Regulators
Side with Gamblers in Confiscated Chips Case
Over the past few months,
Nevada regulators have ordered the MGM Grand casino
to pay two gamblers whose chips were confiscated
by the city's biggest gambling hall after employees
said they couldn't verify whether the players had
won them.
The incidents, both settled out of the public eye,
involve a little-known regulation intended to protect
casinos against theft.
But the players, who won't reveal their identities
for fear that they will be banned from casinos,
say the MGM Grand used the regulation as an excuse
to hassle gamblers who are skilled at blackjack.
Unlike most other casino games, blackjack is considered
"beatable" for people who are good enough
to track, or "count," cards.
At issue is a regulation that allows Nevada casinos
to confiscate chips if the casino "knows or
reasonably should know" that the person with
the chips isn't a customer.
A graduate student from the South learned about
that rule in January when he approached the casino
cage at MGM Grand with $5,000 in chips he had won
at the casino during previous trips to Las Vegas.
He said he decided to cash out after spending a
few days in town with his wife.
The student said he was carrying luggage and in
a hurry to catch a plane. He was shocked when the
cashier balked at cashing his chips.
"The (cashier said), 'We've got a record of
some play but we don't see record of this kind of
play,' " the man said. "They know I was
a patron in the past."
In July, a software developer from New York had
a similar experience when he approached the MGM
Grand casino cage with $8,600 -- about $7,600 more
than he had started with at the beginning of his
12-day vacation in Las Vegas.
Even though the man was a familiar blackjack player
in Las Vegas, the property was unable to verify
that the man had gambled at MGM Grand, according
to the man's complaint.
"The casinos do not like people who win,"
the New York gambler said. "They like people
who lose. They are just using this regulation as
an excuse to cheat me."
Gaming Control Board agents sided with the gamblers
in both cases.
In the case of the student, regulators said the
casino should have known that the man was a customer
at MGM Grand.
MGM Grand managers "stated it is quite common
for players to play $500 or $1,000 chips and refuse
to be rated," according to a letter from the
Gaming Control Board sent to the gambler in March.
"If a player walks away from a table with $500
or $1,000 chips, the casino may not ever know who
they are."
MGM Grand "does not keep track of their $500
chips; therefore, they are unable to determine who
has them and how many are outstanding," the
letter continues.
In the case of the software developer, the Gaming
Control Board was able to verify that the man had
gambled at the casino.
In its defense, an MGM Grand spokeswoman said the
property was simply complying with the chip-cashing
regulation.
Casino management instructor Jeff Voyles, a casino
manager with MGM Grand parent MGM Mirage, agrees.
Players' chips are rarely confiscated and if they
are the typical outcome is that players are paid
what they are owed, said Voyles, an adjunct hotel
management professor at the William F. Harrah College
of Hotel Administration at UNLV.
The chip cashing regulation allows casinos to "buy
time" to look into discrepancies in chip count,
he said. The regulation is among a host of laws
and procedures cashiers must follow that include
alerting bosses to big cash transactions and behavior
that looks suspicious, he said.
The rules end up inconveniencing few of the multitude
of players who cash out every day, he said.
"It's a verification process," he said.
"The regulations sometimes look like overkill
to the customer but we're talking about millions
of dollars in chips (that are played) daily. There's
nothing more cash intensive than this business.
It's amazing to me that people aren't inconvenienced
more than they are."
Casinos can immediately identify rated players
-- gamblers who identify themselves to the casino
and receive comps for their play -- by computer,
Voyles said. But the process may take longer for
unrated players, though casinos most likely keep
informal records on players who are holding big
chips or a lot of chips, he said.
Casinos would not use the regulation to hassle
skilled blackjack players because card counters
are typically identified long before they cash out
their chips, Voyles said. Moreover, known card counters
are often asked by casinos not to play blackjack
at their properties, he said.
The chief enforcement officer of the Gaming Control
Board said the resolutions of the two cases are
proof that the regulations work.
"There's really no motivation for a casino
not to pay a player and risk bad public relations,"
said Jerry Markling, the newly appointed head of
enforcement. "But they do have the right to
not pay if they (casinos) believe the chips were
stolen."
He said players who have disputes with a casino
call the Control Board with a complaint. Normally,
the board will have an agent investigate the dispute
and make a recommendation to the player and the
casino based on the findings.
If the dispute remains unresolved, the matter can
be appealed to a hearing officer who arbitrates
between the casino and the player with the benefit
of the board officer's investigation.
The next level of appeal is the three-member Control
Board and the five-member Nevada Gaming Commission,
which can uphold or reject the recommendation of
the hearing officer.
The report generated by the Control Board agent
remains confidential through all levels of appeal
with only the end result of disputes before the
Control Board and commission ever reaching a public
meeting.
Markling said disputes involving the cashing of
chips are rare and that most arguments arise over
slot machine payouts.
"Generally, a casino will have a good reason
for not paying someone," Markling said. "By
regulation, casinos are required to contact us if
a dispute over an amount in excess of $500 exists."
If it's less than $500, casinos aren't required
to report it to regulators -- but players do, and
that's how investigations of complaints begin.
Markling said sometimes it takes a chip audit by
a casino to clear up a dispute. He said agents normally
take 30 days or less to conduct an investigation
into a player dispute.
"I don't think it (disputes) is a widespread
problem," Markling said. "It's one of
the reasons we exist."
Al Rogers, a longtime critic of the Gaming Control
Board who runs local gambling book publisher Pi
Yee Press, said the incidents reveal a cozy relationship
between state regulators and casinos.
In both cases gamblers who legitimately won chips
were treated badly and the MGM Grand was not fined
for their action, said Rogers, who once made a living
playing blackjack. Such complaints are rarely publicized
because they are settled or aren't appealed to a
public hearing, he said. That means there's little
deterrent for casinos that want to confiscate a
player's chips, he said.
State law should be changed so that Gaming Control
Board records of complaints and settlements are
made public just like regular police records, he
said.
"The law is allowing them to act with taxpayer
money in secret," he said. "That's how
sweetheart deals are made."
|