[h=1]Gambler hits jackpot? Now, he's suing[/h] [h=6]
Feb. 14, 2014 3:09 PM |
[/h]
[h=6][/h]
[h=6]Written by[/h] [h=5]Kimball Perry[/h]
Thomas Hughley was ecstatic when, while playing craps last month at Horseshoe Casino Cincinnati, a combination was rolled that hit his 999-to-1 bet.
Hughley, of West Price Hill, parlayed $5 into $5,000 – or so he thought.
After taking his money for several losing bets, the casino said Hughley wasn’t eligible to win the 999-to-1 bet and wouldn’t pay. Now, he hopes to parlay his lawsuit against the casino into a $500,000 jackpot.
A casino spokeswoman said she doesn’t comment on litigation.
Hughley was playing craps – a table game where bets on won or lost depending on rolls of dice – Jan. 16 at Horseshoe. He’d lost several bets before he decided to place a “fire” bet. That’s a complicated series of rolls of dice that, while difficult, paid big.
A winning fire bet requires a 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 to be rolled by the shooter before crapping out – rolling a 2, 3, 7, 11 or 12 and losing. The more of those numbers rolled, the higher the odds. The odds of rolling all six number – 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 – before crapping out are 999-to-1.
Hughley placed a $5 fire bet at the craps table. When it hit, he expected the casino to pay him $4,995 plus his original $5 bet. Instead of giving him $5,000, though, the casino wouldn’t pay.
“He paid his individual bets,” Derek Gustafson, Hughley’s attorney, said after filing the Thursday suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. “But when it came to paying the 999-to-1 bet, they asked to see his ID.”
When casino officials ran his name through their records, they saw Hughley was on a list noting he voluntarily banned himself from Indiana casinos. Because Horseshoe has a sister casino in Hammond, Ind., it contends Hughley also should be banned from the Cincinnati Horseshoe and didn’t give him the $5,000 he won on the fire bet.
Hughley’s attorney, though, noted the casino took Hughley’s money when he lost bets even though he was on the Indiana Voluntary Exclusion Program.
Horseshoe has a policy, Gustafson said, that notes it “may” ban someone from other Horseshoe casinos who seeks to voluntarily excluded in one state, but it’s not definite. Hughley, he added, never was told he’d been banned in Indiana or Ohio.
Hughley has never been told not to come into a Horseshoe casino in either state, Gustafson said, and should be given the money for winning the bet.
“While they’ve got a right to exclude him if the want to, they’ve got to tell him,” Gustafson said.“He’s never been given any kind of notice, ‘Don’t Come to Horseshoe.’
Feb. 14, 2014 3:09 PM |
[/h]
[h=6][/h]
Thomas Hughley was ecstatic when, while playing craps last month at Horseshoe Casino Cincinnati, a combination was rolled that hit his 999-to-1 bet.
Hughley, of West Price Hill, parlayed $5 into $5,000 – or so he thought.
After taking his money for several losing bets, the casino said Hughley wasn’t eligible to win the 999-to-1 bet and wouldn’t pay. Now, he hopes to parlay his lawsuit against the casino into a $500,000 jackpot.
A casino spokeswoman said she doesn’t comment on litigation.
Hughley was playing craps – a table game where bets on won or lost depending on rolls of dice – Jan. 16 at Horseshoe. He’d lost several bets before he decided to place a “fire” bet. That’s a complicated series of rolls of dice that, while difficult, paid big.
A winning fire bet requires a 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 to be rolled by the shooter before crapping out – rolling a 2, 3, 7, 11 or 12 and losing. The more of those numbers rolled, the higher the odds. The odds of rolling all six number – 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 – before crapping out are 999-to-1.
Hughley placed a $5 fire bet at the craps table. When it hit, he expected the casino to pay him $4,995 plus his original $5 bet. Instead of giving him $5,000, though, the casino wouldn’t pay.
“He paid his individual bets,” Derek Gustafson, Hughley’s attorney, said after filing the Thursday suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. “But when it came to paying the 999-to-1 bet, they asked to see his ID.”
When casino officials ran his name through their records, they saw Hughley was on a list noting he voluntarily banned himself from Indiana casinos. Because Horseshoe has a sister casino in Hammond, Ind., it contends Hughley also should be banned from the Cincinnati Horseshoe and didn’t give him the $5,000 he won on the fire bet.
Hughley’s attorney, though, noted the casino took Hughley’s money when he lost bets even though he was on the Indiana Voluntary Exclusion Program.
Horseshoe has a policy, Gustafson said, that notes it “may” ban someone from other Horseshoe casinos who seeks to voluntarily excluded in one state, but it’s not definite. Hughley, he added, never was told he’d been banned in Indiana or Ohio.
Hughley has never been told not to come into a Horseshoe casino in either state, Gustafson said, and should be given the money for winning the bet.
“While they’ve got a right to exclude him if the want to, they’ve got to tell him,” Gustafson said.“He’s never been given any kind of notice, ‘Don’t Come to Horseshoe.’
