vpFREE2 Forums

Washington State Slots Theory: XVP

#1

I've been in Washington/Idaho since June, so have visited several
Indian casinos. At one (Clearwater, near Seattle) I ran into an old
friend who goes there very often ... almost daily, for years.

In his opinion, the casino has the ability to "set" the payback at
will, from a central computer. He believes there is an agreement
between the State and the tribe on a payback percentage, and the
tribe monitors the payback daily to be sure they aren't keeping too
much, or too little. He believes the casino "resets" the payback
calculation each day, around 4AM, for the next 24 hours.

The best time to play (he said) is at month end, because that is
when the tribe must compile their monthly reports. If their "take"
percentage is too high the previous 29-30 days, they simply adjust
the payback UP near month end, to get back to the "agreed upon"
level. If their "take" percentage is too low, they can adjust the
payback DOWN. So he watches carefully near month end to see what is
happening. If it appears players are winning more than normal he
will play, otherwise he doesn't play.

Any opinions? Can the payback be controlled from a central
computer?

#2

It can. I think I read about this at the gambling control boards site in Washington State. I like the theory about the end of the month.
patrick

···

brumar_lv <brumar_lv@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've been in Washington/Idaho since June, so have visited several
Indian casinos. At one (Clearwater, near Seattle) I ran into an old
friend who goes there very often ... almost daily, for years.

In his opinion, the casino has the ability to "set" the payback at
will, from a central computer. He believes there is an agreement
between the State and the tribe on a payback percentage, and the
tribe monitors the payback daily to be sure they aren't keeping too
much, or too little. He believes the casino "resets" the payback
calculation each day, around 4AM, for the next 24 hours.

The best time to play (he said) is at month end, because that is
when the tribe must compile their monthly reports. If their "take"
percentage is too high the previous 29-30 days, they simply adjust
the payback UP near month end, to get back to the "agreed upon"
level. If their "take" percentage is too low, they can adjust the
payback DOWN. So he watches carefully near month end to see what is
happening. If it appears players are winning more than normal he
will play, otherwise he doesn't play.

Any opinions? Can the payback be controlled from a central
computer?

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

SPONSORED LINKS
Gambling Online gambling Outdoor recreation Recreation software

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
  
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

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

#3

The VP, and for that matter, all 'slots' in the Washington Indian
Casinos are not like any machine you might be otherwise familiar
with. They are actually 'electronic' pull tabs. There is no RNG.
Payouts are predetermined. The only gamble is the order of payouts
and loosers. I don't know what the % of win is, but I would guess
that it's the same as the pull-tabs that non-indian casinos must
use. At least in the "bowls" of pull-tabs, the winners are marked
off so you can see how mant big wins are left to draw.

I've been in Washington/Idaho since June, so have visited several
Indian casinos. At one (Clearwater, near Seattle) I ran into an

old

friend who goes there very often ... almost daily, for years.

In his opinion, the casino has the ability to "set" the payback at
will, from a central computer. He believes there is an agreement
between the State and the tribe on a payback percentage, and the
tribe monitors the payback daily to be sure they aren't keeping

too

much, or too little. He believes the casino "resets" the payback
calculation each day, around 4AM, for the next 24 hours.

The best time to play (he said) is at month end, because that is
when the tribe must compile their monthly reports. If

their "take"

percentage is too high the previous 29-30 days, they simply adjust
the payback UP near month end, to get back to the "agreed upon"
level. If their "take" percentage is too low, they can adjust the
payback DOWN. So he watches carefully near month end to see what

is

···

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

happening. If it appears players are winning more than normal he
will play, otherwise he doesn't play.

Any opinions? Can the payback be controlled from a central
computer?

#4

I've just completed research on this and without going into a lot of
details this is how the Video Poker works in Washington State and New
York State Racinos (NOT NYS Tribal):

These are all VLT systems where each machine has its OWN RNG. The
only use of a central computer is to record accounting information,
not to control the games or the outcomes. Each Tribal casino in
Washington or the NYS Lottery in NY sets the payback for each game
exactly like is done in Nevada. They pick the return they want in
newer IGT machines by selecting the return for each game or by
switching chips.

