Mechanical roulette at Thundervalley, predetermined or bending of CA law?

As many of you know in California the dice or drop of a ball cannot directly affect the outcome of a game, which is why cards are used in craps and roulette in many of the CA Native American casinos. Here is a scenario that I found very interesting; Thundervalley has this mechanical roulette game, it is not the video roulette game that is common, it is its own unit where about six people can sit around it. There is a screen where you can place your bets sort of like in rapid roulette at many of the Vegas casinos. Then a ball flings out onto the roulette wheel and it spins and drops into a slot, quite like traditional roulette. I figured in this scenario the ball did directly result in the outcome of the game which would be against CA gaming law. Anyone have any thoughts on this? If there was a loophole in the law where the video screen being used to make the bets the casinos could perhaps create a craps game that used real dice but had players sit at a screen to place their bets.

I have also been to Delaware Park and saw something similar. The entire wheel had a plastic dome over it, but a ball would pop out and spin and land in its place. No dealer or supervision. I was intrigued, but it had Double Zero, while the Bally electronic machines had Single, so it seemed like playing it was not smart. But I wondered how it was legal with the "No Table Games" rule. Must be a predetermined outcome based on a computer that just tells the ball where to land, maybe with a magnet? Anyone else see the ones in Delaware?

chumash had one about 2-3 years ago and they took it out.

There is a game like that at Barona too. I'm surprised it is legal. As I understand the California law, the roulette ball and wheel alone may not determine the outcome, which is clearly the case with Rapid Roulette and any imitations. If anyone can explain to me what the loophole is, I'm all ears.

If you get a chance to look carefully, there's just something "not right" about the wheel and the ball. I'm leaning toward what I said earlier, that a computer determines the result, and the ball and wheel are merely a mechanical representation of the outcome. It might use timing to get the ball close to where it must be, and then a magnet to set it in the right slot. If I remember, the ball doesn't "bounce around"; it spins and then "drops" into a slot.

Quote: cclub79

If you get a chance to look carefully, there's just something "not right" about the wheel and the ball. I'm leaning toward what I said earlier, that a computer determines the result, and the ball and wheel are merely a mechanical representation of the outcome. It might use timing to get the ball close to where it must be, and then a magnet to set it in the right slot. If I remember, the ball doesn't "bounce around"; it spins and then "drops" into a slot.

Very interesting. For comparison, I've observed the domed e-roulette (not at a California casino) and it always bounces around like a regular roulette wheel. The occasional spin is quick with little to no bouncing but most are more drawn out with significant bouncing. The profile of the slots is a bit deeper than the usual live-dealt wheel, which they are probably able to do because there is no betting allowed after the spin has started. But really it is the exact same as the regular game, except without a human dealer. There is definitely nothing strange about the spin.

Now, if it always simply spins and drops immediately, it sounds like it is predetermined. Pretty crazy that they were able to do that in a technical sense and make it look somewhat real. Of course its mathematically the same as normal roulette, assuming they use a RNG, but superstitious players will not like what this machine does if they find out.

I do not understand why California has these useless laws on the books that force things like this. Is it really that hard to repeal them? It should simply be a matter of procedure, I can't imagine any opposition to it.

I almost want to take a trip back down to Delaware to examine the machine with greater scrutiny. If I get a chance to, I will. I can also ask someone there why this does not break the rule against table games in the state. I guess I'll have to do it before they actually introduce table games in a couple of months. I suppose it could have to do with the definition of table games in Delaware. Maybe it can be random and based on the actual spin, as long as the bets are taken electronically. Or maybe it's predetermined. I'll try to make it there in a couple of weeks (there's less incentive now that NFL is over and there will be no sports betting till September).

Well, I'm living in Mass now, so I doubt I'll get to Delaware before table games start to check out the quasi-Roulette, but check out the wheel that they have that apparently isn't a table game in Rhode Island. It's like we described above, and you can get a better look at the wheel:

http://www.twinriver.com/virtualgames.php
(Yuck Double Zero)

But it must be something with a magnet...those slots on each number look interesting. I'm definitely going to make a trip sooner rather than later to see if I can figure out how it works...

