To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: 'John Frey'
Date: Sun Oct 13, 2002 6:37 am
Subject: --Very Long-- NJCCC Q & A's
vpFREE members:
Not long ago, due to the concerns I heard and read expressed on the
video poker groups I belong to, that the machines in NJ may not be
random, or that casinos can change the expected outcome of a game, I
decided to seek some assurance. I did so by contacting the NJCCC.
I first contacted Daniel Heneghan by e-mail on August 19, 2002 with
the series of questions posed below. I expected a prompt reply, but
I did not receive one. On August 23, 2002, I sent the e-mail a
second time, but after waiting until September 16, 2002, I still had
no reply to my questions. While I am very patient, there are
limitations and my patience reached the limit that day. I again
sent the same e-mail, but this third time advised the NJCCC that due
to their lack of response, I was also contacting the office of the
NJ Governor, James McGreevey. While I received no direct response
from the Governor's office, it became clear that someone in the
NJCCC did. One week later, on September 23, 2002, I received the
first acknowledgement that the NJCCC had received my e-mails.
Basically, it was simply Mr. Heneghan explaining that he was seeking
the help of some technical experts in answering the questions. On
October 4, 2002, I received an e-mail from Kerry Hand, who explained
that he had received a copy of my e-mail that I had sent to the
Governor's office and that the technical people were working on a
response. Finally, on October 11, 2002, I did receive a detailed
response to the questions I had posed. That response is below. I
would like to say at this time, that there was intentional
redundancy in the questions, much like the redundancy often seen in
the questions that would be asked by any investigator. Asking the
same question in a variety of ways, allows for the comparison of
answers.
Basically, I wanted to know if the machines had to be random, could
they be changed without NJCCC approval, is a pay back greater that
100% permitted, penalties for violating regulations, and where one
could get a published copy of the regulations. These questions were
answered to my satisfaction.
I will, of course, be retaining copies of these e-mails, but
additionally, at the request of TES, I will be sharing this
information also with all the members of vpFREE. Selected
individuals, who are members of other video poker groups, will also
be receiving this information, at their request. Due to the large
number of members in vpFREE, I do feel that the posting of this
information to the membership via the group is the best way to share
this information.
To those of you who are not at all interested, I apologize, but the
subject is one that does interest a very large number of video poker
players, so I am more interested in whatever greater good will come
from this.
Thank you,
John Frey
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: 'dheneghan'
To: 'John Frey'
Subject: Re: Request for information concerning regulations
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:19:21 -0400
Dear Mr. Frey,
First, let me apologize for the delay in responding. Your inquiry
is a very serious one and we are interested in making certain that
people get as full and accurate an answer as possible.
Let me preface my comments by saying that video poker games are
considered to be slot machines in New Jersey and must comply with
slot machine requirements. One of those is that slot machines, by
law, must pay back at least 83 percent to players. There is nothing
that prohibits operators from using games - including video poker -
that pay back significantly more than that. In fact, on average
last year, slot machines paid back at a 92 percent rate.
I will now attempt to address your individual questions.
Q 1) Is there any provision in the Act, or any other rule or
regulation which prohibits any casino from offering video poker machines
that offer a payout based on the pay table which would exceed 100%?
A 1)Commission regulation N.J.A.C. 19:46-1.28A that spells out
standards for the approval of slot machine games. Sub section 'b'
notes:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, each slot machine game
shall have a theoretical payout percentage equal to or greater than
83 percent, but less than 100 percent. A game-within-a-game may
have a theoretical payout percentage equal to or greater than 100
percent if the theoretical payout percentage of the
game-within-a-game and the primary slot machine game within which it
is included, when determined together, is less than 100 percent.
Q 2) If there is such a provision, are there any exceptions to this?
A 2) No.
Q 3) Do video poker machines have to pay out what the pay table
would indicate? In other words does the deal and draw have to be
completely random as though the deal was from a randomly shuffled deck of
cards? Does this also apply to the redraw to replace discards,
must that also be random? Or is it possible that casinos can by the
use of a secondary program, alter the normal expected random
results, for example, a four of a kind should occur on average
somewhere every 425 hands, roughly, but a secondary program could
prevent it from occurring, until at least let's say 600 hands have
passed since the last one?
A 3) Video poker machines must pay out what the pay table indicates.
The deal must be completely random as if it were from a randomly
shuffled deck of cards. Likewise, the redraw must be random.
Casinos cannot use a secondary program to alter the normal expected
random results.