Unlike Nevada, the games work like slots. When you press the Deal
button (not the Draw) the final outcome is determined. The rest is
just for show, including the cards you do and do not hold.

They ARE fair, they ARE random according to their regulations. You
cannot tell the payback from the paytable any more than you can on a
Nevada slot.

To change the returns they would have to open each machine and adjust
it. Don't worry about it, won't happen!

Washington State is a Class III state. Pull-tabs, Bingo and other
Class II games are NOT involved.

See my forthcoming Strictly Slots article as I shamelessly promoted
in the other post.

B

···

At 04:27 PM 9/19/2005, you wrote:

The VP, and for that matter, all 'slots' in the Washington Indian
Casinos are not like any machine you might be otherwise familiar
with. They are actually 'electronic' pull tabs. There is no RNG.
Payouts are predetermined. The only gamble is the order of payouts
and loosers. I don't know what the % of win is, but I would guess
that it's the same as the pull-tabs that non-indian casinos must
use. At least in the "bowls" of pull-tabs, the winners are marked
off so you can see how mant big wins are left to draw.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@y...> wrote:
> I've been in Washington/Idaho since June, so have visited several
> Indian casinos. At one (Clearwater, near Seattle) I ran into an
old
> friend who goes there very often ... almost daily, for years.
>
> In his opinion, the casino has the ability to "set" the payback at
> will, from a central computer. He believes there is an agreement
> between the State and the tribe on a payback percentage, and the
> tribe monitors the payback daily to be sure they aren't keeping
too
> much, or too little. He believes the casino "resets" the payback
> calculation each day, around 4AM, for the next 24 hours.

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

#5

Sorry for overlooking your 2nd post, Bill, before drafting my comments
on your first.

I'm tripping over your statements in the latter post. What you report
is likely entirely accurate, but I always had been given the
impression that a VLT is a "dumb" terminal ... there was no
determinant mechanism within the machine -- wager results were
centrally determined. Have I been under an incorrect impression?

- Harry

Bill Coleman wrote:

···

These are all VLT systems where each machine has its OWN RNG. The
only use of a central computer is to record accounting information,
not to control the games or the outcomes. Each Tribal casino in
Washington or the NYS Lottery in NY sets the payback for each game
exactly like is done in Nevada. They pick the return they want in
newer IGT machines by selecting the return for each game or by
switching chips.

Unlike Nevada, the games work like slots. When you press the Deal
button (not the Draw) the final outcome is determined. The rest is
just for show, including the cards you do and do not hold.

To change the returns they would have to open each machine and
adjust it. Don't worry about it, won't happen!

#6

Yes, they were originally dumb terminals. And still are in a few
jurisdictions but mostly they are not.

Washington State is the only one I know of where Tribal gaming
consists of VLT's. But again the distinction really only affects the
accounting, whether VLT or Nevada-style all slots and VP have similar
paybacks and differences are usually invisible to the player (except
Wash & NY Racino VP)

In Class II states (other than OK) VP is a stud game. Press the deal
button and take what you get. The result is generated by Bingo and
displayed like a poker hand.

B

···

At 05:58 PM 9/19/2005, you wrote:

Sorry for overlooking your 2nd post, Bill, before drafting my comments
on your first.

I'm tripping over your statements in the latter post. What you report
is likely entirely accurate, but I always had been given the
impression that a VLT is a "dumb" terminal ... there was no
determinant mechanism within the machine -- wager results were
centrally determined. Have I been under an incorrect impression?

- Harry

Bill Coleman wrote:
> These are all VLT systems where each machine has its OWN RNG. The
> only use of a central computer is to record accounting information,
> not to control the games or the outcomes. Each Tribal casino in
> Washington or the NYS Lottery in NY sets the payback for each game
> exactly like is done in Nevada. They pick the return they want in
> newer IGT machines by selecting the return for each game or by
> switching chips.
>
> Unlike Nevada, the games work like slots. When you press the Deal
> button (not the Draw) the final outcome is determined. The rest is
> just for show, including the cards you do and do not hold.
>
> To change the returns they would have to open each machine and
> adjust it. Don't worry about it, won't happen!

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#7

Bill Coleman wrote:

Yes, they were originally dumb terminals. And still are in a few
jurisdictions but mostly they are not.

