Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Woman sues B.C. Lottery Corp. for allowing her to keep gambling


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#31 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,945 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:54 AM

"If you gamble, use your GameSense."


She has no case.
  • 1
Posted Image

#32 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:07 AM

Good luck proving that. When I worked in Casinos, I knew many of the regulars and it didn't mean that I would recognize them from a database of thousands. Some Casinos employees are great with faces and often pick people off a the door, some aren't. Signing up for this agreement does not, in any way, make the Casino responsible for stopping you from gambling. It's that the Casino will make efforts to try and identify you and escort you out.



You're completely off base.


It becomes a legal issue as soon as the casino has the right to withhold any jackpots that you may have won. They will look the other way when you give them your money, but when its time to pay you, they refuse? No, its a two way street, the casino cant take your money and refuse to give you winnings. If they participate in the aspect of not paying out, then they should be held responsible for also taking your money. The Casino chose to participate in this program just as much as the people did, therefore the casino shares responsibility.
  • 1

#33 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:14 PM

Like others have stated, it's not their fault. If she wants to gamble her money away that's her choice, why would they try to stop her lol
  • 0
Posted Image

#34 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:21 PM

What a crock. How about suing your family and friends for being enablers too?
  • 0

#35 uber_pwnzor

uber_pwnzor

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:21 PM

So you wouldn't care if you had cancer, as long as you had the billion dollars in the bank? You should ask Steve Jobs if Money>health.


If you ask a hobo I think he'd say "Money > health"
  • 0

#36 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:22 PM

This is going to end up with everyone entering a casino needing to be screened and your ID scanned just like at night clubs, isn't it....?
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#37 250Integra

250Integra

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,106 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

If she wins, she'll gamble it away anyways.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Thanks for the Memories Canada!!!
Thanks for everything Naslund!
Original creator of the WWE and the Rate my sig / Showoff thread

#38 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,630 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:26 PM

How is it their fault?
She knew she was in this program. She knew even if she did win she couldn't keep the money.
Good on her for trying to curb her addiction, but she shouldn't be blaming other people for her failure to do so.


It's similar to serving to much alcohol at the bar and someone drives home and kills themselves. There definitely has been precedent set and could easily go to trial.

It becomes a legal issue as soon as the casino has the right to withhold any jackpots that you may have won. They will look the other way when you give them your money, but when its time to pay you, they refuse? No, its a two way street, the casino cant take your money and refuse to give you winnings. If they participate in the aspect of not paying out, then they should be held responsible for also taking your money. The Casino chose to participate in this program just as much as the people did, therefore the casino shares responsibility.


This is also right on the money. Just like people saying she wants to increase her odds of winning to 100%, well so is the casino. We'll let you waste you money until you win and then enact the no prize money rule. Definitely could get sticky and I imagine the casino has some culpability. The other option is shutting down casino's entirely since they are pretty much corrupt by definition. That is why you can't apply common sense to this situation.

Edited by Dogbyte, 04 October 2012 - 12:41 PM.

  • 1
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#39 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,094 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:28 PM

It becomes a legal issue as soon as the casino has the right to withhold any jackpots that you may have won. They will look the other way when you give them your money, but when its time to pay you, they refuse? No, its a two way street, the casino cant take your money and refuse to give you winnings. If they participate in the aspect of not paying out, then they should be held responsible for also taking your money. The Casino chose to participate in this program just as much as the people did, therefore the casino shares responsibility.


It wouldn't surprise me if the casino doesn't get to keep her winnings either. Otherwise they would be motivated to let self-exclusion people gamble.
  • 0
Posted Image

#40 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,094 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:44 PM

It's similar to serving to much alcohol at the bar and someone drives home and kills thenselves. There definitely has been precedent set and could easily go to trial.


I think that's a little extreme of an example. Servers are trained to recognize the signs of someone having consumed too much alcohol. It's probably not so easy to remember everyone on a self-exclusion program or be able to tell the difference between someone gambling for fun vs someone with a gambling problem.
  • 0
Posted Image

#41 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:53 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if the casino doesn't get to keep her winnings either. Otherwise they would be motivated to let self-exclusion people gamble.


Should go towards gambling addiction programs.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#42 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,094 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:56 PM

Should go towards gambling addiction programs.


I agree. Maybe it already does?

Edit: In an earlier story I posted a link to I found this quote...

"I agree that if I lose the game, BCLC will retain the bet. If I win the game, and BCLC determines that I was playing while self-excluded, BCLC agrees to pay the prize money to a third party instead of me," the agreement states.

I just wonder who the third party is.

Edited by goalie13, 04 October 2012 - 01:01 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#43 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,294 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:10 PM

I agree. Maybe it already does?

Edit: In an earlier story I posted a link to I found this quote...

"I agree that if I lose the game, BCLC will retain the bet. If I win the game, and BCLC determines that I was playing while self-excluded, BCLC agrees to pay the prize money to a third party instead of me," the agreement states.

I just wonder who the third party is.


I would hope charity.


"If you gamble, use your GameSense."

She has no case.


But she might. If she can prove that the Casinos were negligent and knowingly let her gamble while self excluded it could be some kind of breach of contract. I think it all depends on whats in the fine print of the agreement, unfortunately I cant find that kind of info.

My thinking is that since it is going to the supreme court the lawyer must think the case might have some teeth, purely speculation though. Could just be in it for the possible payday.

