Boges Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) I think Problem Gambling is like Alcoholism an addiction of the weak-willed person and not so much a disease. I have no evidence to support this opinion, it's just an opinion. But this story is total crap. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Problem+gamblers+over+jackpots/5800895/story.html Two men who won casino jackpots worth more than $77,000 are suing B.C. Lottery Corp., seeking to be paid the money and disputing the corporation's "if you win, you lose" policy. Hamidreza Haghdust won jackpots totalling about $35,000 in 2009 and 2010, while Michael Lee won jackpots worth $42,484. BCLC says the men can't claim the money because they participated in BCLC's Voluntary Self-Exclusion program, so their winnings are "illegal." The program is designed for people who feel it is in their best interests not to participate in gambling for a specified period of time. The rules require participants to sign a form that says if selfexcluded parties enter a casino to gamble and lose, they lose their bets, and if they win, they cannot claim the prize money. The plaintiffs claim that BCLC's policy is unfair because it amounts to "if you lose, you lose, and if you win, you lose too." And they're not alone. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Mark Mounteer, said Thursday that Haghdust and Lee are seeking to have their lawsuit certified as a class action. So if they let the guy in then all his transactions in the casino should be null and void. He should be able to go to the door after he loses and say I want all the money I just lost back. I bet if he was a known cheater he'd never be let in. Edited December 2, 2011 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 They signed up voluntarily. No money for them. Quote Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 It's a voluntary program. I'm not sure I see the problem. Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 It's a voluntary program. I'm not sure I see the problem. The program is a cop-out if they still will allow him to lose money at the place. But he just can't win jackpots. I thought this thing was a disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 The program is a cop-out if they still will allow him to lose money at the place. But he just can't win jackpots. I thought this thing was a disease. No kidding, the casino has no problem taking their money, but won't pay them out because of them volunteering to be on that list or whatever. Sounds like some real bull to me. If they won't honour the winnings, then they should pay back the money they spent in the casino, or not let them into the casino in the first place. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 yeah this is bull give the man his money back you f'n criminals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 The program is a cop-out if they still will allow him to lose money at the place. No kidding, the casino has no problem taking their money, but won't pay them out because of them volunteering to be on that list or whatever. According to the lawyer in the case: Mounteer said he believes the jackpot money won by selfexcluded gamblers does not go into BCLC general revenue but is donated to programs to help problem gamblers. The program is strictly volunteer. They made the decision to be excluded from winnings themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 [quote name='American Woman' date='02 December 2011 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1322875580' The program is strictly volunteer. They made the decision to be excluded from winnings themselves. Who cares, it would only work if they stopped him from gambling in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Who cares, it would only work if they stopped him from gambling in the first place. That's not even remotely possible. They would have to check the ID of every last person that entered a casino, ensure that the ID wasn't fake, and more. I'm not sure how it would even be possible. They would have to create a data bank, have onsite computers at the entranceway and swipe everyone's ID when they entered the casino, ensuring that those who are excluded are denied access. It's an invasion of privacy for those who did not sign up for the program because it would cross-reference their ID with the provincial data set (another problem is mobility; what happens when someone moves between provinces). I think the program is just fine the way it is. You add yourself to the list, knowing full well that you cannot claim any winnings. This should motivate you not to gamble. If you still gamble, knowing that it's impossilbe to win, then you need some serious help. Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Who cares, it would only work if they stopped him from gambling in the first place. The inability to claim winnings does stop a lot of people from gambling. For them it does work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 That's not even remotely possible. They would have to check the ID of every last person that entered a casino, ensure that the ID wasn't fake, and more. I'm not sure how it would even be possible. They would have to create a data bank, have onsite computers at the entranceway and swipe everyone's ID when they entered the casino, ensuring that those who are excluded are denied access. It's an invasion of privacy for those who did not sign up for the program because it would cross-reference their ID with the provincial data set (another problem is mobility; what happens when someone moves between provinces). I think the program is just fine the way it is. You add yourself to the list, knowing full well that you cannot claim any winnings. This should motivate you not to gamble. If you still gamble, knowing that it's impossilbe to win, then you need some serious help. I'm sure if he was a known cheater they'd be keeping him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 They have a hard time doing that even and I'm absolutely certain the list of professional cheaters is much, much shorter. Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 I agree with this, as long as the casino doesn't keep the jackpot. If it goes to anti gambling programs or to charity, I am OK with it. Knowing they can't win will probably do as much as anything to keep them away. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 I agree with this, as long as the casino doesn't keep the jackpot. If it goes to anti gambling programs or to charity, I am OK with it. Knowing they can't win will probably do as much as anything to keep them away. This. They signed up for the program. The government shouldn't 'win-win'. We take their gambling money and the jackpot. The Jackpot should go to a gambling addiction charity. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.