Are Caesar's casino drawings rigged?

[Alan Mendelson]

Don't I get an award for predicting, off the cuff, that whatever would show up on google would be murky and self-serving in terms of information?

I found nothing wrong with the article from the Las Vegas Sun. Details were provided of the various violations. It was clear what the NGC found. What did you want to see -- a photo of the fired executives drawn and quartered with dogs licking up their blood on Las Vegas Boulevard?

Please be specific? Did you want to see a line in the article that Rob Singer and "forum guru redietz" have been saying for years that casinos may not be on the up and up and fifth card flipovers are suspect?

[Dan Druff]

If this is your belief that only the "huge drawings" are rigged, then perhaps you and your friends who are batting .000 need to drop the greed and set your sights lower (since you won't even sniff at a prize worth "only $1,000"). There's a helluva lot of people who, like me, totally appreciate winning a prize like that.

You're missing my point.

I would be very happy to win a $1,000 drawing, but the small chance of winning one is hardly worth my time to go out of my way to enter.

The bigger drawings -- such as the ones with a $50,000 grand prize -- are the ones where most people would feel it's worth their time, because even if there's a small chance to win, there's still a chance.

I contend that most people in these large drawings have almost a zero chance of winnings, as they are likely rigged in some way for high rollers to win.

Let's look at it this way:

Say there's a drawing with a $1,000 grand prize. And say you're competing against 199 other people (usually it's much more, but we'll say it's 199 for argument's sake). That means your "equity" in the drawing is $5. You will win $1000, on average, once every 200 times. That means you're wasting your time participating in these drawings for an average return of $5 each time. No way I'm doing that.

But if the drawing is $200,000 total with a $50,000 grand prize, even if I'm up against 1000 people, that still gives me $200 in equity, which on the surface looks like it's worth the trouble. However, if the large prizes are rigged to go to the highest rollers, then I don't really have $200 in equity, and I am wasting my time attending these events.

That's my point.

I'm glad that you lucked out and won that $1,000, but you can also understand how medium-rollers like myself and Alan aren't exactly going to do cartwheels over having a small chance of winning $1,000 in a drawing.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan since you're figuring out the numbers, here are a couple more things to figure:

Harrah's Rincon has its monthly $50,000 drawing. You must be present to win. I am going to estimate that about 3,000 people are jammed in the casino for the drawing. We know that high rollers have more "entries" than low rollers. What are your chances of winning the $50,000 monthly prize?

The New Year's Eve drawing is for $1-million. But for this drawing YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE PRESENT TO WIN. Every Total Rewards member who ever played and earned at least one tier point during 2013 has at least one entry in the drawing for the million smackers. How many TR members will play at Rincon during 2013 by New Year's Eve? What are you chances of winning the million dollars?

[redietz]

As a journalist, you're joking, right? Sorry, Alan, I was originally a journalism major. That Sun article was blatantly protective. I would like to have seen basic questions asked by the writer, rather than it being a press release. How about, as I have already said:

1) Who were the people who did the rigging? People have their names publicized in newspapers for everything from providing alcohol to minors to prostitution -- yet these guys remain anonymous to the public? Hmmmm, I wonder why. Wouldn't it be curious if these folks' bosses kept their jobs? Or if relatives of these folks were working in other casinos? Don't you think the public would like to know these things? How exactly did the Gaming Commission ascertain who was and who was not responsible?

2) How about the writer provide us the details regarding previous riggings?

3) How about the Venetian, the Gaming Commission, and "Anthony Curtis" be asked what could be done to prevent this in the future? That's the most obvious question. "How can the public know it won't happen again and isn't happening to them?" Nope, no questions. No comments. No worries.

4) How about the question, "How were they caught this time?" Well, it turns out it was insiders spilling the beans publicly, forcing the Gaming Commission to act. It wasn't law enforcement catching them. It wasn't the Gaming Commission. It wasn't the media. So if the insiders didn't whistle blow, this never gets exposed. But, hmmmm, no mention of that.

5) No mention of sanctions against the people responsible. They lost their jobs. Well, a couple of months later, who do you think had the better jobs, Alan, the whistle blowers or the people responsible for the riggings? I have a check here if you want to make a wager on that one.


Really, Alan? You thought that was a good, informative article? You don't happen to do some side work for casinos, do you?

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz in your previous life did you burn witches?

[redietz]

LOL -- no, but I have dated them. No burning unless they like hot wax.


Look, this story, in the Sun, was a press release. That's what it was. A story like this, in a Las Vegas paper, should be a big deal with in-depth coverage unless nobody wants it to be a big deal. If you or I, as virgin beat writers working for an out-of-state paper, had handed our editor this story, we would have been reamed. It would have been unacceptable. It would have gotten us a D in a college journalism class and a bunch of red ink.