Edited by zero-ONE-three, 04 October 2012 - 01:14 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#44 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,381 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:12 PM

I think that's a little extreme of an example.  Servers are trained to recognize the signs of someone having consumed too much alcohol.  It's probably not so easy to remember everyone on a self-exclusion program or be able to tell the difference between someone gambling for fun vs someone with a gambling problem.


They employ the latest high tech and higly efficent face recognition software(I've been through the program). There are many signs and staff are trained to recognize complusive behaviour. The problem is they are not motivated. If something comes to their attention they have to deal with it but in general security is lax.
  • 0
biggerabacus_zps5cae10b6.jpg

I got kicked out of the slut walk for trying to bid on the participants.

-BananaMash

#45 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,741 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:16 PM

A lot of misinformation in here about Casinos.

First, they don't rake in "billions". Most of their profit goes back to BCLC which is recirculated into programs like the Self-Exclusion program. I was in this program for years, who do you think paid for my visits to Problem Gambling counselors? Taxes? Nope... Investigate Edgewater Casino's recent hearings with the City of Vancouver about expansion, they present an accurate depiction of where the money goes on a civil level.

Hell, you'd just need to drive around in Queensborough, New Westminster to see the parks and community centres funded in large part by Starlight Casino. This is money that the Casino pays to the city, separate from BCLC's large (50%+) cut of game winnings.

Second, the Casino doesn't keep winnings forfeited by Self-Excluded patrons. They're donated. And it is set up like that because the program does need to have some teeth to it. All of this is explained to people as they sign the contract and they return KNOWING that they aren't going to get to keep large jackpots.

Thirdly, Self-Exclusion is a BCLC program, not a service provider one. Everything to do with it is BCLC from the advertising to the GameSense advisors on site to the upkeep of the profile database that all Casinos in BC use. The database however has literally tens of thousands of profiles on it and to expect Security staff to be able to stop every violator is ridiculous. I've worked at several Casinos and I have never heard of anyone neglecting their duties as far as approaching and evicting violators with as much tact as possible.

You guys watch movies about Vegas and you think you know how Casinos work and it is just ridiculous.
  • 0

#46 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,741 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:19 PM

They employ the latest high tech and higly efficent face recognition software(I've been through the program). There are many signs and staff are trained to recognize complusive behaviour. The problem is they are not motivated. If something comes to their attention they have to deal with it but in general security is lax.


Facial recognition technology isn't there to the point of being effective. Application pictures are taken with the idea that they could be integrated into igwatch one day, but the idea of an automatic process of scanning faces is and has been on hiatus for years.

Your license plate when you drive in, however...
  • 0

#47 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,262 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:22 PM

Found this on the BCLC website:

Entering a Casino and Gambling While Self-Excluded
If you enter a casino while self-excluded and you are identified, security will be alerted and you will be asked to leave.

I'd say she might have a case....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#48 Eh! Team

Eh! Team

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:23 PM

This lady is completely at fault.

She admits to knowing she's had a gambling problem. She knew she wasn't supposed to gamble but she CHOSE to gamble. Nobody forced her. She did it on her own accord.

This is just another case of someone thinking they should get repaid for all of their mistakes.

I smoked for 16 years and quit. I don't think Players are going to send me a cheque anytime soon to repay me for all those packs I bought.




  • 0

#49 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,741 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:35 PM

Found this on the BCLC website:

Entering a Casino and Gambling While Self-Excluded
If you enter a casino while self-excluded and you are identified, security will be alerted and you will be asked to leave.

I'd say she might have a case....


She doesn't. She would have to prove that Security, while fully aware of her Self-Excluded status, willingly let her continue gambling once identified for an undue amount of time.... which she won't be able to prove.

Giving a Casino your picture does not mean everyone that works there will recognize you among a group of dozens or hundreds of people or among a crowd as you enter. Especially slot players who are always facing away from inspection/identification.

Edited by :D, 04 October 2012 - 01:36 PM.

  • 0

#50 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,382 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

Like others have stated, it's not their fault. If she wants to gamble her money away that's her choice, why would they try to stop her lol


Exactly. It's not like every employee will reconize her anyways. You can't post a picture of all the gamblers in the program and have it stuck at the entrance. That doesn't make sense. She is responsible for her own actions as a full grown women. I'm going to f in rob a bank, and blame it on the cops for not arresting me before I get away with it. It doesn't make sense.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#51 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,262 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:45 PM

She doesn't. She would have to prove that Security, while fully aware of her Self-Excluded status, willingly let her continue gambling once identified for an undue amount of time.... which she won't be able to prove.

Giving a Casino your picture does not mean everyone that works there will recognize you among a group of dozens or hundreds of people or among a crowd as you enter. Especially slot players who are always facing away from inspection/identification.



I agree that BCLC has left themselves an out with the "If you are identified" part, however, I disagree that she has "no case".

The fact is, the Lottery Corp's website states that voluntary exclusion means that she would be asked to leave if recognized.

I'd say she only has to demonstrate that she was "known" at the Casino for there to be a possibility of winning.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#52 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,381 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:25 PM

<p>

Your license plate when you drive in, however...

Oh I see you have an indepth understanding of the compulsive gamlbers psyché.
  • 0
biggerabacus_zps5cae10b6.jpg

I got kicked out of the slut walk for trying to bid on the participants.

-BananaMash




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.