Q 4) Some areas of concern in the Act are the fact that slot
machines are required to pay back a minimum of 83%, whereas an
expected long term total return from the video poker game known as
Jacks or Better with a random deal is 99.54%. If the machines are
permitted to be non- random, then this fact would need to be
revealed to the gaming public.
A 4) Machines are not allowed to be non-random.
Q 5) Another folklore indicates that at one time the NJCCC required
games of skill like video poker to pay back something like 4% more
than a regular slot machine would to allow for the possible lack of
skill by some players in the gambling public. Since there now are
slot machines that advertise a pay back of 99%, I fail to see where
this provision, if it ever were in effect could be in effect at this
time, please advise.
A 5) As I indicated in my preface, the New Jersey Casino Control Act
requires that slot machines pay back at least 83 percent. That
provision remains in effect even though slot machines, on average
pay back 92 percent. I would direct you again to our regulation on
standards for the approval of slot machine games. Subsection 'e'
says:
A slot machine game that includes a play with a skill feature and
does not automatically disclose the choice that represents optimal
strategy or provide mathematically sufficient information for a
patron to derive optimal strategy shall have a theoretical payout
percentage equal to or greater than 85 percent.
Q 6) The reason some of these questions are cause for concern is the
fact that while video poker players do not consider video poker to
be a slot machine per se, the NJCCC does consider all machines to be
slot machines, and as such there is a suspicion among some players
that these machines may not be random, but rather secondarily
programmed to hold more and offer less potential pay back than the
machine itself would indicate due to the 83% rule. Please comment
on this.
A 6) Video poker machines fall under the definition of a slot
machine in New Jersey, but they do not 'hold more and offer less
potential pay back' because of the 83 percent rule. The machines
pay back according to the pay table on the machine. The 83 percent
rule does not limit a casino to paying back only 83 percent. It is
only a minimum. Most slot machines, including poker machines, pay
back much more than that.
Q 7) It is widely held that Nevada's rules and regulations governing
the video poker machines, for example, machines can only be sold for use in
Nevada if the manufacturer deals only with honest and completely
random machines in all jurisdictions where the machines are marketed. What
concerns many players is the widely held belief that in Native
American casinos the machines (not manufactured in NV) are not random and
that some form of secondary programming is used to in effect nullify the pay
table as indicated on the machine. What if any assurance does the public
have that the casino is offering a fair and random game in NJ? I have heard
some people commenting that NJ casinos also cannot be trusted. I would appreciate comment on this.
A 7) Assuming your comments on Nevada are correct - that the
regulations there require manufacturers can only sell machines there
if they deal only with honest and completely random machines in all
jurisdictions where the machines are marketed - then you should have
no concern, since manufacturers sell the same machines here as they
do in Nevada. Over and above that, every machine used here is put
through an exhaustive series of tests by the New Jersey Division of
Gaming Enforcement to make certain it complies with our
requirements. The very first test performed is to determine the
randomness of the machine. If it is not random, the tests stop
there and the machine is rejected.
Q 8) It is our understanding that machines are tested by the NJCCC
and that all machines of that type and kind are required to be the same
as the tested machine(s) in every respect as per the Act. If a
machine on a casino floor was found to be altered in some way as to
prohibit a fair and honest chance, and not be the same as the test
sample, what would the penalty for such an infraction be?
A 8) The Casino Control Commission has a wide range of penalties it
can impose for a regulatory violation and it is impossible to say
what specific penalty would be imposed. The commission would have
to take into consideration all of the facts and circumstances. For
example, I could imagine different penalties if a machine were
altered somehow by a patron, by a slot mechanic working alone, by a
team of employees in the slot department or if it were altered at
the specific direction of management. Penalties could run the gamut
all the way up to revocation of a casino operators's license.
Q 9) Now, point blank, are video poker machines in the State of New
Jersey required by the Act, law, rule or regulation to be completely
random, just like Nevada law requires, in that the machine's random
number generator produce random results 'just like a random deal
from a deck of cards'?
A 9) Point blank: Yes. Absolutely. As I mentioned above, if it is
not random, it is rejected.
Q 10) Finally is there another source of information in printed
form that would detail the entire Act, and it's provisions and or
any other rules, regulations or laws that would help in this
research?
A 10) The full text of the Casino Control Act is available on-line
at the commission's web site www.state.nj.us/casinos. The
Commission's regulations are not currently available on-line but are
available in most of the larger public libraries in the state of New Jersey.
You can order a copy of the regulations from West Publishing. You can
contact West at 1-800-808-9378.
Daniel Heneghan
Director of Communications
New Jersey Casino Control Commission
Tennessee Ave. and Boardwalk
Atlantic City, N.J. 08401
|
