CasinoGaming.com


	Sundays: Inside Gaming Tuesdays: Video Poker Wednesdays: Off the Shelf Fridays: Richard Eng, Player's Edge Saturdays: Pocket Aces

VIDEO POKER

Columns

• Back to Bob's index

• Back to columnist index

Bob Dancer writes a video poker column for beginners to experts. He also writes a column with Jeffrey Compton, "Player's Edge", featuring information on promotions at various Las Vegas casinos. Player's Edge is published each Friday in the Neon section of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Click here to send Bob Dancer an e-mail.

For a 3,000-word preview of Bob's juicy new novel, "Sex, Lies, and Video Poker", visit www.bobdancer.com.

For more details and a schedule of Bob's free classes, visit www.bobdancer.com.

Jun 19, 2007

A Ruling from the Gaming Control Board --- Part 2 of 2

In last week's column, available a few mouse clicks away, we discussed a dispute between the South Point and "Dorothy," a video poker player. Dorothy believed she had been cheated out of $2,750 because she'd been offered $2,750 in cash rather than the $5,500 in gas cards she been promised. She took the matter to the Gaming Control Board (GCB) and won the initial ruling. South Point appealed and that takes us to today's column.

The appeal was officially called a "Petition for Reconsideration." At this appeal, South Point was represented by their attorney (Barry Lieberman) and their slot director (Michael Ornstein). Dorothy appeared and was not represented by an attorney, nor did she bring any witnesses.

Basically the entire argument of South Point was that there was a rule prominently posted during the promotion that stated "Management reserves the right to limit number of cards to any individual or group." Unbeknownst to her, Dorothy's name was on a "list" and such players were limited to $500 worth of gas cards. Dorothy's counter-argument was that there was no such sign posted when she played (three days before the promotion actually started but twelve days after the promotion had been announced) and that a slot club employee had assured her before she started to play that she could earn an unlimited number of gas cards.

(As a non-lawyer, I would have assumed that the ruling would have been decided upon whether the hearing officer believed that sign posting the "Management reserves the right . . ." clause was actually posted on November 27 (when Dorothy played) and whether the South Point would actually be bound by comments made by their slot club employee. In fact, these matters seem not to have been a factor at all.)

The GCB ruled that this slot club promotion was a "marketing scheme." (So far, we all agree.) They further ruled that in order for this to be a legitimate patron dispute within NRS 463.361 that there needed to be a dispute about the results of a licensed game or device. Since there was no disagreement between Dorothy and the South Point about the results of a licensed game or device, the GCB concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, it ruled that there was no reason for the GCB to compel South Point to award Dorothy any additional cash or gas cards. In simple language, the Enforcement Agent's initial ruling was overturned. Dorothy lost. She could sue the South Point in District Court, I suppose, but at least at the current time she appears not to be interested in doing that.

The fact that Dorothy's seeming victory was overturned on appeal wasn't particularly surprising to me. I had, in fact, wagered a small amount with a friend that this would be the net result. What was surprising, though, was the grounds that the GCB used to overturn the ruling. If the dispute is merely between the player and the slot club, the GCB says it won't get involved.

It appears that if a slot club refuses to pay you cash back and you appeal it to Gaming, you will lose because this is not a dispute involving a licensed game or device. This is very disturbing to me. Most competent gamblers look at slot club cash back as being "guaranteed." That is, if you earn it, you'll get it.

Apparently this isn't the case, at least legally. The casinos may decide at any time not to pay you cash back. The fact that casinos don't do this is fortunate, but not guaranteed. Players in Nevada are placed in the position of depending on the casino's largesse for cash back rather than the fact that casino's must honor their promises.

There are a LOT of promotions where players and casino management disagree over how various sorts of prizes should be awarded. I've heard numerous players threaten to "take it to Gaming" over these matters. The sad fact is that if it is strictly about a promotion and not about a machine, it appears that the players are going to lose.

Is there a lesson to be learned from this? Maybe. At a minimum, don't accumulate large amounts of slot club cash without redeeming it. If a casino ever decides to not honor its promises, you want to be stuck for a little, not a lot.

Secondly, if you wish to receive benefits from South Point or Coast casinos, do not act like an intelligent gambler. If you play the loosest machines only on double point days, you run the risk of being blackballed. They may cut off your monthly mailers and otherwise restrict what you can receive during their promotions.