Slot machine regulators concerned about LV topless club

David Strow

Friday, July 13, 2001 | 10:44 a.m.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board is considering stripping the gaming license of the Olympic Garden, a prominent Las Vegas topless dancing club.

Olympic Garden owner Peter Eliades currently holds a restricted gaming license entitling him to operate 13 gaming machines. On Thursday, Olympic Garden owner Peter Eliades went before the control board seeking a new license to operate the property under a corporation, but withdrew the application.

Before he withdrew, board members made it clear they have concerns about a number of issues with the operation.

"They're serious issues, and they're within the realm of consideration for disciplinary action," said board member Bobby Siller.

Siller said he's concerned about a number of recent arrests of dancers at the Las Vegas Boulevard strip club on prostitution-related charges. He also expressed concern about a website affiliated with the club. Nude photos are available to anyone on the site, though most of the site's photographs are accessible only to paying customers.

"I was very concerned by that," Siller said. "It does display full nudity, and you can access it without any charge or identification. Children can easily access it."

Siller said a third concern was the Olympic Garden's $20 cover charge; under Nevada gaming regulations, gaming facilities must be made open to the public for free.

"If you don't allow people in (for free) who say, 'All I want to do is play the games,' we would think you'd be in violation of that," Siller said.

Board members still haven't decided to pursue a formal disciplinary action or an investigation against the Olympic Garden. Disciplinary actions theoretically can result in the loss of a gaming license, but typically are resolved with a settlement and a fine. Eliades and his attorneys couldn't be reached for comment.

The board also ruled Thursday that the Venetian resort must pay a disputed jackpot of more than $175,000 to a Las Vegas gambler.

In 1999, Cynthia Robertson had been playing a slot machine at the Venetian located within a bank of progressive jackpot machines. The machine Robertson was playing was not connected to the progressive system, and so the Venetian said she wasn't entitled to the progressive jackpot when the machine hit.

However, the glass displaying the machine's payoff table appeared identical to all other machines within the progressive bank, and board members ruled that anyone playing the machine would have reasonably assumed they were playing for the progressive jackpot. The Venetian has 20 days to appeal the decision in state court.

"At the time the accidentally labeled slot machine was hit by the member of the professional slot ring, who targeted that particular machine, there was no clear defining rule in Nevada as to either the player's rights or the casino's rights," said Kurt Ouchida, Venetian spokesman. "As a result, the Venetian followed the established procedure of turning to the gaming control board for guidance in the resolution of this dispute. We are considering Thursday's ruling from the board, and will make the decision whether this decision merits further appellate review."