It's usually what doesn't get said that tells you what you need to know. That's the case with the Sun story, and it says encyclopedic volumes about what goes on in Las Vegas. The Gaming Commission didn't "uncover" this -- people had a beef with other people at the Venetian. They stuck the Gaming Commission with the evidence, so the Commission had to do something. The guys who got "fired" wound up with arguably better jobs elsewhere, which is exactly what one would expect.

[Alan Mendelson]

Look... I think the story was fine for a newspaper. You want a book about "casino corruption" and you should write one. Or create a website about the subject. But as far as newspaper stories go -- that was fine.

It would have been different if the newspaper did an investigation and discovered all of this. Then the newspaper would be obligated to present as much info as possible to prove its allegations. Here it was reporting an action by the NGC.

Would it make sense to do a separate report about the "safety" of casino operations and the "honesty" of casino operations? Sure. Was that article the place for it? No.

Now if you think this kind of hanky panky is widespread then get your evidence together and call 60 Minutes or the Washington Post or the NY Times or the LA Times, or even the LVRJ.

And if you think the whistleblowers want the publicity, ask the NGC for their names? My guess is they don't want their names used.
And if you want the names of the bad guys made public you might have a problem with that legally. Unless there was actual criminal prosecution I don't think their names can be made public.

Of course, if you burn witches you wouldn't care about the rights of the employees who lost their jobs.

[a2a3dseddie]

I've always wondered about actual suicide rates in Las Vegas. Do you think the newspapers there under report numbers? It seems to me that the rates there would be pretty high.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've always wondered about actual suicide rates in Las Vegas. Do you think the newspapers there under report numbers? It seems to me that the rates there would be pretty high.

I don't think any news organization would "under report." If a news organization has an agenda they could decide "not to report" or to "bury the news" where no one will see it or hear it.

It's wrong for a news organizaton to change official figures. But if you don't want to report "deaths" or "suicides" or "bankruptcies" a news organization is not obligated to make the reports. Call it "editorializing by omission."

[regnis]

When I was a big player and had a ridiculous number of entrees, I never won anything. Now, in the last few years with a very small amount of entrees, I have won $300 and $500.

We did have one casino here where the drawings were rigged not by the casino but by the casino host who drew the tickets. They caught him palming the tickets --allegedly. There were lawsuits both ways. He remains a freind to this day-lol. No--he didn't palm my ticket.

I do believe that because the number of tickests is so heavily weighted towards hi-rollers, that the odds simply make it difficult for a small player to win. I don't consider that to be rigged.

[redietz]

Alan brings up a great point -- accidentally, but he brings it up. Why wasn't there criminal prosecution? That's a big elephant-in-the-room question. Rigging advertised drawings isn't fraud?

I guess not in Las Vegas if the beneficiaries are high rollers and the people being defrauded are low rollers.

If there wasn't criminal prosecution for this, what exactly would a casino have to do for there to be criminal prosecution? So Alan, are you on record as saying rigging multiple drawings isn't a prosecutable offense?

[Rob.Singer]

I believe Alan doesn't ever want to accept, understand, or even think that there is any vp machine that is not 100% random, that casinos are not run solely for pure entertainment of their customers, and that rigged drawings do exist. To do so would upset his universal balance that says everything is as he wants to believe it is, because he MUST go to casinos that are run 100% fairly in order to satisfy his insatiable need for the action. Nothing will ever trump that need, so not fully understanding the casino industry, he will forever ask for impossible proof, legal documents, and court findings just so his belief system can never be upset. I really don't understand this from a journalist.

My two drawing winnings at the Rio were for $10,000 & $20,000. On both visits they put me in huge suites in their separate building. I also won a $10,000 25c keno ticket (10 out of 10) while waiting for the drawing. I'll bet even that was rigged.

[Alan Mendelson]

I do believe that because the number of tickests is so heavily weighted towards hi-rollers, that the odds simply make it difficult for a small player to win. I don't consider that to be rigged.

I agree. These contests aren't rigged. They are set to reward bigger bettors.

[Alan Mendelson]

So Alan, are you on record as saying rigging multiple drawings isn't a prosecutable offense?

For me to answer this, you are going to have to tell me what is the "rigging" that you suspect? You are also going to have to show me the law this violates. Is there an actual law about how casinos must run their giveaway promotions and contests??

