We’ll soon find out how much the public cares about integrity at casinos. A lawsuit filed on January 20 in South Florida accuses game manufacturer Interblock and racino Isle Racing and Casino of ripping off electronic dice players.
The suit claims that the Interblock game collected some commissions on its electronic dice game based on the amount won, rather than the amount bet, which was the method advertised. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, claims that the Interblock game has been doing so for years. The Isle is named because the casino keeps the winnings, not the manufacturer.
One thing we learned during this recent political campaign is that the public has a short memory. A second thing we learned? Most people don’t care about the details.
So, taking these thoughts into this lawsuit … do electronic table game patrons care which game they’re playing – that is, does the word “Interblock” carry any brand meaning with the average gambler? And will people link accusations of one game’s problems with an entire casino or industry? Or do they just care about their own games? (FYI, Isle officials declined comment, and would love to lay low because their company is in process of being sold to Nevada-based Eldorado Resorts. Interblock executives did not respond to phone calls or emails.)
Fort Lauderdale lawyer Cristina M. Pierson filed the case as a class action suit, adding that her research on other Interblock dice games in other casinos showed the same discrepancy in commissions that she says the Isle has. She sees the case going nationwide, with electronic craps players across the country also seeking repayment for money improperly lost.
Because casinos keep track of all sorts of data via a player’s club card, Pierson reasons that the casino could use their player history databases to compute how much each player was overcharged on those specific bets.
But the details may derail many who show an initial interest. That’s because the suit specifically cites commission mistakes when players use the “buy” bet. For those who don’t, the lawsuit is presumably irrelevant.
For those who do use that bet, what has been the impact? Players who bet a 4 or a 10, for example, win $60 on a $20 bet. (The natural odds of rolling a 4 or a 10 are 2 to 1.) The machine has been showing a $58 return, with $2 (10 percent of the bet) deducted from the player’s electronically logged total, rather than $1 (5 percent). The suit also notes a 7.5 percent commission for bets that the dice would come up 5 or 9.
Casinos are typically reticent about letting their players know what information they glean from club cards. And, of course, people without a card could have spent money making the “Buy” bets. So the number of people who know they were shorted money is very small. That also decreases the probability of extensive public outrage.
Electronic table games have been one of the growth stories in the casino industry. Casino operators love that they cost less than traditional table games. Those interested in attracting millennials say that a more technology-driven game is something that younger gamblers are very comfortable with. Therefore, even though there are plenty of reasons for gamblers to do more than just wait to see how the lawsuit is (eventually) resolved, the defendants are likely expecting – with reason – that nothing much is going to change, at least not soon.
