Lawsuit claims Former Riviera Security Director Fired For Reporting Rigged Game

I came across this article today and thought it would be of interest to everyone, especially since there was a lot of recent discussion along these lines. The gist of it, (all allegedly of course), is that the Riviera Director of Security found out the slot director had rigged the game "Money Blast" so that nobody could win the jackpot. He then notified the CEO as well as the Vice President for operations but nothing was done about it. At that point he reported it to Gaming Control, and the Riviera suspended him, eventually terminating him when he refused to stop the contact with Gaming Control.

You can read about it on courthousenews.com

This apparently happened at the end of 1011 into 2012. I don't really care too much about this case, but I am wondering why there is no mention of whether the allegations that a machine had been rigged were found to have merit. You'd think that with a full year to investigate they would have come up with something by now.

Or perhaps they did, but the public doesn't get to know what the results were.

It will be interesting to see what information comes out in the future, at trial or otherwise. I also find it hard to imagine why the Riviera hasn't put out some kind of PR statement if Gaming Control did indeed exonerated them.

At the risk of opening up the "Are the Machines Random?" conversation again I, myself, once had a chat with a state gaming commission official about a topic closely related to Spock's post.

I wondered aloud: "Wouldn't it be against a state's own best interest financially to shut down a casino for cheating its players? Isn't there a glaring conflict of interest when a state gaming commission supposedly ensures honesty within an industry that feeds the state significant tax revenues? Would you really want to kill a goose giving you a part of its golden egg if you caught it cheating? Is the state really going to like it when a casino's cheating is caught, publicized, and a casino is potentially closed down with all its attendant loss of tax revenues for the state?"

The state official's reply felt very evasive and unsatisfactory to me. I wish I could provide more specifics as to what he said exactly, but it was a long time ago.

(To put this problem more in layman's terms: If your mom tasked you to watch after your older brother's lemonade stand to make sure your older brother is not cheating the customers and your older brother was giving you a cut of the lemonade stand's profits, how vigilant would you really be at keeping your older brother honest and reporting all the irregularities to mama?)

A similar ethical problem to what was described above was all over the news on Wall Street 10 years ago with stock analysts giving "BUY" ratings to companies that did regular business with the analysts' employers.

Spock, I read the article in the legal publication and this could be quite a case. I think of it as a whistleblower case.

This case raises some other questions including what did the Nevada Gaming Commission do? There are some other news reports that I found but no mention about any comment from the gaming enforcement folks. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2480626.html

The attorney's name is mentioned and I don't have time now to call the attorney or the NGC for a comment but I will on Monday.

As a side note, although no one believes anything he has to say, how many times has arci claimed that "no casino would ever risk millions of dollars doing anything illegal with their machines because Gaming would close their doors"!

:)

Good point Count, and I think there are two ways to look at it.

For arguments sake, lets say the Riviera DID rig a machine and Gambling Control investigated and found them culpable. And for this purpose its a good case study because it appears this story may still have legs.

At this point they have 2 options: keep quiet, perhaps giving them some form of penalty or go public with the charges. As long as it never comes to light, keeping it private works. But if something happens, (say, a disgruntled former Security Director decides to file suit), the shit really hits the fan.

If they originally went public then they can give hefty fines to the casino, going as far as to remove the gambling license from the owners. The casino may take a short term hit, along with the possibilities of additional lawsuits, but with a new owner/management team they would probably rebound relatively quickly. Any state revenue lost would likely be taken up by patrons flocking to other casinos.

If they cover it up, and then it later comes to the attention of the public, not only does the casino take a hit but so does Gaming Control as well as the entire Nevada casino industry. People are already pissed off at the way "rules" don't appear to apply to the upper echelon of society and I think there might be a very significant downfall to Nevada gaming if it was found the the Gaming Control Board was giving flagrant violators slaps on the wrist, and/or keeping issues of cheating quiet. If that were the case I know I'd think twice before heading into town again.

As to what happens in the end, I suspect we may never learn the truth and even if we do who knows if it will reflect the actual events as they unfolded. But in the long run it seems to me that the potential pitfalls are greater if Gaming Control fails to do their job, both in reputation for the entire industry statewide and the potential revenue generation. But that doesn't mean Gambling Control will see it the same way.

One last thought. If there really is something nefarious going on I'd expect this lawsuit to be settled fairly quickly, lest inconvenient facts come out at trial. Either that or one plaintiff turns up missing.

Besides this lawsuit, is there any information about an actual investigation of the casino and of the machines? The lawsuit is against the casino, and nothing about the state regulators.

Wake up and smell the coffee, boys and girls.

Let me point out that the Riv is a dying property with no profile and no clout. But it managed to keep this back-paged quite nicely, as has Gaming Control. Now imagine if this were a big-deal property --- you'd have a better chance finding Steve Wynn in the transsexual personals.

Mr. Argentino and I are in agreement on reality here. In a land of folks who put Gordon Gekko to shame, are we to trust that something called Gaming Control in the venerable state of Nevada has the interests of Mr. and Mrs. Midwest squarely as their priority?

Grow up, people.

Spock:

I do see your logical point that, if cheating the patrons were widespread among casinos and there was a conspiracy of interests of keep quiet about it, why wouldn't there be many more disgruntled employees coming out of the quiet woodwork such as with the Riviera example?

Even so I still find this ethical dilemma a troubling one at its very core and it wouldn't hurt to at least have a brighter academic spotlight shining on its potentially corrupting ramifications.

In spite of my slight misgivings I still have a reasonably high confidence level that, like American Coin, the Riviera incident was isolated.

