Who's watching Indian casinos?

[Minn. Fatz]

VP.commers who frequent Indian casinos might be interested in a couple stories from the (Madison) Wisconsin State Journal that got picked up by the Associated Press recently.
 
Who's Watching State's Casinos?
 
"The state is not the primary regulator for tribal casinos - that responsibility falls to the independent American Indian nations themselves, and the federal government also plays an oversight role."
 
"Bob Sloey, the administrator of the Gaming Division, said the state's current spending is enough to ensure that consumers can have confidence in the gambling at tribal casinos.

"I think that with what we have, we do the best job we can. I feel confident that right now the integrity of gaming in the state of Wisconsin is in good shape," Sloey said. "I have absolutely no question whatsoever that the games are fair."

"The National Indian Gaming Commission requires the casinos to meet certain standards and also can do background investigations and audits.
"And since Indian tribes are sovereign nations, each state can only enforce rules set out in separate and distinct compacts negotiated with its tribes. States that spend more on regulation generally have more regulatory rights under their compacts than Wisconsin does."

"In 2006, state inspections found 14 problems, such as incomplete documentation and unapproved machines or software with the 15,000 slot machines in Wisconsin's tribal casinos, but no machines giving the wrong payouts to gamblers - which Sloey said proved the public could have confidence in the games.
"Some states with more money invested in regulation, however, appear to be finding more problems and say they couldn't function effectively with Wisconsin's resources."
Tribes Not United On Gambling Oversight
 
"Most Wisconsin Indian tribes do not criticize the way the state regulates their casinos, but one tribe points out that its oversight budget on two casinos exceeds the state's spending on 24 gambling sites."
 
My feeling: the games at Indian (and non-Indian) casinos are probably fair, that is, they pay what they say they pay. Given the deep and lasting problems any Indian (or non-Indian) casino that jiggered them would face if they were caught, I'd expect most casino managers would think jiggering is unprofitable and shortsighted at best. The unfortunate fact of the matter seems to be that many if not most mechanical issues with VP and other machines originate with the players, not the casino or its personnel.

[rascal]

It's not just the form of regulation -- it is the form of consequence for violations. Casinos that are regulated involuntarily by state gaming commissions face the consequences of law for violations, while casinos that are voluntarily regulated under negotiated compacts face whatever consequences negotiators seeking the best deal have arrived at.
 
The differences in the form of regulation between involuntary and voluntary are major, beginning with access to all sensitive areas of the casino's gaming operating data, and continuing to access to personnel background records, but most importantly concluding with fines that can hurt investor owned casinos vs minor slaps on the wrist for tribal casinos -- if, in fact, violations are ever uncovered at tribal casinos --- which would be difficult, given the level of regulation allowed.
 
Would you rather eat at a restaurant that operates under threat of fines, suspensions, and closure from an aggressive health department, or at a restaurant that has defined the level of inspection it will allow and the type of potential punishment it will accept? Make no mistake about it --- if tribal casinos truly wanted the same level of regulation, enforcement, and consequence that investor owned casinos face, they would not collectively assert their Indian nation immunity.
 
When you play at an investor owned casino in a tightly regulated state, you can be relatively assured of the integrity of the gaming operations. When you play at a tribal casino where inspection is not involuntary but rather arrived at via negotiation (let's make a deal), then in effect you get what you pay for.

[shadowman]

I think an analogy to hotels is a better one. Even if they were unregulated you would only give your business to those who met with your own personal standards. I think most people treat casinos the same no matter where they exist. If you don't appear to be getting "what you pay for" then you go elsewhere. This makes it good business for Indian casinos (or any casino) to provide fair games.

[royal flush]

people seem to play any vp machine they dont care about paytables look how many play the other slots which make the bad vp games look good

[Minn. Fatz]

It's not just the form of regulation -- it is the form of consequence for violations.
 
Point taken. I'd say the lesson there is "know your state compacts." If you're personally uncomfortable with the form and consequence of regulation at a particular Indian (or non-Indian) casino, probably best not to play there.
 
But the article also made the point that the Federal government has regulatory authority over Indian casinos. Wonder what the form/consequences there are?
 
...if tribal casinos truly wanted the same level of regulation, enforcement, and consequence that investor owned casinos face, they would not collectively assert their Indian nation immunity.
 
Knowing what little I know about it, I'd have to say there are probably a lot more (and more complicated) reasons than jiggering the machines why tribal casinos, most of which are indeed the "golden buffalo" for their respective tribes, and the tribes that run them, would want to assert their sovereignty, including limiting the regulatory authority of state governments.

[rascal]

Minn. Fatz, taxation is the major reason, definitely, but avoiding state gaming regulation doesn't in and of itself mean that someone is jiggering machines. Avoiding state gaming regulation represents a major savings in audit, security, and accounting expenses. Combined, the tax exemption and the regulatory avoidance represent a substantial boost for the bottom line that is not available to investor owned casinos. The casual assumption would be that this bottom line increase makes it less likely that an Indian casino would need to resort to anything unethical in the presentation of the games, but without strict regulation, who knows?
Shadowman, as always, makes a good point, but the problem is that many gaming consumers are only occasional players. As such, they do not have the playing volume required to notice long term differences in results from one casino to another. While more Americans than ever are now patronizing casinos, the vast majority of the business continues to come from occasional or casual players --- those who are least likely to be able to properly determine if they are "getting what they paid for", to paraphrase Shadowman.

[shadowman]

 While more Americans than ever are now patronizing casinos, the vast majority of the business continues to come from occasional or casual players --- those who are least likely to be able to properly determine if they are "getting what they paid for", to paraphrase Shadowman.
 
I'm not sure this is true. I'd like to see some stats on this but I've never seen anything that would help. Personally, I see a lot of the same players time and again at the casinos I visit. They play faster, longer and at higher denoms than most casual players. However, they are fewer in number to be sure. I just don't know how this works out overall.

[muskieman]

Treasure Island in Red Wing MN is tighter than ttight lately on all of the vp games.  You cannot win to save your soul.  Las Vegas was very bad in May when I was out there too.  The casinos are too greedy.

[Guests]

I've just about given up on Indian casinos! The Palm Springs area is full of them! You'll find more stupid nickel/penny rip off slots and maybe a couple of VP machines. Hard to find a machine that will give you any play time and winning is not an option.

[shadowman]

What paytables are you playing?