Bill Valek wrote (snip):
I had taken too narrow a view of what a
"less than 100% machine" would be defined as. Do you or anyone else
know for sure that this is their approach?
I suspect that every state has its own approach. It's the NIH
syndrome (Not Invented Here). A state legislature decides to legalize
some forms of gambling in order to create a new source of tax
revenues. Of course, gambling needs to be regulated. So do they look
to Nevada, which has over 60 years experience in designing and fine
tuning such regulations? Of course not. They have to write their own,
so gambling regulations become a hodge podge.
Several years ago, when Doug Reul was associate editor of Video Poker
Times, he was playing All American Poker in a midwest casino. He was
winning fairly consistently, and finally the casino manager and a
gaming control officer approached him to see if he was somehow
cheating. He told them that, with accurate play, the game naturally
returned 100.7%. The two suits were stunned. The casino manager was
apparently fearful of losing their licence for violating state law
against any game returning over 100%. The machines were taken out of
service, and Doug left. I don't remember what state that was, and I
don't know what else, if anything, happened.
The purported reason for the law is to prevent skimming by having a
crony play a game that returns well over 100%. I suspect the real
reason is to guarantee the tax revenues.
Dan
ยทยทยท
--
Dan Paymar, author of the book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor and Publisher of "Video Poker Times" newsletter
Web site at www.vegasplayer.com/vp
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]