The Difficulty of Regulation

When it comes to both land-based casinos and online casinos alike, one of the questions that is most often asked at any hint of a casino’s wrongdoing is, “Why aren’t the penalties more severe?” It seems that casinos can perpetrate any number of acts against players and, in those rare events that they are found to have committed those by the licensing body, they suffer little more than a slap on the wrist.

Why is it that individual players, for whom the sum of money they are wronged might be substantial, should have to suffer such a financial blow while the casino walks away seemingly unscathed? While this may seem fundamentally unfair, there are a number of reasons why, which we will take a look at in this editorial.

Punishing the Right People:

The first thing that should happen when it comes to penalties against casinos who have behaved wrongly is that those penalties should directly impact the people who implemented the policies that led to the wrongdoing, to begin with. In the case of online casinos, for example, if there are misleading advertisements pertaining to promotions or insufficient self-exclusion procedures in place, then the punishment for such acts needs to come from the top down because that is precisely where the wrongful acts are coming from.

The majority of low-level casino employees cannot be expected to know what all of the specific regulations are. They cannot be expected to have the licensing code memorized unless it is their specific job to do so, and in which case, they would not be low-level employees. These people usually just have what they are supposed to be doing dictated to them and then they follow through accordingly. Even in such cases that they point out a procedural error to their superiors (assuming we are talking about people who have the gall to do so, most don’t), it is difficult to say whether or not those superiors will act upon their recommendations. There is certainly very little, if anything, that the individual person can do to ensure that his/her company complies.

Furthermore, such an employee could theoretically bring the matter forth to gaming himself or herself, but many people would not do that out of fear of losing their jobs. Whistleblowers, as they are called, tend not to be the most popular people around the watercooler. Unfortunately, that perpetuates a culture of being deliberately unaware of bad acts by your employer, or at least willing to ignore such acts.

The individuals who put the procedures in place, all the way up to the CEO (or equivalent) of the entire company should be expected to know the regulatory codes to a fault and to apply them stringently. If they fail to do so, then the failures should fall upon them and one punishment would be for the licensing body to demand that those executives be replaced. While that has happened on a few occasions, it is most definitely rare.

The problem with handing out bigger fines to the casinos is that while it seems to be punishing the right people, it really doesn’t. Any monies that are paid out by a casino in the way of fines will be made up for elsewhere. The easiest way to do that is to take a look at the employee roster and try to determine how many you can let go to save money while still operating more-or-less effectively.

The result of such a procedure is that many low-level employees will lose their jobs as a result. While the subject matter of the violation ends up being rectified, the downside is that the experience of the customers will suffer as customer service positions are cut in an effort to save money. Additionally, the casino may revisit its offers, games and promotions to try to take a bigger cut of the coin-in that people are wagering in order to assuage the monies lost by way of fines. Interestingly, that would mean that while the casino becomes better in the eyes of the regulator, it can become worse in the eyes of the average player.

It’s not that difficult of a thing to do, particularly on slot machine games. The removal of a couple of symbols, or slowdown of progressive meters, can easily make differences well in excess of one percent. When that happens, the player suffers and the player’s money does not last as long. Whether or not the player becomes aware of the degraded returns largely depends on the rules in place for disclosure, and how often the disclosures take place, as determined by the jurisdiction in question.

In the meantime, it is important to remember that, ‘Job,’ is not merely an abstract term and that there are people behind these casinos. Many of these low-level employees are financially worse off than many of you guys reading this, and the impact of losing that job in a casino’s effort to save money to cover that fine could be devastating for that person and his/her family.

Concerning the actual casino, with land-based casinos that is less money that can be put into infrastructure and having game offerings comparable to those of the best casinos out there. Once again, the money lost by the casino has a direct impact on the players in that it can potentially degrade the quality of their experiences with that casino. While there should certainly be penalties in place, it should be required that any financial penalties come directly out of the salaries of the higher ups rather than the casino’s general coffers.

The overall idea is one of holding the responsible individuals responsible. Many licensing jurisdictions fail to do that or even to help individual players as they do not directly mediate any affairs between the players and the casino. Onto that:

Helping the Players:

Generally speaking, regulatory agencies will often become aware of breaches of the rules governing the casino’s conduct as a result of how the casino has treated a player. In most cases, both online and off, the licensing jurisdiction does not mediate between the casino and the player to find a mutually agreeable solution. In other words, while the casino may eventually make restitution to gaming (by way of a fine) the wronged player is still wronged.

For example, if an online casino were to straight up no pay you without a violation of the Terms & Conditions on your part, and you could prove it, do you think that reporting them to gaming would get you your money back? Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be in most cases because that is not what gaming does. What gaming might do is investigate the complaint and issue a statement of findings and a subsequent fine against the operator, but what does that do for you?

That’s an important question because the casino certainly has enough money, gaming certainly has enough money, but what was the financial impact on you, the player?

In my opinion, gaming jurisdictions should take a more proactive rule in dispute resolution between individual players and the casino. We occasionally see this happen in Nevada out of disputes that arise from mispays, but that is an unusual example. Nevada is basically the world leader for land casinos in terms of player protection. While most gaming departments will listen to any complaints you may have, and may investigate them accordingly, very rarely do they intervene directly between the player and the casino.

