exclusion if its that way lol
|
| dule-vu | 18/03/2017 20:01:12 GMT |
| like people can remember every thing that they done in life,so why he cant forget that he signed that he want to be exclude from playing,so they should say to him!and with this operation,he can win at court!I am on his side!
|
| pajalnick | 18/03/2017 20:08:25 GMT |
| If the player himself excluded the seb's then he should not have been allowed to play ... and if the casino employees did not do it they are to blame for this ... why if the casino loses then there are thousands of reasons to not pay the winnings
|
| bowie1984 | 19/03/2017 02:14:15 GMT |
| Many online casinos doing this as well -- sort of, if you once self-excluded yourself and then got back playing there you cannot participate in the bonus promotions no more. No big deal, but they are doing this frequently.
|
| Tony_MON7ANA | 19/03/2017 05:06:27 GMT |
| John Marando... He is 82 years old now. He made a self exclusion request when he was 65 and 8 years ago he underwent a brain surgery. So, he had something like a brain tumor? He seems to have been suffering with mild cognitive impairment.
|
| Theapple | 19/03/2017 08:45:20 GMT |
its always nice to see how there are still responsible casinos who geninuely care for their players!!
Its only natural to expect for such a caring casino not to let player win money, if he is self excluded. Sure, its ok if self excluded players lose money but winning is a no go, and its all done because casinos want to protect players.
Definitely a contender for "Most caring casino of 2017" award.
|
| pochui | 19/03/2017 10:34:01 GMT |
| i don't know how casinos are doing their business in the former indian lands nowadays called us of a, but back here in not so technologically adept country of lithuania all the casinos require you to provide id card, passport before entering the casino, then they do a quick check and see whether you can play or not (all the self excluded fellas are in the database)...
|
| vaskarch23 | 01/04/2017 10:49:55 GMT |
| so is there no way to win back his money. poor chap. i sympathesize for him
|
 Write a comment:
You must be logged in, to comment on news...
|