Washington State is the only one I know of where Tribal gaming
consists of VLT's. But again the distinction really only affects the
accounting, whether VLT or Nevada-style all slots and VP have
similar paybacks and differences are usually invisible to the player
(except Wash & NY Racino VP)

In Class II states (other than OK) VP is a stud game. Press the deal
button and take what you get. The result is generated by Bingo and
displayed like a poker hand.

Ok, you've turned on a few light bulbs in my head ... thanks! I was
pretty sure that draw poker and Class II were incompatable.

On the other hand, this is the very first I've heard of tribal vp that
wasn't of draw poker type. There's not much to discuss about a stud
game. That's why I presumed there was no Class II vp.

No doubt about your statement that, bottom, line there's little
functional difference between VLT and slots. However, the original
question in this thread relies upon a distinction between games for
which the outcome is either centrally determined or is determined by a
RNG within the machine/terminal.

If gaming outcomes are determined at the machine, it's unlikely
there's room for some type of month-end true up of payouts. Where
outcomes are centrally determined, there's some feasibility that such
a true up might be performed, but I very much doubt that it would be
required to any significant extent.

There are simply so many plays during the month in a typical casino
that results over the course of a full month should be expected to
reasonably closely adhere to expected return. I wouldn't expect, no
matter how randomly outcomes are selected against a desired payout
rate, that there would be the sizable variance as of the end of the
month to warrant a true up of the magnitude that would present an
"advantage" opportunity. Maybe we'd be talking about a 89% hold
instead of 85% for a few days.

Furthermore, in the case of VLT's where a central outcome determinant
was at play, I had a general impression that there wasn't a terrible
amount of randomness at work in generating play outcomes. I had
grasped that they were largely distributed in much the same way that
pull tabs are mechanically distributed. But I'm on very weak ground
in suggesting this.

Whatever the case, even with a central determinant system I don't see
that there would be situations where the casino would (to put it in
"common man" casino slot vernacular) "turn the vp machines on" at
month end to any appreciable extent.

- Harry

#8

Harry,

You've almost got it. The only difference in a central computer-based
system is where the RNG program resides. The outcome is exactly as
random either way. It bears no relationship to pull-tabs, scratch-off
lottery tickets or any other fixed-outcome system.

B

···

At 06:37 PM 9/19/2005, you wrote:

Bill Coleman wrote:
> Yes, they were originally dumb terminals. And still are in a few
> jurisdictions but mostly they are not.
>
> Washington State is the only one I know of where Tribal gaming
> consists of VLT's. But again the distinction really only affects the
> accounting, whether VLT or Nevada-style all slots and VP have
> similar paybacks and differences are usually invisible to the player
> (except Wash & NY Racino VP)
>
> In Class II states (other than OK) VP is a stud game. Press the deal
> button and take what you get. The result is generated by Bingo and
> displayed like a poker hand.

Ok, you've turned on a few light bulbs in my head ... thanks! I was
pretty sure that draw poker and Class II were incompatable.

On the other hand, this is the very first I've heard of tribal vp that
wasn't of draw poker type. There's not much to discuss about a stud
game. That's why I presumed there was no Class II vp.

No doubt about your statement that, bottom, line there's little
functional difference between VLT and slots. However, the original
question in this thread relies upon a distinction between games for
which the outcome is either centrally determined or is determined by a
RNG within the machine/terminal.

If gaming outcomes are determined at the machine, it's unlikely
there's room for some type of month-end true up of payouts. Where
outcomes are centrally determined, there's some feasibility that such
a true up might be performed, but I very much doubt that it would be
required to any significant extent.

There are simply so many plays during the month in a typical casino
that results over the course of a full month should be expected to
reasonably closely adhere to expected return. I wouldn't expect, no
matter how randomly outcomes are selected against a desired payout
rate, that there would be the sizable variance as of the end of the
month to warrant a true up of the magnitude that would present an
"advantage" opportunity. Maybe we'd be talking about a 89% hold
instead of 85% for a few days.

Furthermore, in the case of VLT's where a central outcome determinant
was at play, I had a general impression that there wasn't a terrible
amount of randomness at work in generating play outcomes. I had
grasped that they were largely distributed in much the same way that
pull tabs are mechanically distributed. But I'm on very weak ground
in suggesting this.