That’s why it is fortunate that we have sites such as this one, with user scores, comprehensive reviews and live casino reps so that players can get the answers they deserve when they have a problem with a bet shop. Even if a player cannot get those answers, they can at least air out their frustrations and the reputation of the casino will be affected accordingly by way of how well it scores in the eyes of those who choose to review it.

Again, it should be the licensing jurisdiction that looks out for the players. After all, isn’t the licensing jurisdiction the entity responsible for the casino’s ability to operate in the first place? That’s a perfect world scenario, though. Fortunately, there are other players and affiliates such as LCB to look out for you in the meantime. While the decisions rendered by the court of public opinion may not be legally binding, they can affect those companies found guilty in other ways.

The other problem the regulators have is that they would have to come to the aide of all players who sought them out, whether or not the claims made by the players were legitimate. That’s probably the primary concern. If the player could go directly to gaming with everything anytime, there was even a hint of a problem needing resolving, then the player would simply do that all of the time. At the same time, though, should gambling not have a responsibility to be accountable to the players that it allows to play at the casinos that they permit to exist? The regulatory body should be about player protection, if not, just let whoever wants to open a casino do so and be accountable only unto them.

Licensing is an Issue:

Another problem is that the various jurisdictions cannot wantonly toss out steep fines to casinos, particularly not for first offenses, because then those casinos may simply choose not to operate in that jurisdiction. That’s not so much an issue with casinos that have a physical presence, as it’s not like they can just pick up and move the entire property somewhere else, but it could be a problem with Internet casinos.

If the operators of Internet Casinos perceive the licensing body as unfair, then they may simply seek out licensing somewhere else or pull out of the market altogether. There’s no point of being in a market at all if you’re not going to make money.

When it comes to financial sanctions against casinos, the balance is even more delicate. If you give them a slap on the wrist, the casino might even publicly laugh off the fine. If you fine them too harshly, the casino might choose to leave the jurisdiction or might make up its money elsewhere by cutting jobs.

In terms of physical casinos, technically most gaming agencies have a responsibility to test all of the individual machines for fairness. Naturally, that doesn’t happen. Therefore, it is possible even in Land Casinos for players to be getting ripped off by the machines (not saying it is happening) and if they were, it would take extensive mathematical testing to be able to prove it. The burden of the expected loss to even conduct such testing is so insurmountable that most people would never be inclined to try.

Even when some wrongdoing is suspected, it is possible that the game is gaffed just enough that an even larger sample size that otherwise expected would be needed to constitute proof. In effect, someone could run terribly while fairness was testing something, but not badly enough to make any absolute conclusions despite the fact that it was their suppositions that caused them to test the game in the first place.

The Wizard of Odds himself, Michael Shackleford, recently tested the Organic Roulette game manufactured and distributed by Interblock.

That testing prompted by a player who believed he could track the wheel well enough to make bets within the allotted time such that he should experience positive results by betting, ‘Sections,’ of the wheel. As it turns out, it didn’t happen that way and the player lost.

The nature of the allegation was such that, based on the natural movement of the ball, the game was deliberately preventing the ball from landing in any slots (in general) that would benefit a bet that was chosen towards the end of the allotted betting time. This so-called, “Safe Mode,” had it such that if any substantial bets came in during the last few seconds of the allowed betting period, that the Interblock game could deliberately avoid those bets.

The Wizard of Odds as well as the accuser both took to a field test of this game to determine whether or not the accuser had it correct. As it turns out, the performance as compared to expected was worse, just not enough so that it would indicate a deliberate fix was in place. In fact, the results are probably such that Nevada Gaming is not going to see fit to investigate the matter, nor will any other jurisdiction.

Is it possible for the machine to deliberately punish late bettors who have the theoretical opportunity to bet with an edge having clocked the speed and motion of the ball? We will probably never know. Either way, the results are certainly enough to keep me away from those machines unless I had a really good reason to play them.

To what extent would Gaming even be able to get out in front of something like this ahead of time even if the cheating did exist? So much of the information stored in slot machines and other devices is code now that Gaming would have to have as many individuals employed with them as the totality of slot machine companies to stay on top of things. It’s just not possible!

That’s not to say that all of the casinos do whatever they want because any investigation brought about by gaming leads to a loss of consumer confidence, regardless of whether or not the casino is found to have committed any wrongdoing. If the casino is found of doing something wrong, the general public is not satisfied with gaming slapping a small penalty on them and calling it a day and they will spend their time avoiding the casino in question.

Other Findings:

While the vast majority of disputes with casinos tend to involve money directly, or money lost by way of games that are allegedly rigged, there are a number of other things that can come into play.

Over the years, online casinos have occasionally been found guilty., by some of the better regulators, of not having sufficient self-exclusion availability for those players who do not wish to gamble anymore. It is acknowledged almost Universally, by both those in and out of the industry, that gambling addiction is a very real problem for some people and needs to be addressed accordingly. That starts with the casino at least forcing the player to discontinue playing there at the player’s request. Even more importantly, the casino needs to make the availability of that mechanism both obvious and easy to do.