Arizona Indian casinos have the virtual craps and virtual roulette. The craps I understand, as it is just an electronic image of dice. But I never did understand the virtual roulette, as it does seem to use a real ball with a real wheel, just no live croupier.

Trying to do an Internet search to find out the reasons for these things seem to be impossible. At best, I could only determine that the only reason Arizona casinos do not have live craps and live roulette is simply because they haven't been approved. (Although I did find a news article from a year ago that it was proposed to state legislature to allow craps and roulette. However, I could not find out whatever happened to this proposal.)

Trying to find the same information for California was doubly difficult. About the only thing I could find were people who "claim" to know the reason, but with no factual information. And a quick peruse through the California statutes was no help.

However, I did find something interesting while reading one of the tribal gaming compacts. Specifically:

Quote: a tribal compact

IV. TESTING OF GAMING DEVICES

A. The following new Section 7.5 is added as follows:

Section 7.5. Testing of Gaming Devices.

(a) No Gaming Device may be offered for play unless:

...

(ii) The software for the game authorized for play on the
Gaming Device has been tested, approved and certified
by an independent or state governmental gaming test
laboratory (the “Gaming Test Laboratory”) as operating
in accordance with either the standards of Gaming
Laboratories International, Inc. known as GLI-11 and
GLI-12, or the technical standards approved by the State
of Nevada, or such other technical standards as the State
Gaming Agency and the Tribal Gaming Agency shall
agree upon, ...

(Edited by me to highlight what I want to show.)

Turns out that Gaming Laboratories International has a website. http://www.gaminglabs.com/default.asp and their information is public knowledge.

According to their own PDF file on GLI-11:

Quote: GLI-11

4.3.10 Mechanical Based RNG Games. Mechanical based RNG games are games that use the laws of physics to generate the outcome of the game. All mechanical based RNG games must meet the requirements of this document with the exception of Sections 4.3.4, 4.3.5, and 4.3.9 that dictate the requirements for electronic random number generators. In addition, mechanical based RNG games must meet the following rules:

a) The test laboratory will test via PC communications multiple iterations to gather enough data to verify the randomness. In addition, the manufacturer may supply live data to assist in this evaluation;
b) The mechanical pieces must be constructed of materials to prevent decomposition of any component over time (e.g., a ball shall not disintegrate);
c) The properties of physical items used to chose [sic] the selection shall not be altered; and
d) The player shall not have the ability to physically interact or come into physical contact or manipulate the machine physically with the mechanical portion of the game.
Note: The laboratory reserves the right to require replacement parts after a pre-determined amount of time for the game to comply with Rule 4.3.10(b) above. In addition, the device(s) may require periodic inspections to ensure the integrity of the device. Each mechanical based RNG game shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Based on their own hype, verification by their company will virtually assure acceptance of a gambling machine under most jurisdictions.

Anyway, it would appear that this concept of a "mechanical based RNG" is what would allow these virtual roulette machines to be accepted by California and Arizona. The requirement of Rule 4.3.10 would also explain why the ball and wheel are kept apart from the players terminals, as well as being completely enclosed (at least, the ones I've seen are like that). So it seems that nobody tried to find a loophole in what kind of games were allowed, but rather found a loophole on what could be classified as an RNG.

The regulations do not say no balls or dice, they say that whatever is creating the random number generation must be impervious to outside influences. You could never say that about dice or balls that are routinely touched by either the patron or the dealer.
==============================
I think I see the relevant rule change between version 1.3 and version 2.0 of the standard that allowed this roulette game to be approved.

Version 1.3 required an independent party verify that the machines are not affected by magnetic interference. Version 2.0 removes this requirement and the says that the manufacturer is ultimately responsible for the integrity of the game, and the independent analyst only has to do a cursory review of the documents submitted.

A lot of regulations go back to the old axiom that you can't prove a negative. Under the old regulations you can never prove that a device with a magnet cannot be interfered with. Under the new regulations they only certify that the game withstood the tests that were performed.