Whatever the case, even with a central determinant system I don't see
that there would be situations where the casino would (to put it in
"common man" casino slot vernacular) "turn the vp machines on" at
month end to any appreciable extent.

- Harry

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#9

Bill Coleman wrote:

You've almost got it. The only difference in a central
computer-based system is where the RNG program resides. The outcome
is exactly as random either way. It bears no relationship to
pull-tabs, scratch-off lottery tickets or any other fixed-outcome
system.

Ok, sounds like I'm with you. But now that my mind has fully
re-engaged in this subject (haven't thought about it since the topic
was last discussed earlier this summer, I think), let me summarize my
thoughts vis a vis the suggestion that there was some way to take
advantage of the mechanism in WA state.

The thing is, as I understand the situation, the VLT's in WA state do
bear quite a bit of resemblence to pull-tabs. For each play, the VLT
receives a predetermined win amount from the central determinant system.

That win, in turn, isn't generated on the fly randomly. It's been
culled from a sequence of wins that were determined in advance of that
day. Those wins are randomly sequenced, but overall are selected so
that the total payout by the casino is fixed and set in advance.
Thus, there should be no possibility that a particular casino will
find itself at the end of the month with a significant variance
between actual and targeted payouts.

For this reason, I think any thought that you might walk into the
casino at end of month with the possibility that the payouts would be
set significantly more generously than normal (in order to true up
player return to mandated payouts) is a self-deception ... just isn't
going to happen.

So let's go back to the VLT's. The player places their bet and the
VLT receives an outcome for that play from the central determinant.
It's now necessary for the VLT to construct a 10-card deal/draw
combination that yields the possibility of a win matching the
specified win outcome. I imagine there's a bit of RNG operation here,
along with filtering, to produce an appropriate deal and potential
draw cards. Since the player can avoid a final hand yielding the
determined win as a consequence of their interaction on the hold, the
backup mechanism of a "Match Card" bonus is in wait when required.

I'm interspersing what I hope is intelligent speculation between known
facts in suggesting the VLT/vp play mechanism. FWIW, am I reasonably
on target ... or have I misrepresented/misunderstood something?

- Harry

#10

I can't speak to all manufacturers but IGT machines correct a bad
draw by using a "genie" to completely change the hand into what it
wants to display. I think you are right, other manufacturers used a
match card to correct "misplays".

···

At 08:15 PM 9/19/2005, you wrote:

Bill Coleman wrote:
> You've almost got it. The only difference in a central
> computer-based system is where the RNG program resides. The outcome
> is exactly as random either way. It bears no relationship to
> pull-tabs, scratch-off lottery tickets or any other fixed-outcome
> system.

Ok, sounds like I'm with you. But now that my mind has fully
re-engaged in this subject (haven't thought about it since the topic
was last discussed earlier this summer, I think), let me summarize my
thoughts vis a vis the suggestion that there was some way to take
advantage of the mechanism in WA state.

The thing is, as I understand the situation, the VLT's in WA state do
bear quite a bit of resemblence to pull-tabs. For each play, the VLT
receives a predetermined win amount from the central determinant system.

That win, in turn, isn't generated on the fly randomly. It's been
culled from a sequence of wins that were determined in advance of that
day. Those wins are randomly sequenced, but overall are selected so
that the total payout by the casino is fixed and set in advance.
Thus, there should be no possibility that a particular casino will
find itself at the end of the month with a significant variance
between actual and targeted payouts.

For this reason, I think any thought that you might walk into the
casino at end of month with the possibility that the payouts would be
set significantly more generously than normal (in order to true up
player return to mandated payouts) is a self-deception ... just isn't
going to happen.

So let's go back to the VLT's. The player places their bet and the
VLT receives an outcome for that play from the central determinant.
It's now necessary for the VLT to construct a 10-card deal/draw
combination that yields the possibility of a win matching the
specified win outcome. I imagine there's a bit of RNG operation here,
along with filtering, to produce an appropriate deal and potential
draw cards. Since the player can avoid a final hand yielding the
determined win as a consequence of their interaction on the hold, the
backup mechanism of a "Match Card" bonus is in wait when required.