Of course my confidence would falter (just like most other gamblers) if new information persuaded me enough.....just a slight touch of paranoia, maybe?

After talking to several people, I have to ask this question: was there an actual complaint filed with gaming investigators, or is someone suing the casino and claiming he was fired because he made a report to gaming investigators?

People make all sorts of allegations after being fired or laid off.

This is the CASINO business people--real world models don't fit here! And don't forget the AP agenda that has Dancer & the Wizard beating the place in one of those "+EV promotions" while Dancer and Wizard both originally let it slip that they got hammered, and mad, at the Riv employees at the same time.

Read what redietz wrote about this place vs. the Wynn. Then read it again. I guarantee all the other chatter will die down.

Alan,

Think for a moment. Any leakage of fixed drawings, crooked games, and so on featuring an employee going to Gaming Control is going to be backfitted as a story involving someone who had been or was about to be fired.

Basically: (1) employee discovers fraud (2) employee goes to Gaming Control (3) Gaming Control leaks the problem back to casino in question (4) employee immediately has job security issue so as to frame situation as "disgruntled employee."

You are bending over backwards to make Gaming Control out to be something akin to The Avengers.

All I am saying is that I want more information. I put in calls to Jerry Markling, the chief of enforcement. I also called the attorney who represents the fired worker. I have already had discussions with several people who suggested to me that the allegations of rigged games needs to be confirmed because it might have been used as a defense in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Doesn't it make more sense to find out more before jumping to conclusions? That's what reporters are supposed to do, at least -- ask questions. So, I am not jumping to any conclusions about anything. All we know is that a lawsuit was filed and a former employee says he lost his job over a whistleblower issue. I don't know the law in Nevada and I don't know if whistleblowers against companies are protected or have any rights. Here is info about whistleblower protection in issues involving government:

http://www.whistleblowerlaws.com/fal...se-claims-act/

It would certainly be interesting if the ex-employee and his lawyer can present a copy of the information they supplied to gaming enforcement and at this point I would like to see it. Wouldn't you?

Chuckle, chuckle (hey, it's better than LOL). Something just occurred to me. The strange aspect of Dancer's column regarding the Riv promotion was that he didn't give a won/loss figure. That's the only column I can recall without some kind of tally. I suspect it was suggested to Dancer that he could report certain things and not report others. He reported a disorganized promotion that he might consider returning to play. But he didn't give a figure because that figure might scare off other customers. Discretion being the better part of valor and all that.

I don't understand why you are bringing Dancer's column into this unless you are also suggesting that the video poker machines were also rigged? If I recall, Dancer only played video poker at the Riv for that promotion.

What do the two incidents have in common? A muzzling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

What do the two incidents have in common? A muzzling.

---

You can't prove either allegation. Why do you make them?

My job isn't to prove allegations. My job is to debunk the alleged naivete of folks like you, who publicly state (wrongly) that Las Vegas is run by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules enforced by a Gaming Commission. I say "alleged" because I have no way of knowing if your naivete is real or a presentation.

My first job is to do no harm. Warning people that something very unusual occurred in that Dancer/Wizard/Riviera interaction is not a stretch. I have read virtually everything Dancer has written. Have you? I know something about the chain of custody of Riviera ownership/management. Do you?

I have much, much more experience in Las Vegas than you do. By promulgating the idea that LV is run like Disneyland, you have the potential to do much more harm than good.

Redietz your allegations are reckless. For all we know, Dancer didn't report his loss in that promotion because:

A. He didnt lose much
B. It was an oversight
C. He was embarassed

There is no evidence that the video poker games were rigged.

I made no claim that Vegas is run like a Disneyland. All I said is I want to see facts and I challenge anyone who makes claims that are not factual. Back up your claims. That's what we've been asking Rob Singer to do with his claims that video poker machines are not random.

Alan, have you ever thought of the situation in this manner: When big banks, big oil, Wall Street, or even the US Government present their agendas to the public, we are expected to always accept what they say for "the greater good" so as not to upset their process of "onward & forward". No one asks for facts to support what they're feeding us, even though many question their motives. And as we have seen, illegal activity, corruption, immorality, and unethical behaviors abound throughout. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

Fast forward to the gaming industry--again, another huge money generator for various important facets of our society. So what makes you believe or even want to think, that everything's on the up & up with these people? What makes you have to see proof when someone presents a point of view that mirrors these other pillars of underhanded activities? When there's a powerful entity involved that can and does overpower every human action that's running counter to the plan, we have to turn to common sense rather than rigid proof in order to be able to ascertain what is most likely occurring. They do that in court when looking for the most likely scenarios. But It's jurors such as yourself who allow obvious killers etc. to go free.

I just got off the phone with Jerry Markling, Chief of Enforcement. I asked him if can confirm that a complaint was made about slot machines being rigged at the Riviera and if this man who is mentioned in the lawsuit made the complaint. Here are the responses from Markling, as best as I could type them out during the conversation:

"It's a fairly old case and a complaint did come to us but I can't comment."

So I asked him again, was there an actual report about rigged slot machines at the casino? And he said: "A report came from the organization (the casino) and I can't tell you if he made the report or if someone else within the organization made the report."

So, was there an investigation made? He responded: "An investigation was made and the case was resolved. I can't tell you if the case was substantiated or not substantiated."

I took the words "can't tell you" to mean that they don't reveal that information to the public unless there is a reason to make the information public. I can think of various reasons -- all valid and understandable -- why he and the Enforcement Division would not think any further public comment was warranted.

Now I want to hear from the attorney involved in the lawsuit.