It seems like a subtle difference, but typically what happens is that the manufacturer simply avoids magnets and balls in his design, because he knows that you can always create a test that will interfere. Under the new regulations he only has to show that it would be unreasonable for a casino patron to have such a device in his coat pocket.



If I haven't beaten this point to death enough, you would be unlikely to design a gaming machine that uses magnets and balls that could withstand interference from the magnet in this picture.




However, this industrial magnet may also be a problem. The independent regulatory agency may find a problem with this magnet and not certify the device. Whereas if you put the certification responsibility on the manufacturer he might successfully write up a review that the gambling device is immune to magnetic interference from any reasonable magnet that a patron could carry into a casino.

We had a similar problem with active sonar and whales and dolphins. Most animals can easily outswim a navy vessel while it is operating in surveillance mode. It is easy to acknowledge that if an animal is 2 yards from the transducer projecting at full power it will get permanent hearing damage if not worse. You can try to argue that it is unnatural for an animal to swim that close to something projecting that much acoustic energy, just as it would be unreasonable to think that a teenager could get so drunk that he falls asleep on a commercial loudspeaker. But it is impossible to prove a negative. Lawyers use something called the precautionary principle which if properly used will prevent almost any design from being approved.

I'm probably going to make a trip to Twin River in RI this weekend. I could try to take a camera to get a couple of shots but I don't want to get kicked out. I will, however, study the wheel as best I can to see how the ball gets into the slot. Or I could ask someone.

cclub,

Please do post about Twin River, or even a review. I'm in Boston and want to find out if its worth the trip, or if I should wait and go to Mohegan.

You got it. I'm on the South Shore/Cape Cod and never took advantage of bus trips to AC when I lived in NJ, but the shuttles to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun from here sound appealing.

I have seen this rule expressed more than one way.
(1) Dealers are not allowed to spin a wheel or drop a ball in California.
(2) The California Constitution states that the ball and wheel alone may not determine the outcome in roulette.

From what I read #1 is the correct interpretation. The prohibition is on possible outside influence.

While it may seem easy to build a machine that automatically throws a ball, the standards for non-interference seem to have changed (see my earlier comments on electro magnetic interference).

It would be nice to see a picture of the game.

Not to threadjack, but I love the Boston to Mohegan shuttle by Sunshine. $15 (+ mandatory $2 gratuity, ugh)roundtrip, with a $20 lunch voucher and $50 in matchplay.

Quote: pacomartin

I would love to see a picture of the game

This is similar to what we have in our casino, but in addition it has a plastic dome over the top. I would imagine if it is a standalon wheel it would be similar to this. These can be connected to any number of Electronic Gaming Terminals.

Quote: pacomartin

I have seen this rule expressed more than one way.
(1) Dealers are not allowed to spin a wheel or drop a ball in California.
(2) The California Constitution states that the ball and wheel alone may not determine the outcome in roulette.

From what I read #1 is the correct interpretation. The prohibition is on possible outside influence.

While it may seem easy to build a machine that automatically throws a ball, the standards for non-interference seem to have changed (see my earlier comments on electro magnetic interference).

It would be nice to see a picture of the game.

Actually, I'm also thinking that the oddness of the slots that I was referencing in this picture:
http://www.twinriver.com/virtualgames.php
could also be to detect where the ball has landed for the purposes of payouts, since there is no one there to do it manually. Maybe there is no magnet and it is random, just no outside dealer influence. Still seems like it would not be a legal "non-table game" in Delaware or Rhode Island.

Quote: dlevinelaw

Not to threadjack, but I love the Boston to Mohegan shuttle by Sunshine. $15 (+ mandatory $2 gratuity, ugh)roundtrip, with a $20 lunch voucher and $50 in matchplay.

Pretty good deal, I wish they had a depart point closer to the Cape...

Go to http://www.twinriver.com/virtualgames.php and there is a page where they talk about the roulette game, and make mention of Alfastreet Roulette.

Check this out: http://www.alfastreet.si/#/portfolio/games/roulette/. Among other things, they mention that their roulette is GLI certified. konceptum talked about GLI on the previous page of this thread.


