Wow, that's a BIG question -- in fact, more like several questions masquerading as one -- but we're feeling indulgent, so you're in luck. On a more serious note, your query is also timely, on account of the fact that coincidentally, we just happened to learn an interesting tidbit that casts some crucial light on this whole subject, and for which we've been awaiting a suitable opportunity share. (On a different note, our biggest surprise upon reading this query was that a casino has actually been named for a religious building. While we recall fondly Las Vegas' former "chip monk", who has been a previous subject of this column, the decision to name a hi-limit gambling area after a building that's traditionally home to monks and nuns, would seem to be one of questionable taste, but which is most likely attributable to the forgivable crime of watching too much British TV.)
As to the crux of your query, and whether or not "private" gaming is allowed in the state of Nevada, it turns out to be an interesting saga that's seen many and diverse changes of opinion take effect over the years.
When gambling was legalized in the Silver State for the first time, back in 1869, a provision of the law in question actually confined gaming to secluded parts of the house, on the grounds that such activities should definitely not be on public display "in any front room on the first or ground floor of any building."
In time, of course, the onus switched from the desire to protect the public from exposure to the temptations of evil gambling, to the more practical imperative of protecting both sides of the gaming table from the risk of cheating, by keeping everything "wide open" -- meaning, in full view for all to see. Such transparency was deemed essential in order to ensure public confidence in the fairness of casinos when, on March 19, 1931, gambling was re-legalized in Nevada after a period of prohibition. Despite the advent, in coming years, of eye-in-the-sky surveillance technology, Gaming Control agents, and other security safeguards, any gaming in Nevada that wasn’t freely open to public scrutiny remained outlawed until the 21st century.
It was only after much debate and lobbying on the part of the casino industry that, in 2001, the Nevada’s traditional wide-open rule was successfully challenged and so-called "international gaming salons," i.e., private gambling rooms for high rollers, were authorized. It was argued that this move was the only way for Nevada to compete successfully for the business of so-called "whales," who were favoring other gaming jurisdictions, both domestically and abroad, on account of their less-restrictive regulations that permitted publicity-shy high-stakes players to gamble away from the public gaze.
An international gaming-salon license is granted only to those casinos that can genuinely cite the biggest players as being among their clientele: The first casino in Las Vegas to apply was MGM Grand, followed by Caesars, Mandalay Bay, Venetian, Wynn, Bellagio, and lastly Aria, whose official blurb claims that high rollers will experience "the feeling of being surrounded by secluded gaming lounges in a winding hallway fashioned after the beauty of Bryce Canyon National Park." (The description makes it sounds more like a spa than the average casino floor or video-poker bar that we frequent!)
Initially, there was a minimum-wager requirement of $500 per hand/bet, plus the player was obliged to have $500,000 on had in cash and/or an established credit line. These restrictions were subsequently relaxed, however, due to what turned out to be very paltry patronage of these new salons: The minimum-bet proviso was axed and the cash/credit requirement reduced to $300K. Still, in the 18 months immediately following the introduction of the first salons, which debuted in August 2002, a mere $3.5 million in winnings was reported -- collectively -- by the three casinos granted licenses; from March 1 to Nov. 30, 2003, not one high-rolling gambler played a single hand in any of them!
The most likely reason cited for this unexpected flop was the amount of red tape and the strict regulations that continue to surround private play in Nevada. For example, all players who make use of the private salons must be logged in, while the rooms all transmit live video-surveillance feeds direct to the Gaming Control Board. The rules, and as a result the ambiance also, are considered to be much more relaxed in rival gaming jurisdictions like London, Australia, and Macau. Still, Venetian and Wynn were subsequently singled out for praise in capitalizing on their Asian-casino ties to boost high-roller play in their Las Vegas properties and, as far as we know, all of the properties mentioned continue to maintain their private-salon licenses. (Historically, it's always been difficult finding out information about these private-gaming rooms -- we've spoken to concierges at the properties in question, whose job is to inform guests about their resort's amenities, and yet who had no clue that these facilities even existed!)
Until recently, we would have signed off at this point, considering our answer to be complete, but with pool season looming we happened to learn something new of interest during a recent chat with an agent in Gaming Control's Enforcement division. Although we have long known about the special dispensation granted with regard to private-gaming salons, we had also long been under the general impression that this was the only significant exception to the rule, as far as the whole "wide open" concept is concerned. Hence, it was our understanding that any pool offering swim-up or poolside gambling (of which there were a dozen at our last count-- see Cool Pools), is obliged to grant admission to any customer who states that their primary reason for gaining access to the facility is to gamble. It was our understanding that this access must also be granted free of charge, because to be "wide open," a casino can't discriminate against any guest who can't afford the cover charge.
That said, we were aware that when the Palms debuted its Playboy Lounge, there was some waiving of the rules that allowed the venue to charge a cover for what was essentially a nightclub with a few blackjack tables and "Bunny" dealers, present more for atmospheric value than for serious play.
Bearing all this in mind, we figured that Wynn had for years been in breach of these rules, by disallowing non-guests entry to resort pools where live gaming was being offered. Not so! The agent with whom we spoke just put us straight on this and explained that while we were correct in our general assumptions, it remains possible for individual properties to negotiate a waiver exempting them when it comes to cover charges and admittance to gaming in exclusive areas, à la the Palms/Playboy scenario. Our understanding now is that Wynn some while ago applied for, and was granted such a dispensation, meaning that Steve and his staff are well within their rights to refuse anyone access to their pools, regardless of how intent said persons may be on playing a few hands of al fresco poker.
We learn something new every day.
