- Casino
- By State
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Florida
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Massachusetts
- Maryland
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- By State
- Slots
- Poker
- Sports
- Esports
Fact-checked by Velimir Velichkov
Gambler Loses $150,000 Jackpot Due to Self-Exclusion
A self-excluded gambler who won a $150,000 jackpot was denied his winnings, causing controversy on social media

Hitting a hefty six-figure casino jackpot is, without a doubt, a reason for celebration. However, for one particular gambler, the sweet news of a big win quickly turned sour.
According to Kelley, a casino employee known on TikTok as @casinomassagekelley, a gambler who recently hit a $150,000 jackpot was denied his prize.
Accused of Trespassing Instead of Cashing Out
As explained by Kelley, after the player won the jackpot at a slot machine, the casino began the payout process by collecting his ID and verifying his information.
However, it was soon discovered that the gambler had previously banned himself from the respective casino and all its affiliated properties through a self-exclusion program aimed at preventing individuals with gambling addictions from accessing casinos, both physically and online.
As a result, he was deemed to have trespassed and was denied the winnings.
While these programs are meant to protect vulnerable gamblers, this case highlights the unexpected consequences that can arise.
Did the Casino Overstep?
The incident raises the question of whether the casino was simply following the rules or if they overstepped in denying the payout.
As previously explained, self-exclusion programs are tools to help individuals step away from gambling when it becomes harmful.
According to National Council on Problem Gambling data, the risk of gambling addiction went up by a staggering 30% between 2018 and 2021, putting its mark on around nine million US adults.
New Jersey Attorney General Mathew J. Plakin explained that the self-exclusion program, established in 2001, allows individuals to voluntarily ban themselves from Atlantic City casinos.
Once enrolled, participants are not only prohibited from entering casinos but also from collecting any winnings.
Plakin’s website states, “If you are caught gambling at a casino, racetrack sports wagering facility, or on an Internet gaming site, you will be subject to forfeiture of any winnings.”
The Responsible Gambling Council outlines reasons people might choose self-exclusion, such as gambling causing financial or emotional hardship, a fixation on winning back losses, or simply no longer enjoying the act of gambling.
In this gambler’s case, he enrolled in the program to avoid temptation. Ironically, his big win reaffirmed why such measures exist, namely, to protect individuals from potential harm, even when they stumble into a winning moment.
The Case Ignited an Online Debate
The casino’s decision to deny the jackpot payout has, as expected, created a lot of controversy and sparked online debates.
Many TikTok users questioned the ethics of denying a $150,000 payout, with some accusing casinos of exploiting loopholes to avoid paying out winnings.
One user commented, “That’s the sleaziest thing ever. Casinos will do anything to not pay out. Should have paid that man.”
However, Kelley clarified in the comments that the player had personally signed the papers banning himself from the property, agreeing that “any winnings would be forfeited.”
Casinos are bound by strict regulations, which are enforced regardless of the situation. Whether it’s a self-imposed ban, unpaid debts, or legal issues, these rules ensure accountability.
For the gambler who missed out on a $150,000 jackpot, it serves as a reminder that gambling is not only a thing of pure luck, but it also involves many responsibilities and consequences.
The panel on responsible gaming at the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States Summer Meeting in Pittsburgh recently assessed voluntary self-exclusion programs, asking for an empathic approach to individuals who choose to self-exclude.
In April, we reported on the award-winning company that centralizes, anonymizes, and analyzes customer data, idPair, and its plans to launch the National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program scheduled to extend west and south this year.
Related Topics:
After finishing her master's in publishing and writing, Melanie began her career as an online editor for a large gaming blog and has now transitioned over towards the iGaming industry. She helps to ensure that our news pieces are written to the highest standard possible under the guidance of senior management.
Must Read
More Articles
Industry
April 16, 2025
Tennessee SWC Asks CFTC to Ban Sports Event Contracts
Industry
April 16, 2025
‘Tesla Terrorist’ Pleads Not Guilty to Litany of Charges
Casino
April 16, 2025
Jake’s 58 Casino Warns About Online Gambling Scam
Casino
April 16, 2025
Lucky Couple Hits $4.2M Megabucks Jackpot at Pechanga
Sports
April 16, 2025
North Carolina Could Double the Online Sports Betting Tax
Casino
April 16, 2025
Las Vegas Sands Faces Challenges Despite Analyst Optimism
Industry
April 15, 2025
Indiana Bill Seeking to End Lottery Couriers Advances
2 Comments
Technically the Casino is right but if he had been put out by the casino for wrong doing the casino would have caught him at the door or within 15 minutes after he entered the casino.
I believe that the casino reimburse him any money he had spent up till the jackpot. They have facial recognition software to prevent a player to enter. So it is their fault as well. So creepy.