So it seems that the RNG is mechanical - instead of a computer chip, the roulette wheel itself is considered the RNG and the random number generated is one of the 38 numbers on the wheel. Very interesting method of skirting the law.


But if that's the case, why can't they build a similar system for craps? Something as simple as a mechanical hand pushing down on a pop-o-matic, or turning a Sic Bo type of dice cage. Two RNGs (the dice) determine the outcome, and no human touches them. So why not?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

So it seems that the RNG is mechanical - instead of a computer chip, the roulette wheel itself is considered the RNG and the random number generated is one of the 38 numbers on the wheel. Very interesting method of skirting the law.

See I don't think that they are skirting the law. The law was never that there couldn't be balls and dice, just that the dealer couldn't touch them. The difficulty seems to have been with the GLI certification requirements. Formerly GLI had to certify that the design was immune to RFI or magnetic interference. They changed the certification so that the burden is on the manufacturer, and GLI only has to do a cursory read through of the supporting documentation.

It may also be a problem of marketability with dice. Although a remote control mechanical roulette wheel may be visually satisfying since in the traditional game the player never touches the wheel. But a remote control dice shaker may be greeted with boredom since the player wants to touch the dice.

The Rock 'n Roll dice game has a shaker that may meet California requirements or they are intending to pursue certification. In fact that might be their target market, they are just beta testing in Nevada.

Croupier,

Is this what your cabinets look like?

Nothing so extravagent for us. We have the previous generation of these.



Ours are bigger and bulkier. They are connected to an autowheel, as well as two of the live tables.

OK so everyone is going to be VERY disappointed about Twin River Roulette. It was not at all like what I previously described at Delaware Park....

For a quick review of the place, it's about 15 minutes off of I-95 outside of Providence, RI. The parking is all surface, so on a busy day like today, you could be walking far to get inside. There are two main floors with casino gaming, it looked like the second floor was completely smoke free. There a quite a few places to grab a bite, including a food court with KFC, Taco Bell, Johnny Rockets, etc. ALL slots are video. There were absolutely no reel slots in the place. Some were the ones that look almost like a reel, but they are actually not (I've seen those in PA as well, where reels are legal). There are probably a couple thousand machines at least in the whole place...a lot of slots. Very low limits in most of the sections...lots of 1c and 5c. There was a high limit area as well. The video poker is difficult to find, and it is absolutely horrible. Pay tables among the worst I've ever seen. The Shufflemaster Machines were Royal Match (Surrender allowed, 2/3 penetration but no way to tell where the shuffle is), 3 Card Poker (I'm sorry I didn't catch the pay table) and Baccarrat (The first time I've ever seen that in person). The Bac was also 2/3 deck penetration with 6 decks, but it DID show where the shuffle was and kept track of Player and Banker wins and Ties on the screen. No Ultimate Texas Hold Em, the other Shufflemaster game I've seen at a couple of other places.

Now, for the Roulette. There were two different stations, both Double Zero Wheels. One had 8 stations in a square around the wheel, the other had the wheel on one side of a long, two sided betting table with maybe 8 positions. I knew the moment I looked at the wheel that something was up. On first inspection, it looked like there was already a ball in each slot...hmmm. As the betting window counted down, I knew what was going to happen. Though there was a sound of a ball rolling playing from speakers, each "Ball" in the slot was actually a light, and the wheel didn't spin at all, the light merely spun around the wheel, lighting up each number as it went around. The lights slowed down, slower and slower, till they stopped on a number. They never went backward even near the end, and when the final light was lit, that was the winner. It was just an RNG, and it wasn't any different than the Bally machines, except it was done on an actual wheel rather than a video display. It was disappointing.

If anyone else has any questions about Twin River or what I saw there with the Roulette, let me know!

Do you have any comment on this article?
============
State accused of stalling on Twin River ‘casino’ issue
01:00 AM EST on Monday, December 14, 2009
By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE — More than three months after filing a complaint about Twin River pitching itself as a “casino” in its advertising, Narragansett Tribal Councilman Randy Noka is still waiting for the attorney general’s office and the Carcieri administration to take a position.

