vpFREE2 Forums

Indian casinos

#1

ALL of the "% payback" data listed at this site (and elsewhere), and
ALL of the "precision play" hold/discard hierarchy tables published are
predicated on the RNG (random number generator) inside the machine
being "flat" to some statistical criterion. Meaning: Any card is "as
likely" as any other card, again to some statistical criterion.

That "...to some statistical criterion" caveat is necessary, because,
to my knowledge, slot machine RNGs are algorithmic rather than physical.

I trust the Nevada Gaming Commission that this is so, within Nevada,
because I have no choice.

All that goes out the window on Indian reservations. I cannot help but
wonder if the RNGs in Indian casinos are biased. It would be easy to
do, and it would seem to be quite tempting. A very small tilt would
decrease the payback significantly, and wouldn't be apparent to the
unwashed multitudes.

Personally speaking, I would be astonished if this does not occur. But
of course there is no way to tell, outside of pouring enough money into
the thing to get a "feel" for its statistical behavior. Or perhaps to
tediously record cards dealt. One would have to do that with many
thousands of deals to obtain meaningful conclusions.

Comments, anyone?

#2

I've posted this before, and I may not again.
1. Tribal casinos are double regulated -- by themselves and the Federal Gov't.
2. All machines are made by major manufacturers and shipped with tested hardware.
3. The average daily win per machine in Tribal casinos is about 4 times that of Nevada. Why cheat?
4. If caught, there would be major repercussions including shutting down their money factories (casinos).
5. It is slightly possible that a tiny casino hundreds of miles from any large population might cheat. No others would bother.

···

At 12:25 PM 5/2/2008, you wrote:

ALL of the "% payback" data listed at this site (and elsewhere), and
ALL of the "precision play" hold/discard hierarchy tables published are
predicated on the RNG (random number generator) inside the machine
being "flat" to some statistical criterion. Meaning: Any card is "as
likely" as any other card, again to some statistical criterion.

That "...to some statistical criterion" caveat is necessary, because,
to my knowledge, slot machine RNGs are algorithmic rather than physical.

I trust the Nevada Gaming Commission that this is so, within Nevada,
because I have no choice.

All that goes out the window on Indian reservations. I cannot help but
wonder if the RNGs in Indian casinos are biased. It would be easy to
do, and it would seem to be quite tempting. A very small tilt would
decrease the payback significantly, and wouldn't be apparent to the
unwashed multitudes.

Personally speaking, I would be astonished if this does not occur. But
of course there is no way to tell, outside of pouring enough money into
the thing to get a "feel" for its statistical behavior. Or perhaps to
tediously record cards dealt. One would have to do that with many
thousands of deals to obtain meaningful conclusions.

Comments, anyone?

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#3

Not clear. Last I checked the Venetian was still in business. The
people involved can't work in the state of Nevada anymore, but they
got jobs in other states, at other casinos no less. New Jersey took
over the Tropicana, the managers got jobs in other states.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:

4. If caught, there would be major repercussions including shutting
down their money factories (casinos).

#4

"uniform" is the word you're looking for, not flat.

···

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Norma Posy <normagirl9@yahoo.com> wrote:

  ALL of the "% payback" data listed at this site (and elsewhere), and
ALL of the "precision play" hold/discard hierarchy tables published are
predicated on the RNG (random number generator) inside the machine
being "flat" to some statistical criterion. Meaning: Any card is "as
likely" as any other card, again to some statistical criterion.

That "...to some statistical criterion" caveat is necessary, because,
to my knowledge, slot machine RNGs are algorithmic rather than physical.

I trust the Nevada Gaming Commission that this is so, within Nevada,
because I have no choice.

All that goes out the window on Indian reservations. I cannot help but
wonder if the RNGs in Indian casinos are biased. It would be easy to
do, and it would seem to be quite tempting. A very small tilt would
decrease the payback significantly, and wouldn't be apparent to the
unwashed multitudes.

Personally speaking, I would be astonished if this does not occur. But
of course there is no way to tell, outside of pouring enough money into
the thing to get a "feel" for its statistical behavior. Or perhaps to
tediously record cards dealt. One would have to do that with many
thousands of deals to obtain meaningful conclusions.

Comments, anyone?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

"uniform" is the word you're looking for, not flat.