I'm interspersing what I hope is intelligent speculation between known
facts in suggesting the VLT/vp play mechanism. FWIW, am I reasonably
on target ... or have I misrepresented/misunderstood something?

- Harry

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#11

> > You've almost got it. The only difference in a central
> > computer-based system is where the RNG program resides. The

outcome

> > is exactly as random either way. It bears no relationship to
> > pull-tabs, scratch-off lottery tickets or any other

fixed-outcome

> > system.

Thanks for the feedback on my friends theory about Washington's
tribal casino slots. Sorry for the late response ... I don't get on
the Internet up here very often!

Anyway, I'm very much doubting my friends theory, but hope to see him
in a couple weeks to discuss it further. The idea a central computer
is feeding win/loss instructions to each slot/VP machine seems pretty
unlikely to me. My reasoning is the nature of many of the new slots.

Take Lucky Larry's Lobstermania for example. There is an
astronomical number of win possibilities ... far more than with VP
which for 9/6 is just 9. There must be nearly 90,000 with
Lobstermania (literally from a 1 credit win to 90,000 credits, and
every number in between). Even so, the payback is no doubt bad, but
I can't believe a central computer can control such a vast number
of win choices. I can imagine 9, but not 90,000. It seems much more
likely there is a RNG in each machine, with the central computer only
processing accounting information as Bill said in his first post.

If this is true, there would be no possibility of a careful observer
taking advantage of month-end "tweaking" of paybacks.

···

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

#12

brumar_lv wrote:

The idea a central computer is feeding win/loss instructions to each
slot/VP machine seems pretty unlikely to me. My reasoning is the
nature of many of the new slots.

Take Lucky Larry's Lobstermania for example. There must be nearly
90,000 <win possibilities> literally from a 1 credit win to 90,000
credits, and every number in between.
I can't believe a central computer can control such a vast number
of win choices. It seems much more likely there is a RNG in each
machine, with the central computer only processing accounting
information as Bill said in his first post.

I'll remark that any slot machine in which the actual win/loss outcome
is determined strictly within a RNG located in the machine is not Type
II compliant and would be illegal in WA state tribal casinos where
Type III (LV style) gaming hasn't been authorized.

The foundation of Type II gaming is that win/loss outcomes are
centrally determined. I believe Bill and I were in agreement on this
point in our earlier discussion.

- Harry

#13

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

I'll remark that any slot machine in which the actual win/loss

outcome

is determined strictly within a RNG located in the machine is not

Type

II compliant and would be illegal in WA state tribal casinos where
Type III (LV style) gaming hasn't been authorized.

The foundation of Type II gaming is that win/loss outcomes are
centrally determined. I believe Bill and I were in agreement on this
point in our earlier discussion.

- Harry

OK, I suppose it is centrally determined if that's the essence of Type
II gaming. I wonder how it's done for a slot like Lobstermania where
the number of winning combinations and possible outcomes is so huge?
After thinking about my first post, and the 90,000, I think it's more
likely a smaller number like 7000-10000, but still a big number.

#14

<<OK, I suppose it is centrally determined if that's the essence of Type II
gaming. I wonder how it's done for a slot like Lobstermania where the
number of winning combinations and possible outcomes is so huge?
After thinking about my first post, and the 90,000, I think it's more likely
a smaller number like 7000-10000, but still a big number.>>

They connect to the central computer with a big wire

Cogno

#15

Let's try this again. Washington State is a Class III state. Most,
possibly all, machines have an internal RNG. Even if the RNG is based
upon scratch-off tickets this is transparent to the player and has no
discernable effect on the outcome. Paybacks are similar to other
Class III casinos, i.e. should be in the range of 85% - 99% depending
on the operator.

It has some rather unusual aspects, however. Each Native casino
operates like a state lottery, each machine is a VLT although this
makes NO difference in practice.

The thing that DOES make a difference is Video Poker. The element of
skill has been eliminated, your draws make NO difference to the
outcome. The way to see this is to read the Help file on the machine.
It will tell you that the final hand can be magically changed at
times. IGT uses a "Genie", another manufacturer (I am told) uses a
"match" number. Video Poker in Washington State (and New York
racinos) is random and fair. But it is more like a slot machine
rather than a skill game.

