They are slot machines. Or at the very least, the assertion that they are not is highly contentious, and a matter of dispute which has most often resulted in those independently judging the matter concluding that they are, in fact, slot machines, that they are not pari-mutual in spite of being labelled as such, and that random chance determines the outcome rather than the flimsy horserace themed window dressing. For example:Quote: ThatDonGuy
Okay, calling it "sports betting" is a stretch, but it's not a slot machine and it's not VP...
This is a branch from the 2017 Triple Crown thread about "historical racing" machines, where you bet on a race that has already happened.
I am reading the Kentucky Administrative Regulations concerning this game, and there's one thing I don't quite understand.
Section 1 of the appropriate regulation (810 KAR 1:011) says that it must be pari-mutuel.
However, Section 3(7)(c) says that a separate race is chosen randomly for each play.
On the other hand, Section 4(1)(b) says that the payouts must come "from money wagered by patrons and shall not constitute a wager against the association" (i.e. the house), although the house does have an initial "seed pool."
Either I am missing something reasonably obvious concerning how these things work, or "pari-mutuel pool" in this case means that the house puts enough money into the seed pool so it can pay off the initial winners at listed odds, but eventually it "should" get to the point where bettors' losses should cover subsequent winnings.
It is not surprising that reading the revisions to the KY administrative regulations adopted to define them to be pari-mutual, results in "not quite understanding" what that term means in this context. That was the purpose: to declare a racing themed slot machine to be pari-mutual race wagering, because that is what the law allows. It is designed to be superficially similar to legal forms of wagering where slot machines are not allowed, and you're supposed to be confused by that.Quote: Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming - Case No. 05-201
We agree with the district court's tacit conclusion that we are not dealing with a new technology here, we are dealing with a slot machine that attempts to mimic traditional pari-mutuel wagering. Although it may be a good try, we are not so easily beguiled.