May 2002 Presentation to the Nevada Gaming Commission

The Project
To examine the issues surrounding Nevada's involvement in interactive gaming as defined by AB466.

1. The Task Force first convened on September 28, 2001.
2. The Task Force began workshops in November 2001 and continued through May 2002.

Separate Workshops by Topic
1. Interactive Gaming in Nevada (two sessions): Focus Group with 12 casino operators representing more than 60 non-restricted resort licensees.

a. The group expressed interest in interactive and remote gaming in Nevada. Strongly felt it was a good first step.
b. Nevada operators trust Nevada regulators and prefer to test the Interactive Gaming market in Nevada. Are more comfortable working within the State of Nevada. Felt there would be a "home court advantage".
c. Several of the operators felt compelled to position themselves to be involved globally if Nevada is not involved.
*Executive Summary attached.

2. Proactive Steps to Address Potential Problem Gambling in Interactive Gaming (two sessions): Problem gambling professionals focus group discovered may issues that needed to be discussed.

a. A Subcommittee was convened to present a proposal to the larger group.
b. The group suggested a mechanism for addressing some issue of problem gambling as they related to interactive gaming.
*Executive Summary attached.
*Responsible Gaming Initiative on Interactive Gaming attached.

3. Financial Transactions, Taxation, Withholding, and Reporting Issues as they relate to Interactive Gaming (one session):

a. Discovered an issue that was not common knowledge within the gaming community with regard to excise tax and occupation tax.
b. Wrote an Industry Issue Resolution (IIR) Program request to the IRS.
*Executive Summary attached.
*IIR attached

4. Player ID, Age Verification and Border Control Technology Forums (one session): Examined technology issues surround the one listed in AB466 and Intra-state use of technology.

a. Examined technology for border control, age verification, and player ID and found multiple solutions available.
*Executive Summary attached.

Summary of Outcomes
1. There is a strong interest on the part of non-restricted licensees to have interactive gaming regulated in Nevada.
2. Nevada operators have a high degree of trust in the Nevada regulatory process and would prefer to begin in Nevada rather than elsewhere.
3. Current technology can meet the requirements of AB466.

 

Responsible Gaming Initiative on Interactive Gaming

1. Developed by IGTF and Subcommittee.

2. Objective: To propose minimum Responsible Gaming requirements for intranet or Internet casinos licensed and operating from the jurisdiction of Nevada that would allow such casinos to maintain market competitiveness while addressing the social concerns presented by interactive gaming.

3. Recommendations:

a. A jurisdiction-wide database accessible to licensees for players to establish personal preferences, including self-banning or other self-limitation; proposed as a requirement.

b. Responsible Gaming Operations, to be proposed as requirements:

1. At each login attempt, the jurisdiction-wide database must be checked by the Operator to determine if a player has self-banned using the jurisdiction database or self-imposed other limitations.
2. Certain options are recommended to be available to a person prior to and during play that are session specific, including, but not limited to:

· Session time limit
· Session loss limit
· Statistical display reflecting the player's activity at the casino by time period, such as session, day, week, month, year, including but not limited to: money played, net win/loss, elapsed time.

3. A Player Preferences button is displayed at all times on the site and may be triggered at any time during play, allowing a player to elect overall jurisdictional options or session options.

c. It is recommended that all remote interactive casino players have access to an informational website that will include approved information on obtaining help for problem gambling.

A further recommendation of the Subcommittee is for support of ongoing research and evaluation of approaches to Responsible Gaming that will benefit interactive casino players, regulators and operators alike.

Conclusions

The transition to full scale Internet gaming can be done in logical steps:

Step 1: Expand current sports/race book to the Internet, including positive player identification and border control.

a. No regulation changes would be necessary (use 22.140)
b. Allow operators to prove the technology for identification and border control

Step 2: Expand off site wagering into live broadcast/simulated casino games using the above environments.

a. Few regulations are affected (14.040, 14.045, 14.050 Technical Standards)
b. Live broadcast of casino games using current regulations for those games
c. Server based gaming would be required to simulate electronic gaming machines and pit games

· Field trials could be included under cashless initiative

Step 3: Allow funding of accounts and collection of winnings off site.

a. Appears to be permissible under current regulations
b. Keep the signup as in 22.140

Step 4: Allow signup through a trusted third party.

a. Would permit out of state sign up if allowed by law
b. Requires regulatory changes to 22.140.

 

 

---

Copyright 2002 Nevada Interactive Gaming Task Force