In either a Class II or a Class III state a machine like Lobstermania
has the results selected randomly. In Class III a number is selected
for each of the 5 virtual reels and they stop there. Winning
combinations, if any, are then added up and awarded. In Class II
(and, probably, Class III based upon scratch-off tickets) the final
award is known first (the Bingo result or the scratch-off result).
The machine then displays a combination of reels that represents that
result. It is still random, it is still fair, it is just different.

B

···

At 05:28 PM 10/7/2005, you wrote:

OK, I suppose it is centrally determined if that's the essence of Type
II gaming. I wonder how it's done for a slot like Lobstermania where
the number of winning combinations and possible outcomes is so huge?
After thinking about my first post, and the 90,000, I think it's more
likely a smaller number like 7000-10000, but still a big number.

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

#16

Bill Coleman wrote: "Let's try this again. Washington State is a Class III
state. Most,
possibly all, machines have an internal RNG. Even if the RNG is based
upon scratch-off tickets this is transparent to the player and has no
discernable effect on the outcome. Paybacks are similar to other
Class III casinos, i.e. should be in the range of 85% - 99% depending
on the operator."

How does anyone know if they don't issue audited reports like other states?

#17

Good question. Several points:

Their machines are tested and certified by the same independent labs
used by Nevada and other regulatory jurisdictions.

The manufacturers don't offer machines with paybacks like 55%. Every
one is at least 75% and few, if any, machines are even offered with
paybacks that low.

They are regulated and audited, even if the regulatory authority is
part of the tribe. It is still independent of the casino management.
Just because the independent audits are not made public doesn't mean
the Tribe is trying to get away with something.

Most importantly, competition forces somewhat competitive returns. If
someone goes into their "local" Native American casino, plays the
same machine that they do in New Jersey or Nevada and their money
consistently disappears in minutes they will stop going! Are the
returns as high as Nevada? Rarely, if ever, but they are comparable
to other jurisdictions. And we all know of Las Vegas casinos with
ridiculously low returns.

···

At 03:15 PM 10/8/2005, you wrote:

Bill Coleman wrote: "Let's try this again. Washington State is a Class III
state. Most,
possibly all, machines have an internal RNG. Even if the RNG is based
upon scratch-off tickets this is transparent to the player and has no
discernable effect on the outcome. Paybacks are similar to other
Class III casinos, i.e. should be in the range of 85% - 99% depending
on the operator."

How does anyone know if they don't issue audited reports like other states?

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

#18

Bill Coleman wrote: "Good question. Several points: Their machines are
tested and certified by the same independent labs
used by Nevada and other regulatory jurisdictions."

The New Jersey Casino Control Commission tests its own machines. Other
jurisdictions may have other arrangements.

"The manufacturers don't offer machines with paybacks like 55%. Every
one is at least 75% and few, if any, machines are even offered with
paybacks that low."

Is that based on any source?

"They are regulated and audited, even if the regulatory authority is
part of the tribe. It is still independent of the casino management."

If General Motors, General Mills, General Electric or the other 6,000
publicly held U.S. companies conducted their own audits, they would never be
able to sell stocks or bonds. The market just wouldn't stand for such a
proposition.

"Just because the independent audits are not made public doesn't mean
the Tribe is trying to get away with something."

Sorry, I have difficulty taking your word. Maybe there is some neutral
authority that can attest to it. In the meantime, secrecy means a lack of
transparency, and that leads to more than enough suspicions.

"ost importantly, competition forces somewhat competitive returns. If
someone goes into their "local" Native American casino, plays the
same machine that they do in New Jersey or Nevada and their money
consistently disappears in minutes they will stop going!"

Virtually all Indian casinos are distant from what might be called
competition, and that remoteness enables to set up whatever arrangements
they want--all without telling the consumers what is going on.

"Are the returns as high as Nevada? Rarely, if ever, but they are comparable
to other jurisdictions."

It is misleading to say that, because the Indian casinos do not publicly
release their results.

#19

Hi MHS

You never know if the gambling joint is going to cheat you. You can
have a reasonable expectation you will get a fair deal. So as a
regular players it behooves us to do our book work. We should keep
track of our ins and outs. In 30 or 40 hours of play you will have a
good idea if you are getting a fair shake. Hey, if your more than
10% off your er then it might be time to consider not playing at
that establishment. The only guarantee you have is your own records.
If it works for you, play there. If it doesn't, don't play there.

