OLG let's problem gamblers spend money but


tay
#1
won't let them collect winnings. Absolutely stupendous. I personally don't condone casinos (yes I do buy $20 worth lottery of tickets a week) but how can this be allowed...?


An Ontario man was shocked when he recently won more than $10,000 at a casino, only to be told he wasn’t eligible to collect his winnings.

Marando won $2,000 on a black-and-white $2-coin slot machine and was paid his winnings. But when he won $10,000 on the same machine, he was taken in a room, told he couldn’t have the jackpot and escorted off the property.

Seventeen years ago, when he felt he was spending too much, he signed a form to self-exclude himself from gaming facilities. Marando said, as the years passed, he forgot about the form.

Last September, Ontario Lottery and Gaming introduced a new rule intended to help problem gamblers: “As part of our support of a self-excluder’s commitment to stop gambling, self-excluded individuals are not permitted to win prizes.”

According to the OLG’s Play Smart website, self-exclusion can apply to gaming sites; including casinos, charitable bingo and gaming and internet gaming.

Gaming sites have implemented facial recognition technology to help “identify anyone enrolled in gaming Self-Exclusion who attempts to re-enter a gaming site by comparing their facial images from site security cameras.”

If those individuals are detected, staff will remove them and they may be charged with trespassing.

Since the new rule came into effect, the OLG said 29 people who have won jackpots have been denied their winnings.

Ont. man denied $10,002 jackpot over casino 'self-exclusion' rule | CTV News (external - login to view)
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#2
Can you self-re-include?
 
JLM
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

won't let them collect winnings. Absolutely stupendous. I personally don't condone casinos (yes I do buy $20 worth lottery of tickets a week) but how can this be allowed...?


An Ontario man was shocked when he recently won more than $10,000 at a casino, only to be told he wasn’t eligible to collect his winnings.

Marando won $2,000 on a black-and-white $2-coin slot machine and was paid his winnings. But when he won $10,000 on the same machine, he was taken in a room, told he couldn’t have the jackpot and escorted off the property.

Seventeen years ago, when he felt he was spending too much, he signed a form to self-exclude himself from gaming facilities. Marando said, as the years passed, he forgot about the form.

Last September, Ontario Lottery and Gaming introduced a new rule intended to help problem gamblers: “As part of our support of a self-excluder’s commitment to stop gambling, self-excluded individuals are not permitted to win prizes.”

According to the OLG’s Play Smart website, self-exclusion can apply to gaming sites; including casinos, charitable bingo and gaming and internet gaming.

Gaming sites have implemented facial recognition technology to help “identify anyone enrolled in gaming Self-Exclusion who attempts to re-enter a gaming site by comparing their facial images from site security cameras.”

If those individuals are detected, staff will remove them and they may be charged with trespassing.

Since the new rule came into effect, the OLG said 29 people who have won jackpots have been denied their winnings.

Ont. man denied $10,002 jackpot over casino 'self-exclusion' rule | CTV News (external - login to view)


I know nothing about Ontario casinos but I am quite active in the casino in British Columbia. In our casinos there are notices posted throughout the casino about self exclusion and if you take a 10 second glance at the notice you know winnings will NOT be paid to self excluded patrons. It's NOT rocket science and in my opinion that is the way it should be. However in the case of a self exclusion several years ago that has been forgotten, perhaps it's time for a little tweaking. Maybe self exclusions should have a one year limit whereby you would have to sign up again.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Can you self-re-include?


That would make sense. Maybe the guy's wife made him self exclude but since then he got a new wife!
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I know nothing about Ontario casinos but I am quite active in the casino in British Columbia. In our casinos there are notices posted throughout the casino about self exclusion and if you take a 10 second glance at the notice you know winnings will NOT be paid to self excluded patrons. It's NOT rocket science and in my opinion that is the way it should be. However in the case of a self exclusion several years ago that has been forgotten, perhaps it's time for a little tweaking. Maybe self exclusions should have a one year limit whereby you would have to sign up again.


Self-exclusion should prevent playing or entering rather than just collecting winnings.
 
TenPenny
#5
Uh, the problem was his alone. He's the one who signed a form.
 
Jinentonix
+1
#6
Funny how they won't let him collect his winnings, but they sure as hell didn't have any problem taking and keeping the money he spent there. That's about par for the course for the Ontario Libtards.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Uh, the problem was his alone. He's the one who signed a form.

Yes. But the whole self-exclusion system is a joke too.
 
TenPenny
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Yes. But the whole self-exclusion system is a joke too.



Self exclusion would suggest that it's up to you to keep yourself out of the place.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Self exclusion would suggest that it's up to you to keep yourself out of the place.

Which should mean you should not be allowed to enter.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#10
We are all responsible for what we sign onto. He signed a form said he had a problem
He forgot the paperwork did not forget. If he was a problem gambler why was he doing
what he knew was a problem for him? Alcoholics are always alcoholics that is what AA
is all about. Some have drug problems, others gambling and so on. I think the lottery
commission did the right thing here..
 
White_Unifier
#11
They should not let him collect his winnings, but should reimburse him for the money he spent since he signed the form maybe? I'm still in two minds about it.

From the point of view of what is best for him, cutting him off from the winnings helps to not feed the addiction.
 
JLM
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Which should mean you should not be allowed to enter.


They are playing it smart, if you are a guy/gal with a problem, supposedly you do this to make it easier for you to quit. The casino doesn't give a sh*t..................why should they? Why would they want to hire more staff to enforce something that's not hurting them? They are just showing the patron they can't have it both ways.
 

Similar Threads

25
2
People Have Money To Spend
by Liberalman | May 9th, 2009
no new posts