> ALL of the "% payback" data listed at this site (and

elsewhere), and

> ALL of the "precision play" hold/discard hierarchy tables

published are

> predicated on the RNG (random number generator) inside the machine
> being "flat" to some statistical criterion. Meaning: Any card

is "as

> likely" as any other card, again to some statistical criterion.
>
> That "...to some statistical criterion" caveat is necessary,

because,

> to my knowledge, slot machine RNGs are algorithmic rather than

physical.

>
> I trust the Nevada Gaming Commission that this is so, within

Nevada,

> because I have no choice.
>
> All that goes out the window on Indian reservations. I cannot

help but

> wonder if the RNGs in Indian casinos are biased. It would be easy

to

> do, and it would seem to be quite tempting. A very small tilt

would

> decrease the payback significantly, and wouldn't be apparent to

the

> unwashed multitudes.
>
> Personally speaking, I would be astonished if this does not

occur. But

> of course there is no way to tell, outside of pouring enough

money into

> the thing to get a "feel" for its statistical behavior. Or

perhaps to

> tediously record cards dealt. One would have to do that with many
> thousands of deals to obtain meaningful conclusions.
>
> Comments, anyone?

Wouldn't that be a rectangular distribution? Those are sort of flat.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Pawloski" <jpawloski@...> wrote:

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Norma Posy <normagirl9@...> wrote:

#6

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:

>
> "uniform" is the word you're looking for, not flat.
>
>
> > ALL of the "% payback" data listed at this site (and
elsewhere), and
> > ALL of the "precision play" hold/discard hierarchy tables
published are
> > predicated on the RNG (random number generator) inside the

machine

> > being "flat" to some statistical criterion. Meaning: Any card
is "as
> > likely" as any other card, again to some statistical criterion.
> >
> > That "...to some statistical criterion" caveat is necessary,
because,
> > to my knowledge, slot machine RNGs are algorithmic rather than
physical.
> >
> > I trust the Nevada Gaming Commission that this is so, within
Nevada,
> > because I have no choice.
> >
> > All that goes out the window on Indian reservations. I cannot
help but
> > wonder if the RNGs in Indian casinos are biased. It would be

easy

to
> > do, and it would seem to be quite tempting. A very small tilt
would
> > decrease the payback significantly, and wouldn't be apparent to
the
> > unwashed multitudes.
> >
> > Personally speaking, I would be astonished if this does not
occur. But
> > of course there is no way to tell, outside of pouring enough
money into
> > the thing to get a "feel" for its statistical behavior. Or
perhaps to
> > tediously record cards dealt. One would have to do that with

many

> > thousands of deals to obtain meaningful conclusions.
> >
> > Comments, anyone?

Wouldn't that be a rectangular distribution? Those are sort of

flat.

I guess it depends on which expert you consult. Some call them
rectangular, some call them uniform and most acknowledge both terms.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Pawloski" <jpawloski@> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Norma Posy <normagirl9@> wrote:

#7

Please see my earlier post. But in synopsis, you appear to believe that Indian casinos are not regulated. This is not true. Since many Tribal casinos exist with little or no competition they are money machines. If they get greedy they install machines with higher holds. Although it is true that inspections are less frequent than they are in Nevada, getting caught would involve unthinkable penalties just from a public relations standpoint. There is significantly less of an incentive for a tribal casino to cheat than there is for a privately owned one. (see NIGA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of the Interior)

···

At 12:25 PM 5/2/2008, you wrote:

ALL of the "% payback" data listed at this site (and elsewhere), and
ALL of the "precision play" hold/discard hierarchy tables published are
predicated on the RNG (random number generator) inside the machine
being "flat" to some statistical criterion. Meaning: Any card is "as
likely" as any other card, again to some statistical criterion.

That "...to some statistical criterion" caveat is necessary, because,
to my knowledge, slot machine RNGs are algorithmic rather than physical.

I trust the Nevada Gaming Commission that this is so, within Nevada,
because I have no choice.

All that goes out the window on Indian reservations. I cannot help but
wonder if the RNGs in Indian casinos are biased. It would be easy to
do, and it would seem to be quite tempting. A very small tilt would
decrease the payback significantly, and wouldn't be apparent to the
unwashed multitudes.

