From Las Vegas Advisor QOD http://www.lasvegasAdvisor.com

Q:
Whatever happened to the Megabucks winner from the Aria that was contested because there was a dispute as to whose money was actually used when it won. This was between the boss and his secretary. He gave her some money with instructions on how to play the Megabucks. Apparently, she won but then the dispute started when she said she was using her money when she hit.
A:
Ah, yes, therein lies an interesting — and cautionary — tale.
On Friday, January 21, 2011, news broke that Megabucks had been hit for $12.7 million at Aria. It was reported that the lucky winner was a woman, who was visiting Las Vegas for her niece’s birthday, and was quoted as saying that she played the machine "on impulse" on the way to her room and actually thought it had malfunctioned until her niece pointed out that she’d hit the big one. In her statement, the woman also said she was excited to share the news with her husband and would use her winnings in part to pay off her mortgage. Since she exercised her right to remain anonymous, that would normally be the end of the story, but then things took a turn for the litigious and anonymity ceased to be an option for Diana Walker.

Although in the official statement issued by game-makers IGT at the time of the win, Walker claimed to have played Megabucks on impulse, her co-worker (not boss) William Perrin insisted that he had told his colleague about the linked-progressive slot machine prior to her trip. The two regularly played the lottery together and Perrin claimed to have given Walker $6 to gamble on Megabucks, as a continuation of their gambling partnership, and had not only printed out an article about the game and given it to her prior to the trip, but had further "memorialized" their partnership by handing her a sticky note telling her "how to play" (i.e., that it was crucial to play three coin-in to be eligible for the top payout).

His attorneys argued that, under Texas law, this constituted a contract binding the two parties to split any winnings. Walker then countered that she had "lost" Perrin’s money, and hit the jackpot playing her own cash, although under oath what she actually said was that she won $15 with "his" $6, and then continued to play, and at some subsequent point hit the jackpot.

Professional gamblers often partner to maximize a positive opportunity, and as pros would clearly define the terms of their agreement prior to playing. Situations can get complicated, particularly if only one partner is present to play and the other can’t be reached at a crucial juncture, for example. To be successful, such deals require a lot of trust between the parties, and a good understanding of what the absentee would do if they were there in person.

For example, say they both agree to invest a certain amount to take a shot at a jackpot, but the one playing goes on a horrible losing streak that he doesn’t think his partner would want to be a part of, so he unilaterally makes an informed decision to cut their collective losses at a certain point. Having thus dissolved the partnership, he decides to continue playing himself, because he has a bigger bankroll and can fade the potential hit. If he scores, did he make the correct judgement call in protecting his partner from what he estimates would be a crippling blow to his bankroll, or will the other guy be furious and claim that he never would have bailed? Sometimes even the pros fall out over such situations — everyone’s human — but it’s more likely that different potential scenarios have been considered in advance and that the result will be accepted by both parties.

In the case of these two co-workers, however, the terms of any agreement appear to have been vague at best, and not much detail was forthcoming from the attorneys, leaving us to merely speculate about scenarios that these two amateurs probably never even considered.

Was Perrin the only financial investor in this venture, or was Walker obliged to match his $6? There was no mention of her putting any money of her own in, or being obliged to, so it sounds as if they agreed that she’d fly and he’d buy, so to speak. (The whole incident would have been recorded by the surveillance cameras, plus the time and amount of any buy-in would be logged in the machine, and there was never any mention of Walker putting in any money of her own. On the contrary, all the initial press releases, and subsequent legal disclosures, all clearly state that she said she only played $6, and that those $6 were given to her by Perrin.)

If we’re correctly understanding what Walker said under oath, then her understanding of how gambling, and gambling partnerships work, was deeply flawed. She agreed that Perrin gave her $6 to play with. It appears that she felt that having played two hands at $3 each, using "his" money, and having either turned that $6 stake into $15, she then considered that "their" two "partner" plays were up and that a $9 win was the result, while any subsequent play was somehow independent and "hers," even though she was still playing on his $6 buy-in.

If that was really Walker’s reasoning, which appears to be the case from the brief snippets released by the attorneys, then Perrin’s "partner" could at best be considered incredibly naive, and most sane people would probably choose a harsher adjective. As Perrin commented to a TV station, "It kind of blows my mind where she goes down this path with my winnings." Indeed. No wonder she opted to stay anonymous, although evidently someone wasn’t very good at keeping a secret.

It took a year for the case to go to court, and the settlement was never disclosed, but settlement there was, so Perrin was evidently found to have at least some, if not all, right on his side, forcing Walker to share the loot (and presumably not just $15!). Whether it was split straight down the middle, or if some other extenuating circumstances applied that we never learned about, or else if the vagueness of their "agreement" left some wiggle room and had any bearing on the decision, it seems we’ll never know, since the terms of the deal were confidential. But if the facts that were made public during the case paint the whole picture, we’re guessing Perrin got good chunk of change, and very possibly the full 50 percent he figured he was entitled to.

As to the moral of the story, we really don’t need to spell it out, do we?

Replies: