I wrote the following letter to I. Nelson Rose, a top gaming expert, after reading some posts on this topic. Mr. Rose was kind enough to respond. (He has been very generous by answering all of my past queries.)
My letter to him: (Sept. 29, 2004)
Dear Mr. Rose,
Many jurisdictions have a mixed bag of VLTs and non-VLTs within their boundaries. (This situation is further convoluted by tribal compacts within a state which are separate from commercial casino regulations within the same state.) Some states have indicated that they require VLTs to have RNGs, and some don't. In other words, the waters continue to get murkier as far as the sort of video poker devices allowed on a property.
Many players believe that they are "protected" from non- RNG machines as long as the manufacturer does business in Nevada. (IGT is a good example.)
It is my understanding that IGT will be manufacturing devices for Class II gaming and perhaps for Class III that permit VLTs. I hope you can clear up some of these troublesome issues. LD Boyd
www.videopokerstrategycards.com
Mr. Rose's response:
Thanks for writing.
It is up to each state to decide whether it will have VLTs and what is a VLT as opposed to a slot machine.
IGT is in the Class II business through its subsidiary, Sodak. I think it also makes VLTs, which are Class III.
Tribes may only use VLTs if the state has a lottery. Non-tribal casinos can have VLTs only if state law expressly allows them. A.C. casinos can have only slot machines. You won't find any in Nevada, because the Nev. Constitution prohibits lotteries.
Hope that helps.
Nelson
I. Nelson Rose
Professor of Law, Whittier Law School
Home Office: 17031 Encino Hills Drive
Encino, California 91436
(818) 788-8509
Fax: (818) 788-3104
Web Site: www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com
Email: rose@sprintmail.com
----- Original Message
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]