Personally speaking, I would be astonished if this does not occur. But
of course there is no way to tell, outside of pouring enough money into
the thing to get a "feel" for its statistical behavior. Or perhaps to
tediously record cards dealt. One would have to do that with many
thousands of deals to obtain meaningful conclusions.

Comments, anyone?

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#8

Bill Coleman wrote:

Please see my earlier post. But in synopsis, you appear to believe
that Indian casinos are not regulated. This is not true. Since many
Tribal casinos exist with little or no competition they are money
machines. If they get greedy they install machines with higher holds.
Although it is true that inspections are less frequent than they are
in Nevada, getting caught would involve unthinkable penalties just
from a public relations standpoint. There is significantly less of an
incentive for a tribal casino to cheat than there is for a privately
owned one. (see NIGA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of
the Interior)

Bill ... while I don't have any particular cause to suspect that
Indian casinos with machines that would appear to be "NV-compliant"
would offer a "gaffed" machine in their place, do the regulatory
bodies involved offer any such assurance?

Indian casinos with NV-compliant machines operate under state compacts
permitting "Class III" gaming. Class III electronic gaming is a
definition that is a catch-all of anything that doesn't operating off
a "bingo-engine" based mechanism (meaning, one that at heart simulates
the play of a bingo game between players). The WA State VLT-based
video poker machines are an example of Class III gaming that's not
NV-compliant.

It's my impression that regulatory oversight of Indian casinos is all
about ensuring that operations are consistent with state guidelines
... not that any particular machine is "NV-compliant". Am I mistaken?

- Harry

#9

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

Bill Coleman wrote:
> Please see my earlier post. But in synopsis, you appear to

believe

> that Indian casinos are not regulated. This is not true. Since

many

> Tribal casinos exist with little or no competition they are money
> machines. If they get greedy they install machines with higher

holds.

> Although it is true that inspections are less frequent than they

are

> in Nevada, getting caught would involve unthinkable penalties

just

> from a public relations standpoint. There is significantly less

of an

> incentive for a tribal casino to cheat than there is for a

privately

> owned one. (see NIGA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department

of

> the Interior)

Bill ... while I don't have any particular cause to suspect that
Indian casinos with machines that would appear to be "NV-compliant"
would offer a "gaffed" machine in their place, do the regulatory
bodies involved offer any such assurance?

Indian casinos with NV-compliant machines operate under state

compacts

permitting "Class III" gaming. Class III electronic gaming is a
definition that is a catch-all of anything that doesn't operating

off

a "bingo-engine" based mechanism (meaning, one that at heart

simulates

the play of a bingo game between players). The WA State VLT-based
video poker machines are an example of Class III gaming that's not
NV-compliant.

It's my impression that regulatory oversight of Indian casinos is

all

about ensuring that operations are consistent with state guidelines
... not that any particular machine is "NV-compliant". Am I

mistaken?

- Harry

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/SCIT_Compact_70617_7.pdf

Not sure what the bottom of page nine is actually saying, but it
seems to be boiler plate language in all the compacts in Michigan

#10

I remember reading about a case at Harrah's Ak Chin in Maricopa,
Arizona. It was a disputed $300,000 jackpot. All the evidence was on
the casinos side. But people actually boycotted the place. They lost
a lot of business. They eventually paid the jackpot just to get their
business back.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:

Please see my earlier post. But in synopsis, you appear to believe
that Indian casinos are not regulated. This is not true. Since many
Tribal casinos exist with little or no competition they are money
machines. If they get greedy they install machines with higher holds.
Although it is true that inspections are less frequent than they are
in Nevada, getting caught would involve unthinkable penalties just
from a public relations standpoint. There is significantly less of an
incentive for a tribal casino to cheat than there is for a privately
owned one. (see NIGA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of
the Interior)

#11

When I was playing poker at Sandia in Albuquerque in the mid-nineties
the Poker Room Manager was fired for making book. The Caribbean Stud
jackpot got duked. Pit Bosses were fired for palming black chips.
They put in two craps tables and hired experienced Las Vegas crews to
run the games. The tables didn't make money for two months. They fired
the Las Vegas crews and the tables started making money. They brought
in a Las Vegas professional to clean up all the corruption. He made
off with $250,000.

