I'm not at all surprised what Andrew is reporting. I know nothing about protocols for machine play risk limits for the casinos, but the principles from casinos' perspectives in sports betting are to stringently limit potential losses. So when you go to a window to bet a long shot future, the casino isn't concerned with the amount of your wager but the amount of potential loss. Any potential loss above a certain amount triggers a key request for a manager, and while the manager-on-duty can override to a degree, anything above another amount would have to be approved by an overall manager. It's all about capping the exposure.

I have to think almost all casinos would limit double up bug exposures the same way. Nobody wants to be the manager on duty who lets some dude take a small jackpot up into the stratosphere. And if some player did that, they'd be in the crosshairs on any future visit for sure.

That's why much of the double up narrative stuff seems wonky. Since the double up could be fixed at any time or could be capped more and more tightly, I would think you'd be best served by hitting hard and fast with a number of trustworthy people, and most certainly involve your spouse. All this talk of I-Spy and being solo and all that -- I mean, c'mon, if you can't trust your spouse with keeping a lid on things, that's pretty strange. Plus it's not like you're protecting your spouse if you get caught -- unless you buried your winnings in the backyard, your spouse will be on the hook if there are shared financials.

I don't think, for example, that this would fly: "Oh Geez, my husband reported he stumbled upon a 500K account he'd forgotten about and I knew nothing about. So we decided to buy a Newell -- even put my name on it."