[Alan Mendelson]

I believe Alan doesn't ever want to accept, understand, or even think that there is any vp machine that is not 100% random, that casinos are not run solely for pure entertainment of their customers, and that rigged drawings do exist. To do so would upset his universal balance that says everything is as he wants to believe it is, because he MUST go to casinos that are run 100% fairly in order to satisfy his insatiable need for the action. Nothing will ever trump that need, so not fully understanding the casino industry, he will forever ask for impossible proof, legal documents, and court findings just so his belief system can never be upset. I really don't understand this from a journalist.

Hey Rob -- this journalist wants to know where your records and proof are about the fifth card flip-overs and the proof that machines are not random? Put up or shut up.

[quahaug]

Hey Rob -- this journalist wants to know where your records and proof are about the fifth card flip-overs and the proof that machines are not random? Put up or shut up.

Good luck Alan. Sch-C boy has had his run. Stick a fork in him, He's done.

[Dan Druff]

I agree. These contests aren't rigged. They are set to reward bigger bettors.

If they are set to the point where the average entrant has almost no chance of winning, then I would call that "rigged".

Let's say I told you to make a trip across the country for an amazing opportunity to be one of 4 people to win $1 million from me in a random drawing.

Then let's say you travel 3000 miles for this, and I give you one entry. Then I give my father 1 million entries, my brother 1 billion entries, and my son 1 trillion entries.

This would still technically be a random drawing, and you would still have a 1 in 1,001,001,000,000 chance of winning my million dollars.

However, my son would win 99.9% of the time, and the rest of the time would be won by my father or brother. Your chance would be so small that it might as well be considered zero.

This is, of course, an extreme example, but it's an illustration of my frustration when taking part in these big drawings.

[Alan Mendelson]

If they are set to the point where the average entrant has almost no chance of winning, then I would call that "rigged".

Let's say I told you to make a trip across the country for an amazing opportunity to be one of 4 people to win $1 million from me in a random drawing.

Then let's say you travel 3000 miles for this, and I give you one entry. Then I give my father 1 million entries, my brother 1 billion entries, and my son 1 trillion entries.

This would still technically be a random drawing, and you would still have a 1 in 1,001,001,000,000 chance of winning my million dollars.

However, my son would win 99.9% of the time, and the rest of the time would be won by my father or brother. Your chance would be so small that it might as well be considered zero.

This is, of course, an extreme example, but it's an illustration of my frustration when taking part in these big drawings.

I don't know how other drawings are run, but at Caesars when they gave away the cars, and at Rincon when they give away the $50,000 cash each month and the one-million dollars on New Year's Eve, the rules are known. And the rules state that the number of entries are determined by your play. So you can't call that rigged even if low-limit players don't stand a chance of being chosen.

So as I asked redietz, please tell me the specifics of why you think a drawing or contest is rigged? If indeed the person who pulls tickets out of a drum is "pulling" a ticket that was hidden in the cuff of his shirt I would say you have a good case for calling that "rigged." But if you are complaining that high rollers win because they have more entries than low level players then all I can say is "sorry" and that's not rigged.

[Dan Druff]

I don't know how other drawings are run, but at Caesars when they gave away the cars, and at Rincon when they give away the $50,000 cash each month and the one-million dollars on New Year's Eve, the rules are known. And the rules state that the number of entries are determined by your play. So you can't call that rigged even if low-limit players don't stand a chance of being chosen.

So as I asked redietz, please tell me the specifics of why you think a drawing or contest is rigged? If indeed the person who pulls tickets out of a drum is "pulling" a ticket that was hidden in the cuff of his shirt I would say you have a good case for calling that "rigged." But if you are complaining that high rollers win because they have more entries than low level players then all I can say is "sorry" and that's not rigged.

But are you 100% sure that they don't award a higher number of 'base' entries to certain people?

That they don't give a higher number of entries for every tier credit earned to certain people?

That they don't just award large number of bonus entries to certain people?

Without knowing these things, you DON'T know what the rules of the drawing really are.

[redietz]

I'm saying the Venetian drawings were rigged -- at minimum the three that were "caught" -- and this was not prosecuted. I believe this to be illegal, as a gaming entity cannot engage in activities that cannot be won by certain participants without informing the participants.

I know that once NFL teams are mathematically eliminated from winning the Super Bowl, it is illegal to post odds on them to win the Super Bowl. This is fraud.

What I want to know is how a major casino, a major corporate entity, is not prosecuted for advertising drawings that were rigged, and which they acknowledge were rigged.

You know, there are many unanswered questions regarding those Venetian drawings. Did the Venetian make the high rollers give back the prizes? Anybody want to guess that answer? Did the Venetian redistribute the prize money to non-high-roller participants who took part in the drawings but wound up getting ripped off? Guess what the answer to that one is.