#12

>
> Please see my earlier post. But in synopsis, you appear to

believe

> that Indian casinos are not regulated. This is not true. Since

many

> Tribal casinos exist with little or no competition they are money
> machines. If they get greedy they install machines with higher

holds.

> Although it is true that inspections are less frequent than they

are

> in Nevada, getting caught would involve unthinkable penalties

just

> from a public relations standpoint. There is significantly less

of an

> incentive for a tribal casino to cheat than there is for a

privately

> owned one. (see NIGA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department

of

> the Interior)
>
>
I remember reading about a case at Harrah's Ak Chin in Maricopa,
Arizona. It was a disputed $300,000 jackpot. All the evidence was

on

the casinos side. But people actually boycotted the place. They

lost

a lot of business. They eventually paid the jackpot just to get

their

business back.

That is correct Mickey, the woman was playing a Quartermania machine
which video evidence showed was malfunctioning and the woman still
played. The Indian tribe (Ak-Chin) refused to pay the jackpot.
Harrah's manages the casino, and you are right, there was a lot of
public backlash and Harrah's paid the jackpot out of their coffers,
even though the woman did not legally win.
They ended up removing the Quartermania games.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@> wrote:

#13

Hi Harry,

I'm embedding responses below:

Bill Coleman wrote:
> Please see my earlier post. But in synopsis, you appear to believe
> that Indian casinos are not regulated. This is not true. Since many
> Tribal casinos exist with little or no competition they are money
> machines. If they get greedy they install machines with higher holds.
> Although it is true that inspections are less frequent than they are
> in Nevada, getting caught would involve unthinkable penalties just
> from a public relations standpoint. There is significantly less of an
> incentive for a tribal casino to cheat than there is for a privately
> owned one. (see NIGA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of
> the Interior)

Bill ... while I don't have any particular cause to suspect that
Indian casinos with machines that would appear to be "NV-compliant"
would offer a "gaffed" machine in their place, do the regulatory
bodies involved offer any such assurance?

Yes, they do. As in commercial gaming, each jurisdiction (in this case the Tribal Government and the Federal Regulators) sets rules for testing. There are commercial laboratories that test machines to ensure compliance with local regulations and machines are not permitted in a casino until they are certified. (I believe some jurisdictions accept certifications by other jurisdictions like Nevada to be sufficient). The Federal regulators have rules, each compact has rules and the Tribe may have rules that are even tighter if they wish. The main "safety" measure is the manufacturer's ability to operate in the state under general regulations and the laboratory certifications.

Also, most regulations both in commercial and tribal jurisdictions refer to the accounting procedures. These are VERY tight since it would be easy to skim money "off the top" and avoid taxes. If casinos were to cheat this is where they would gain the most benefit.

Indian casinos with NV-compliant machines operate under state compacts
permitting "Class III" gaming. Class III electronic gaming is a
definition that is a catch-all of anything that doesn't operating off
a "bingo-engine" based mechanism (meaning, one that at heart simulates
the play of a bingo game between players). The WA State VLT-based
video poker machines are an example of Class III gaming that's not
NV-compliant.

The actual definition of Class III gaming is permitting house-banked games. You will note that Bingo, etc. are player-banked with the house taking a percentage, kind of like poker or race wagering. In the industry, Washington state is often (half-seriously) referred to as Class II 1/2. They permit house-banked table games but the machines are really player-banked. And, by the way, Class II machines do not "simulate" Bingo. They actually play a Bingo game with everyone in the casino participating, although each Bingo game actually lasts at most a second or two. But that is why unless there are 2 patrons actively playing the Class II casino will not function.

It's my impression that regulatory oversight of Indian casinos is all
about ensuring that operations are consistent with state guidelines
... not that any particular machine is "NV-compliant". Am I mistaken?

No, not really. It is actually that operations are consistent with the regulatory authorities (Class III Tribal always have 3 regulators unlike commercial casinos that only have 1). They also are members of a "trade group" the National Indian Gaming Association that acts to protect the industry like all trade groups. I don't know of any tribes that are not members of NIGA.

It is due to the 3 regulators (Tribal, State and Federal) that I would actually feel much more confident in the honesty of games in a Tribal casino than in a commercial casino. (In fact I am totally confident in the honesty of both).

