vpFREE2 Forums

The key is gaming regulations

#1

Bill Velek wrote:

Harry Porter wrote (snip):
> I have two comments on this thread:
>
> If you suspect that (for whatever reason) vp machines with 100%+
> theoretical yield paytables are gaffed, then there is every reason to
> suspect that all vp machines may be gaffed. Why wouldn't a casino
> elect to alter some of their 99%+ machines as well?

How about this as a _possible_ answer? ... because it would be illegal
to reduce the payout on a machine that doesn't need to have the ER
reduced in order to meet legal requirements?

Remember what the logic of my post was:

1. If it is, in fact, illegal within a certain state to have a machine
that pays in excess of 100%; and

2. If games, such as "Double Bonus" have an ER which does, in fact,
exceed 100%; and

3. There are "Double Bonus" machines in a casino within that same state

...then at least one of the following conclusions must logically follow:

A. There really are no such laws in that state, or they are not
interpreted and applied as we suspect [Bob Dancer's last post might
contain the answer to this] ... but for purposes of this discussion, we
have already accepted, as a 'given', that there _are_ such limits); or

B. The machines are NOT gaffed, AND the state gambling commission is
either ... ignorant of the true ER of those machine ... OR is unaware
that those machines are in the casino ... OR they are ignoring the
violation; or

C. The machines ARE gaffed, with the commissions blessing, in order to
offer a machine that comes within the limits of the law (I think if
they were to do this, they could only lower it to precisely 100% return,
and no lower).

You have overlooked:

D: The machines are NOT gaffed, AND the Gaming Commission goes by the actual payback history of the machines. Any game may pay back more than 100% over a short term, so they would be looking at the long term, and if a significant portion of the play was by unskilled players then the actual payback would be less than 100%.

Dan

···

--

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

#2

Dan Paymar wrote:

"...the Gaming Commission goes by the actual payback history of the

machines."

I am quoting Dan out of context here, in that he was adding to a
previous post about hypothetical ways a casino might be able to
offer a 100%+ machine in a state where 100%+ pay-out games are not
allowed.

My concern is more general than the 100%+ issue, and was sparked by
his remark. Does anyone on VPFree know with certainty exactly how
the NV and NJ commissions monitor VP/slot compliance? John Frey's
recent posting from the NJCCC implied to me -- although I grant that
it is not explicitly stated -- that compliance is tested when a
machine is purchased from the manufacturer or at least before it goes
into general casino use.

If that is indeed the case, then I am certainly far less reassured
about the fairness and randomness of the games I play than if I knew
that ongoing, widespread, rigorous, follow-up monitoring also occurs
(--and not just on rare occasions or special request). If a
procedure like Dan mentions does takes place, than I would want to
know that it is the Commission not the casino itself that generates
the machine's actual payback history report.

At a time when we're seeing Fortune 500 CEO's, priests, and other
leading lights of society being paraded off in handcuffs, casino
management is hardly a profession I would look to as being immune to
corruption. Those who counsel us that regulation and potential loss
of license almost guarantee fair gaming strike me as extremely
naive. While I believe that the vast majority of NJ and NV VP is
fair and random, where is the evidence of airtight procedures and
vigilant enforcement? At the moment, I'm skeptical. -- Gipper

#3

Hi. I don't have this direct from the Casino Control Commission. But Steve Bourie, on his americancasinoguide.com, has a page where he interviewed the Division of Gaming Enforcement. According to this, casino personnel are not allowed to open the programming section of a slot machine unless it's in the presence of DGE staff.
   C'mon folks. AC and Nevada are honest games. AC relies on repeat visitors who come back often. If they rigged the machines, gamblers would know they don't have a prayer and stop coming. They make plenty of money running honest games, so why should they risk their license by cheating?
    I have my questions about a few other jurisdictions, so I limit my own play there.
   Blessings and royals to all.

Elaine

If that is indeed the case, then I am certainly far less reassured
about the fairness and randomness of the games I play than if I knew
that ongoing, widespread, rigorous, follow-up monitoring also occurs
(--and not just on rare occasions or special request). If a
procedure like Dan mentions does takes place, than I would want to
know that it is the Commission not the casino itself that generates
the machine's actual payback history report.

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more
faith.yahoo.com

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