FROM THE LAS VEGAS SUN:
11-26-06
One of the most troublesome reports from this year's Global Gaming Expo was the suggestion from Nevada gaming regulators that they may be willing to consider allowing casinos with server-based slot machines to change payouts based on the customer playing the game.
In other words, a big-bucks player who is a good customer at a casino (and recognized by the slot club card she inserts into the machine) could be allowed to play a game with a more generous payout percentage than another player playing the exact same game and denomination who is a less valued customer.
That would be bad for Nevada, and unfair for the customer.
Casinos can already reward their best players with more slot club points and point multipliers, more comps and better perks - and that's fine.
Operators should be allowed to reward their best customers, but the games themselves should not play favorites.
Any player off the street should have the same opportunity to play a game with 99.9 percent expected return (or any other game and return) as the casino's best player. Just because the new technology provides the opportunity for casinos to alter the games and payouts a gambler can play doesn't mean it should be allowed.
Gaming Control Board member Mark Clayton told one G2E seminar that he would be willing to consider allowing the change, suggesting that the decision should be left up to operators.
Although I'm sure many casino operators would agree with Clayton, I think the move would be bad for the state.
Regulators should protect the state's reputation as a place where a gambler can get a fair bet.
Allowing casinos to download more generous games to their best (biggest betting) players and download less generous games to lesser players would be a reverse Robin Hood system, with the extra per-spin losses from less-favored customers allowing bigger payouts to better customers.
Can you imagine a similar system at work on table games? Preferred players betting $100 at blackjack might be given a full 3 to 2 ($150) payout on a natural 21, while new players wagering the same $100 at the same table would only get a 6 to 5 ($120) return for the same blackjack.
That just smells bad, and so does the same idea applied to the slots.
Nevada regulators need to focus more on protecting gambling consumers and the state's reputation and worry less about being casino industry yes men and women.
11-26-06
One of the most troublesome reports from this year's Global Gaming Expo was the suggestion from Nevada gaming regulators that they may be willing to consider allowing casinos with server-based slot machines to change payouts based on the customer playing the game.
In other words, a big-bucks player who is a good customer at a casino (and recognized by the slot club card she inserts into the machine) could be allowed to play a game with a more generous payout percentage than another player playing the exact same game and denomination who is a less valued customer.
That would be bad for Nevada, and unfair for the customer.
Casinos can already reward their best players with more slot club points and point multipliers, more comps and better perks - and that's fine.
Operators should be allowed to reward their best customers, but the games themselves should not play favorites.
Any player off the street should have the same opportunity to play a game with 99.9 percent expected return (or any other game and return) as the casino's best player. Just because the new technology provides the opportunity for casinos to alter the games and payouts a gambler can play doesn't mean it should be allowed.
Gaming Control Board member Mark Clayton told one G2E seminar that he would be willing to consider allowing the change, suggesting that the decision should be left up to operators.
Although I'm sure many casino operators would agree with Clayton, I think the move would be bad for the state.
Regulators should protect the state's reputation as a place where a gambler can get a fair bet.
Allowing casinos to download more generous games to their best (biggest betting) players and download less generous games to lesser players would be a reverse Robin Hood system, with the extra per-spin losses from less-favored customers allowing bigger payouts to better customers.
Can you imagine a similar system at work on table games? Preferred players betting $100 at blackjack might be given a full 3 to 2 ($150) payout on a natural 21, while new players wagering the same $100 at the same table would only get a 6 to 5 ($120) return for the same blackjack.
That just smells bad, and so does the same idea applied to the slots.
Nevada regulators need to focus more on protecting gambling consumers and the state's reputation and worry less about being casino industry yes men and women.