Bill

···

At 05:07 PM 5/3/2008, you wrote:

#14

Bill Coleman wrote:

Yes, they do. As in commercial gaming, each jurisdiction (in this
case the Tribal Government and the Federal Regulators) sets rules for
testing. There are commercial laboratories that test machines to
ensure compliance with local regulations and machines are not
permitted in a casino until they are certified. (I believe some
jurisdictions accept certifications by other jurisdictions like
Nevada to be sufficient).

Thanks for the clarification re testing and certification of Indian
casino machines, Bill.

The actual definition of Class III gaming is permitting house-banked
games. You will note that Bingo, etc. are player-banked with the
house taking a percentage, kind of like poker or race wagering. In
the industry, Washington state is often (half-seriously) referred to
as Class II 1/2. They permit house-banked table games but the
machines are really player-banked. And, by the way, Class II machines
do not "simulate" Bingo.

Bill, I have every reason to defer to your knowledge here. But I'll
note that it is in sharp contrast to what had been my grasp.

I had been given to understand that the allowance for machine gaming
in Indian casinos was granted under a technical extension of initial
Federal permission to operate bingo hall gaming. The logic was that
so long as the equipment didn't change the underlying mechanics of the
game played, that it would be deemed equally permissible.

Thus, there's a strict requirement that in all respects there be
nothing materially different between the electronic mechanism under
which a class II machine is played and the physical play of standard
bingo. However, I used the term "simulate" inasmuch as there's not a
physical drawing of balls from a drum and the fact that it's not
apparent to the player against whom their playing at a given time.

In performing a quick internet search, I find the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act contains the following definition of Class II (excerpted):

···

------

(6) The term "class I gaming" means social games solely for prizes of
minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming

(7)(A) The term "class II gaming" means -
(i) the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not
electronic, computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection
therewith)
(ii) card games that are explicitly authorized by the laws of the
State, or are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and
are played at any location in the State

(7)(B) The term "class II gaming" does not include
(i) any banking card games, including baccarat, chemin de fer, or
blackjack (21), or
(ii) electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance
or slot machines of any kind.

(8) The term "class III gaming" means all forms of gaming that are not
class I gaming or class II gaming.

------

I've presumed that any reference to "banking games" was specifically
intended to clarify what card games would be disallowed under the
regulation.

With respect to WA state VLT's, I interpret the above to clearly
define them as "Class III" games that can only be operated under
auspices of a state compact in failing to be a "bingo" based game
(banking isn't a distinction).

- Harry

#15

It was $80K I think, and Harrahs paid it (I'm remembering the facts
favored the claimant). Could have been $300K, I think it was a .25 WoF
and that's the right number to hit.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

I remember reading about a case at Harrah's Ak Chin in Maricopa,
Arizona. It was a disputed $300,000 jackpot. All the evidence was on
the casinos side. But people actually boycotted the place. They lost
a lot of business. They eventually paid the jackpot just to get their
business back.

#16

Harry,

I gave you the shorthand definition as given to me by several Indian gaming experts, including one from NIGA. You are correct as to the statute, but that's the long-winded explanation.
I said the industry considers the property-level lottery system in Wa. "Class II 1/2" as a tongue-in-cheek description since they don't operate as do Class III games elsewhere, but you are correct they are, in fact, Class III games.

You are not correct that players cannot see the Bingo games. In most (not all) Class II jurisdictions the Bingo card must be displayed on the face of the machine and you can see the results on your machine both on the card and in the setting of the wheels or playing cards displayed. The balls are selected electronically and the cards on every active machine validated instantly.

···

> The actual definition of Class III gaming is permitting house-banked
> games. You will note that Bingo, etc. are player-banked with the
> house taking a percentage, kind of like poker or race wagering. In
> the industry, Washington state is often (half-seriously) referred to
> as Class II 1/2. They permit house-banked table games but the
> machines are really player-banked. And, by the way, Class II machines
> do not "simulate" Bingo.

Bill, I have every reason to defer to your knowledge here. But I'll
note that it is in sharp contrast to what had been my grasp.

I had been given to understand that the allowance for machine gaming
in Indian casinos was granted under a technical extension of initial
Federal permission to operate bingo hall gaming. The logic was that
so long as the equipment didn't change the underlying mechanics of the
game played, that it would be deemed equally permissible.