Calling the months-long lack of response “unsatisfactory,” Noka said, “Lincoln will probably be a casino before I get an answer” after being apprised by a newspaper reporter Thursday of the status of the complaint he filed, as a citizen, with Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch in late August, in which he alleged violations of the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The attorney general’s office took no position, opting instead to send the complaint over to the head of the state Lottery with this explanation from Deputy Attorney General Gerald J. Coyne: “Because the Twin River facility is regulated by the Rhode Island Lottery, your agency, rather than this office has jurisdiction to address Mr. Noka’s complaint.”

In his Sept. 21 letter to state Lottery chief Gerald Aubin, Coyne noted the complaint also alleges a violation of the state’s false advertising law.

“In order to avoid duplicating the efforts of your agency, it is requested that the results of your review be provided to this office, so that we may evaluate whether any further action is warranted with regard to the remainder of Mr. Noka’s allegation,” Coyne wrote.

With the Lottery reduced in recent years from a stand-alone agency to a division within the Department of Revenue, Aubin did not respond to repeated inquiries in recent days.

But his boss, Gary Sasse, who doubles as director of revenue and the Department of Administration, issued this statement in response to inquiries.

He said that “Mr. Noka’s assertions regarding a possible violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act [are] being reviewed by lawyers for DOR; however, we’d note that our initial review indicates that there is no applicable Rhode Island law related to the definition or use of the word “casino.” In fact, the dictionary definition of “casino” is “A public room or building for gambling and other entertainment.”

“We would be able to comment further when DOR’s review is complete.”

Noka said he wasn’r “surprised I haven’t gotten an answer yet,” or that his complaint had been “punted” from one state official to another, but he views their inaction so far as “a violation of my rights and every citizen’s right” to have state authorities enforce state laws.

The tribe tried and failed to win voter approval in 2006 for a Harrah’s-backed Narragansett Indian casino in West Warwick, after a heated campaign in which the owners of the Lincoln track-and-slot parlor played a major role in financing the opposition.

Twin River’s own fortunes have since turned, with the track in bankruptcy and its creditors poised to take over.

But in 2006, Twin River’s owners funneled at least $2.7 million into a successful campaign to defeat the proposed West Warwick casino, and then started touting their own newly renovated gambling hall as a casino after introducing “virtual” blackjack tables and roulette tables, and winning state approval to stay open round-the-clock.

Under state law, voters have to approve a constitutional amendment for a privately owned and operated casino. UTGR, the holding company that owns Twin River, has not sought a constitutional amendment to operate as a casino.

“I write to you cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the Narragansetts receive a small percentage of VLT [video lottery terminal] revenue from Twin River,” Noka wrote in his original complaint. “However, what’s fair is fair and the law is the law. … Frankly, I am surprised and dismayed that neither Governor Carcieri, nor you have acted to order Twin River to cease holding itself out as a casino in Rhode Island.

“After all, the governor was vehemently anti-casino when we were seeking one and often referred to casinos as creating ‘economic wastelands,’ ” he wrote.

But Twin River has taken the position — with tacit Lottery approval — that it does not have to [secure a constitutional amendment] in order to offer its current gambling menu.

Spokeswoman Patti Doyle said Twin River’s marketing team also “took a look at the dictionary definition [of a casino] as a place of entertainment and gambling,” and decided they had “latitude to use the word in advertising.”

In 2005, state lawmakers decided to give the Narragansetts, who have no role in Twin River’s operation or ownership, a small percentage of its video-slot revenue, which totaled $674,130 during the year that ended June 30.

kgregg@projo.com

It is a casino as much as the Penna and Delaware places are casinos right now. If you put any human being in that place and said "what is this?" they'd say "A Casino." I failed to mention that they do have a dog track that is very difficult to find (as compared to the casino) and I didn't see simulcasting but I have to imagine it's there. If it is, there are virtually no signs for it. Another interesting tidbit for younger players: You only have to be 18 to enter the casino (there are a lot of signs that say if you are under 18 you will be ejected...they do have "breezeways" to get the food places and dog track if you are not 18.) So you could play virtual blackjack and roulette at age 18 there. Penna was definitely still 21.