Furthermore, casinos should also be forced to offer players the ability to set maximum loss limits and daily/weekly/monthly online deposit limits tailored to the player. In many cases, self-exclusion is seen as an all-or-none affair (in land casinos, it is) so some players would rather continue to gamble in a way that makes them unhappy rather than not gamble at a certain casino at all. What the casino should do, and indeed the technological capacity exists, is to give players the ability to set their own limits for everything.

The best way to do that would not be to have those limits set when the player is already in the process of having gambled with that provider. Better still would be for the player to configure those settings upon signing up for the casino, and then those settings could not be changed for a year unless it involved the amounts being decreased. In terms of any increases, the player would be given the option to do that after one full year of the most recent settings.

Casinos also need to be completely open and honest in their advertising practices, which (to me) includes the full Terms and Conditions and Bonus Terms being on the same page as the button that one clicks to sign up for the casino. The player should not have to scroll down and click search through the entire website to find the general Terms & Conditions, and the Bonus Terms should not have a completely separate page from the General Terms. Otherwise, it looks like there is only one set of terms.

Fortunately, many casinos (seemingly of their own accord) do a pretty good job of highlighting a few of the most relevant terms (such as playthrough) on the same page that states the more specific bonus information, so kudos to those places! I thumb my nose at any casinos, however, that do not have any relevant Bonus Terms on the same page as the General Terms and Conditions. That’s almost inexcusable, in my opinion.

The casinos also should be more specific with the information that they give players as to where the players are in any withdrawal process. If an individual’s play is investigated, then the person deserves to know that as soon as the investigation begins. If the casino believes they have reason to doubt the player’s identity, then they should give the player the benefit of the doubt and notify him/her of that rather than stalling for time or not responding at all. Again, this comes down to the fact that individual players are the most affected party in all of casino gaming, so they should be treated with the utmost courtesy and respect. That includes never being left in the dark about anything unless it is absolutely necessary.

In the meantime, for casinos who are less communicative, the players are forced to sit on pins and needles wondering whether or not they are going to get paid until that withdrawal finally hits whatever form they wanted it to take, or they get that check. While that is always a good feeling, the days leading up to it wondering whether or not they were going to get paid tend to take away from the fun of both gambling and having won. After all, what good is winning money if you don’t get it?

The casinos should also be forced to have as few restrictions on players and requirements for the players to follow as possible in the Terms & Conditions as well as any Bonus terms. The fact of the matter is that the casinos strive to prevent players from having a way to exploit the bonuses that are within the rules while somehow forgetting that the easiest way to prevent that is simply not to have a bonus that can be exploited!

Playthrough requirements are generally stated pretty clearly, but if any games are not allowed to be played while on a bonus, the casino should be programmed such that the player has no access to those games. In effect, the player could literally not play those games no matter how hard he may try. If there are special minimum and maximum wagers associated with a bonus such as to avoid, “Bet Structuring,” then the player’s account should be modified while on the bonus to ensure that the player is completely incapable of betting outside of that range.

The gaming bodies need to take the responsibility that the casino wants to put on the player and move it right back where it belongs, to the casino. The players should not have to spend the better part of an hour reading terms and conditions written in legalize just so that they don’t run afoul of some obscure condition that does not intuitively seem like it would be in there. For example, who would think that if you lost all your money on one bonus that you would have to complete the wagering requirements of that bonus first (with a new deposit) to take a future bonus? There’s no way anybody sees that coming without reading the terms.

There is some benefit for the industry on the business side by doing this, too. The goal of an online casino is to essentially mirror brick-and-mortar casinos in terms of game offerings and gameplay. As anybody is aware, a player can walk directly into a brick-and-mortar casino, sit down, and start playing at a slot machine. Online casinos need to be as close to the same way as possible to better facilitate a better experience for the player. Who wants to take a bonus and subsequently take a $50 shot when running short on bankroll only to win a huge amount but be told it is forfeited because more than $10 was bet on a spin while playing a bonus?

Show of hands?

Again, that’s both no fun and not at all conducive to the experience that one would get at a land-based casino in the slightest.

Conclusion:

It seems that most gaming divisions have a tendency to become entities unto themselves and accountable only to themselves. That is most unfortunate because the primary goal of gambling, even beyond licensing, should be the protection of individual players.

While gambling has a tough job to do in figuring out how to punish bad operators, it would still be nice if they took a little bit of focus off of the operators and put it back on the players. Currently, operators get away with all sorts of complicated Terms & Conditions that have the capacity to avoid bonus winnings when the technological capacity exists such that they can assure that those terms are never violated in the first place.

While many casinos will enact player-friendly measures on their own, that cannot be said for all of them. For the ones whom it can’t, they’re not even always doing anything wrong; they’re just doing what the licensing body allows them to get away with. If we want to see a better, and most importantly, easier, gaming experience, then we need to flood the jurisdictions with E-Mails as to the changes we would like to see in online casinos. Again, that doesn’t mean to request ridiculous things, but it does mean to request things that will make online gambling fun for the average player again.