Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleGAMING:
Gambler pursues very small claim
Slot player who thought he was shorted by 25 cents took his case to state gaming board, which gladly heard it
SUN PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
Friday, Oct. 10, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Beyond the Sun
A little-known aspect of Nevada law allows gamblers to dispute the outcome of any game, for any reason.
A gambler named Frank Sciannameo this week provided an instructive, if unusual, example of the law at work.
While playing slots at the Orleans earlier this year, Sciannameo won $8.50. As a local who knows his way around a casino floor, he believed his meager winnings should have also included the return of his 25 cent wager.
So he did what any gambler in Nevada is entitled to do: He put up a fight.
In so doing Sciannameo might have become the first gambler in Nevada to complain to the Gaming Control Board that he should have been entitled to receive his initial wager back on top of his slot machine winnings.
Thursday, the Gaming Control Board denied Sciannameo’s claim to the extra 25 cents. But at no point did the Gaming Control Board call him a nuisance.
In fact, regulators are proud of their “patron dispute” process, a cornerstone of gaming law lacking in less regulated parts of the world.
“People should have the right to appeal to an independent regulatory authority,” board member Mark Clayton said. “This maintains the public’s confidence in gaming.”
If that is lost, the industry is in trouble, and customers will go elsewhere to gamble, he said.
That’s also why there’s no monetary threshold for disputes.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s 25 cents or $25,000,” Clayton said. “If a customer feels they were treated unfairly, they deserve their day in court.”
Even Boyd Gaming, which owns the Orleans, took it in stride.
“We cooperated fully with the Gaming Control Board,” company spokesman Rob Stillwell said. “It really wasn’t about a quarter. It was really a matter of understanding the slot payout tables.”
Before anyone calls out Sciannameo for wasting taxpayer money, consider his claim.
Sciannameo would say he wasn’t fighting over a quarter but the fact that the game he was playing is flawed.
When he put his money in an electronic roulette machine, he expected it to perform like a traditional table game or sports bet, in which winners receive their original wager plus winnings.
Slot machines don’t work that way because they take into account the return of the bet. For example, a five-coin wager that pays out five coins is considered a “win” even though the player just gets his money back. In a blackjack game, a player who has the same hand as the dealer hasn’t won. It’s a push, — neither side wins but the bet is returned.
Had Sciannameo been playing actual roulette, he would have received his bet back in addition to winnings. Not so with this roulette machine, which stated 34-to-1 odds and paid him the value of 34 quarters, or $8.50.
Unlike a lawsuit filed in court, the state’s complaint process doesn’t have to involve attorneys, nor is there any cost to consumers.
The process lasts months and can progress through three administrative layers. When a customer calls the Gaming Control Board, the agency sends an enforcement agent to the site to interview participants and prepare a written report.
The agent presents those findings before a hearing examiner and the examiner makes a decision and renders a report. Both parties are present, and may bring along attorneys. Customers may appeal that decision to the three-member Gaming Control Board, though the board won’t consider any new evidence.
The board rarely overturns decisions by hearing examiners.
Most complaints involve slot machines that gamblers believe have hit a jackpot but instead have malfunctioned. Sometimes wheels spin wildly, a dollar amount is flashing or symbols appear to line up. Most of these disputes are settled by opening up a machine and looking at whether the machine’s computer chip has registered a win or a loss. Machines are typically locked down as soon as a dispute arises and the board gets involved.
It would be unlikely for a casino to simply pay a customer to avoid a dispute — so as not to establish a precedent. Nor can the Gaming Control Board pay a customer.
Casinos are required to notify the Gaming Control Board in disputes involving $500 or more.
Without a patron dispute process, casino employees could take advantage of customers, said Al Rogers, general manager of gambling book publisher Pi Yee Press.
Rogers has pursued several complaints with the board. All but one, he said, were resolved in his favor, with the casino paying him money he was owed.
But the process isn’t perfect. Many customers are unaware that they are entitled to pursue complaints, no matter how insignificant they may seem.
Casinos don’t post such information, nor do they encourage customers to call the board if there’s a problem. With smaller amounts, it’s up to the gambler to make the call.
Posting the information might encourage frivolous complaints, which could clog the system and take time away from investigating cases in which customers were cheated, Rogers said.
“The average casino patron thinks there’s something wrong when they lose,” he said.
Which makes Sciannameo’s claim all the more rare.
It’s not the first time a customer has put up a fight over less than a dollar. A few years ago, a gambler at a race and sports book claimed winnings of 57 cents based on the customer’s reading of the odds.
That customer is still out the 57 cents.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Chinese company agrees to finance proposed Henderson arena
- South Point owner Michael Gaughan’s take on ‘Vegas Stripped’: ‘I’ll give it an 8’
- Romney says he prevented Massachusetts from becoming ‘the Las Vegas of gay marriage’
- Coolican: Henderson officials out of loop on police brutality case, raising red flags
- See mug shots of 16 arrested in stolen-property police sting
- UNLV eager to get on the court for big game against San Diego State
- Criss Angel denies allegations of fight with fired employee
- Lumberjacks — ‘Where the Big Boys Eat’ — hiring for North Las Vegas location
- Berkley draws stark contrasts with Heller over immigration
- Conceptual design unveiled for Henderson Space and Science Center
Blogs
The Kats Report
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (3 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Kats Report
A sophisticated look at line-moving and dog-show handicapping from Wynn's Johnny Avello
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
How old is this guy? Retired I bet because he must have a lot of time on his hands.
Though the Nevada patron dispute process is better than most, there are at least three major flaws in it:
(1) A casino gets a "free shot" at cheating a patron. When casino wrongdoing is proved, there is no penalty. The board merely orders payment. Perhaps mandatory treble damages payable to the patron would discourage casinos from taking so many "shots" at patrons they do not like, such as skilled patrons.
(2) The statute requiring the casino to notify Gaming of $500+ disputes is rarely enforced. I have been involved in several cases where the casino refused to make the call, but no penalty was levied for its failure to obey the law.
(3) The Board as presently constituted has no one looking out for the public. The Board is made up of two long-time industry insiders and an undistinguished career bureaucrat. This does not foster an environment of fairness to the patron.
Al Rogers
www.BJ21.com
There are indeed problems with invoking and implementing the dispute resolution process, however, we all know that many casinos let minor amounts slide so as to keep the game going. A dealer may get spoken to or even a formal write up but it will be at the end of his shift.
Its true that the casinos rarely are penalized and then its only a slap on the wrist. However, one flaw that remains is that the initial inspection by a Gaming Agent is often written up as a conclusionary "malfunction took place". Even the recent Fiesta-Henderson dispute was held to be a malfunction despite the fact that the machine acted in strict accordance with the casino's instructions due to a programmer's mistake.
Confidence in the industry would be better fostered by having a fairer Gaming Board than by having puff pieces about a twenty-five cent dispute.
Shouldn't some clown type in "It's Harry Reid's fault" about now ?
Although I believe many aspects of the Nevada Gaming regulatory process are ineffective and obsolete, the dispute resolution (and work card hearing) process is one that really works. It's fair to all parties and the hearing officers are known to be extremely knowledgeable and independent. It's incorrect that casinos get a "free shot" - any regulatory violations noted could be subject to disciplinary action.
BTW whatever happened to Jeff Gehrman? He was no Ned Day but he and Jeff Burbank convered the gaming biz better than most back in the 90's...