Thus, there's a strict requirement that in all respects there be
nothing materially different between the electronic mechanism under
which a class II machine is played and the physical play of standard
bingo. However, I used the term "simulate" inasmuch as there's not a
physical drawing of balls from a drum and the fact that it's not
apparent to the player against whom their playing at a given time.

In performing a quick internet search, I find the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act contains the following definition of Class II (excerpted):

------

(6) The term "class I gaming" means social games solely for prizes of
minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming

(7)(A) The term "class II gaming" means -
(i) the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not
electronic, computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection
therewith)
(ii) card games that are explicitly authorized by the laws of the
State, or are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and
are played at any location in the State

(7)(B) The term "class II gaming" does not include
(i) any banking card games, including baccarat, chemin de fer, or
blackjack (21), or
(ii) electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance
or slot machines of any kind.

(8) The term "class III gaming" means all forms of gaming that are not
class I gaming or class II gaming.

------

I've presumed that any reference to "banking games" was specifically
intended to clarify what card games would be disallowed under the
regulation.

With respect to WA state VLT's, I interpret the above to clearly
define them as "Class III" games that can only be operated under
auspices of a state compact in failing to be a "bingo" based game
(banking isn't a distinction).

- Harry

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#17

The problem is that the regulation is weaker than NV, NJ, or IL. The lobbyists for the casinos in Ca have seen to it that the gaming commissionin Ca is basically starved for funds. Note how they got through the 4 props to expand their casinos. Due th erecall of Gov Davis they also were able to avoid having the state sno smoking law inserted in to future compacts. The IGRA and the state have some regulation, competition forces honesty, and the NV law requiring that any manufacturer who wants to do business in NV must sell machines outside of NV that meet NV randomness standards. Of course, casinos can change the chips. The real problem is what do you do if you have a dispute in a Ca casino? There is no real referee. For this reason suggets limiting your play to recreational play as you desire if the regulation or lack thereof is not satisfactory for you.

···

mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@yahoo.com> wrote: --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:

Please see my earlier post. But in synopsis, you appear to believe
that Indian casinos are not regulated. This is not true. Since many
Tribal casinos exist with little or no competition they are money
machines. If they get greedy they install machines with higher holds.
Although it is true that inspections are less frequent than they are
in Nevada, getting caught would involve unthinkable penalties just
from a public relations standpoint. There is significantly less of an
incentive for a tribal casino to cheat than there is for a privately
owned one. (see NIGA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of
the Interior)

I remember reading about a case at Harrah's Ak Chin in Maricopa,
Arizona. It was a disputed $300,000 jackpot. All the evidence was on
the casinos side. But people actually boycotted the place. They lost
a lot of business. They eventually paid the jackpot just to get their
business back.

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#18

Bill Coleman wrote:

You are not correct that players cannot see the Bingo games. In most
(not all) Class II jurisdictions the Bingo card must be displayed on
the face of the machine and you can see the results on your machine
both on the card and in the setting of the wheels or playing cards
displayed. The balls are selected electronically and the cards on
every active machine validated instantly.

Bill, we're getting down to arguing wording that's inconsequential in
the scheme of things. Nonetheless, what I wrote (and you quoted) was:

>Thus, there's a strict requirement that in all respects there be
>nothing materially different between the electronic mechanism under
>which a class II machine is played and the physical play of standard
>bingo. However, I used the term "simulate" inasmuch as there's not
>a physical drawing of balls from a drum and the fact that it's not
>apparent to the player against whom their playing at a given time.

I didn't make a statement about "seeing the games". Just that there
aren't physical balls and that because in a large, busy casino the
floor is being divided into a number of simultaneously played games,
players don't know exactly which subset of players against whom they
playing.

- H.

#19

Clarification: There is no such law or regulation. The regulations state that the Commissioner may approve sales of machines that do not meet Nevada standards as long as they do meet the standards of the receiving jurisdiction.

···

At 08:10 AM 5/4/2008, you wrote:

, and the NV law requiring that any manufacturer who wants to do business in NV must sell machines outside of NV that meet NV randomness standards.

#20

I used Google to find out this stands for National Indian Gaming Association.

But do they really use that acronym?

···

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@cox.net> wrote:

I gave you the shorthand definition as given to me by several Indian
gaming experts, including one from NIGA.