Cheers.....Jeep.
.

Bill Coleman wrote: "Good question. Several points: Their machines

are

tested and certified by the same independent labs
used by Nevada and other regulatory jurisdictions."

The New Jersey Casino Control Commission tests its own machines.

Other

jurisdictions may have other arrangements.

"The manufacturers don't offer machines with paybacks like 55%.

Every

one is at least 75% and few, if any, machines are even offered with
paybacks that low."

Is that based on any source?

"They are regulated and audited, even if the regulatory authority

is

part of the tribe. It is still independent of the casino

management."

If General Motors, General Mills, General Electric or the other

6,000

publicly held U.S. companies conducted their own audits, they

would never be

able to sell stocks or bonds. The market just wouldn't stand for

such a

proposition.

"Just because the independent audits are not made public doesn't

mean

the Tribe is trying to get away with something."

Sorry, I have difficulty taking your word. Maybe there is some

neutral

authority that can attest to it. In the meantime, secrecy means a

lack of

transparency, and that leads to more than enough suspicions.

"ost importantly, competition forces somewhat competitive returns.

If

someone goes into their "local" Native American casino, plays the
same machine that they do in New Jersey or Nevada and their money
consistently disappears in minutes they will stop going!"

Virtually all Indian casinos are distant from what might be called
competition, and that remoteness enables to set up whatever

arrangements

they want--all without telling the consumers what is going on.

"Are the returns as high as Nevada? Rarely, if ever, but they are

comparable

to other jurisdictions."

It is misleading to say that, because the Indian casinos do not

publicly

···

.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "MHS" <mspevack@n...> wrote:

release their results.

#20

I shouldn't even bother with your slam, but I will this once. I'm not
sure about NJ, but Nevada, Miss and other jurisdictions farm out some
of their testing to independent labs that are also used by Native
casinos. I believe there are 3 of them.

I don't make statements of facts that I am unsure of without
qualifying them. I have done considerable research for an article
requested by Strictly Slots.

A couple of points: audits are done by independent auditors.
Regulations are set by independent groups within a tribe and are
overseen by the Federal Government. Also, the manufacturers only sell
machines with certain paytables.

If you wish to have paranoid fantasies that they are all out to cheat
you be my guest. I can back up every statement I made and your
ignorance shows when you say that "Virtually all Indian casinos are
distant from what might be called
competition, and that remoteness enables to set up whatever arrangements
they want--all without telling the consumers what is going on.". This
is true in some cases and significantly false in others.

In the future if you are going to question the source of statements
made to educate, please do so politely.

Bill Coleman wrote: "Good question. Several points: Their machines are
tested and certified by the same independent labs
used by Nevada and other regulatory jurisdictions."

The New Jersey Casino Control Commission tests its own machines. Other
jurisdictions may have other arrangements.

"The manufacturers don't offer machines with paybacks like 55%. Every
one is at least 75% and few, if any, machines are even offered with
paybacks that low."

Is that based on any source?

"They are regulated and audited, even if the regulatory authority is
part of the tribe. It is still independent of the casino management."

If General Motors, General Mills, General Electric or the other 6,000
publicly held U.S. companies conducted their own audits, they would never be
able to sell stocks or bonds. The market just wouldn't stand for such a
proposition.

"Just because the independent audits are not made public doesn't mean
the Tribe is trying to get away with something."

Sorry, I have difficulty taking your word. Maybe there is some neutral
authority that can attest to it. In the meantime, secrecy means a lack of
transparency, and that leads to more than enough suspicions.

"ost importantly, competition forces somewhat competitive returns. If
someone goes into their "local" Native American casino, plays the
same machine that they do in New Jersey or Nevada and their money
consistently disappears in minutes they will stop going!"

Virtually all Indian casinos are distant from what might be called
competition, and that remoteness enables to set up whatever arrangements
they want--all without telling the consumers what is going on.

"Are the returns as high as Nevada? Rarely, if ever, but they are comparable
to other jurisdictions."

It is misleading to say that, because the Indian casinos do not publicly
release their results.

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