From time to time, posts which question the integrity of such machines, and
that of the casino managements which operate them, appear. Honest operation of
such machines would appear to be a quite lucrative business. Why else would
games with totally-unacceptable pay schedules be occupying floor space,
consuming utilities, etc?
At least for casinos subject to Nevada Gaming Commission regulation,
tampering with machines' integrity would appear to be an "unacceptably high-risk"
practice. And, if only to protect their own reputations, gaming-machine
manufacturers have every incentive to ensure that every machine which they ship is, at
the time of shipment, programmed to operate honestly. (ie, that the
probability of any given card appearing, at any time, is mathematically correct).
Even so, it is most-definitely technically feasible to create and install a
dishonest chip. The design, construction, and installation of such is
fairly-common knowledge; per-unit cost, to create/install, would be relatively low.
Once installation were done, the difference would not be at all obvious to
casino personnel involved in routine servicing.
Consistently, it is "far from inconceivable" that managements of Indian-tribe
casinos, and perhaps those regulated by States whose gaming authorities would
be "unlikely to" detect such practices, might see fit to cheat.
Real world, gaming-machine manufacturers would appear to be best-positioned
to enforce honest operation. Contractural requirements, similar to the
following, would tend to promote this:
A. Chips which control the dealing of cards will be contained in a sealed
unit. Casino agrees to refrain from opening such unit, and to notify
manufacturer in the event that replacement appears necessary.
B. Casino agrees to permit such units to, at irregular intervals, transmit
messages, over the Internet, to manufacturer. Short-term power or
connection failure managed by retaining messages in chip memory, for subsequent
transmission.
C. In event that manufacturer becomes aware of any intentional violation of
the foregoing, manufacturer will cause same to become public knowledge.
I'd like to receive some "feedback", especially as to the wording of
suggested contractural requirements. Once some form of consensus is arrived at, it
would seem entirely appropriate to send inquiries to manufacturers, inquiring as
to their current practices/intentions. Perhaps from discussion-group
administrators, by registered "snail mail", with a specified response deadline.
Steven P Haver/702-227-3412/2671 S Decatur 1109 Las Vegas 89102
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]