Question of the Day - 15 May 2020

While self-exclusion policies vary from state to state, casinos have an incentive to observe them, as five-figure penalties usually follow when self-banned players are discovered to have been gambling at Casino X. In Nevada, the requirement is as follows:

“Each licensee that engages in the issuance of credit, check cashing, or the direct mail marketing of gaming opportunities, shall implement a program containing the elements described below, as appropriate, that allows patrons to self-limit their access to the issuance of credit, check cashing, or direct mail marketing by that licensee. As appropriate, such program shall contain, at a minimum, the following:

(a) The development of written materials for dissemination to patrons explaining the program;

(b) The development of written forms allowing patrons to participate in the program;

(c) Standards and procedures that allow a patron to be prohibited from access to check cashing, the issuance of credit, and the participation in direct mail marketing of gaming opportunities;

(d) Standards and procedures that allow a patron to be removed from the licensee’s direct mailing and other direct marketing regarding gaming opportunities at that licensee’s location; and

(e) Procedures and forms requiring the patron to notify a designated office of the licensee within 10 days of the patron’s receipt of any financial gaming privilege, material or promotion covered by the program.”

As you see, some of the onus falls on the player to report prohibited conduct by the casino, but mechanisms are specified for casinos to detect self-excluded players on the premises. The regulation does not, however, require Nevada casinos to have self-exclusion programs in place, as Carol O’Hare of the Nevada Council for Problem Gambling points out. “Each gaming establishment must have its own system for doing this —there is no centralized administration of this program across the whole industry.” The latter would require federal regulation, for which the casino industry isn't exactly lobbying hard.

One state with strict policies is Pennsylvania. Reports the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s Richard McGarvey, “The self-exclusion program is not perfect. Individuals on the program do at times break the terms of the program and gamble at a casino. In Pennsylvania, over 15,000 individuals have utilized the program to help them control their gambling problem. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board is aware of over 5,000 times that people have been caught in a casino (sometimes more then once) gambling while self-excluded.  About half of those have been caught visually and another 40 percent are caught trying to cash in winnings. When a person is caught while cashing in winnings, the winnings are confiscated by the casino and then turned over to the state for problem-gambling programs.” That sounds like an appropriate use of the forfeited money. (More on this tomorrow.)

“In addition, the individual is reported to security and state or local law enforcement is notified. This often times leads to an arrest for trespass,” McGarvey continues. “On the casino side, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has issued 35 fines for a total of $542,000 for casinos not properly identifying a self-excused individual entering a casino or sending promotion to self-excluded individuals.” That’s roughly $15,500 per trespass, so it’s definitely in casinos’ financial interest to be vigilant.

Just how toothless are Nevada regulations? Explains one insider, “Nevada does not have a self-exclusion list. In its place each company maintains a ‘self-limit’ list, which bans the customer from receiving any benefits from the casino (including comps, marketing promotions, check cashing, credit, player’s club points, etc.). The player can still play in the casino, with cash, but that’s it.” So, as long as you gamble on a cash-and-carry basis, Nevada bans should be relatively easy to circumvent.

Says a different industry source, “Across non-Nevada states, state gaming regulators maintain a central self-exclusion list that is regularly shared with all casinos in that state. A patron on this list is barred from setting foot on property, and can be arrested for trespassing if they violate that ban. The amount of time you stay on that list varies by state — some states allow you to file an appeal to be removed from the list at a later date, while others (most notably Illinois) impose a lifetime ban that cannot be revoked.”

Adds O’Hare, “Probably the best company self-exclusion program is offered by Caesars [Entertainment]. When you sign up, you are automatically entered into their master database that bans you from all Caesars properties. They offer the program everywhere, regardless of whether there is a state-mandated program.”

Alan Feldman, chairman of the Nevada State Advisory Committee on Problem Gambling and a longtime executive with MGM Resorts International, says that self-exclusion, “is indeed a complex mix of rules and laws. They do generally all rely on the clinically based foundation that the decision to gamble rests with the individual, just as any decision to not gamble must also rest with the individual. The penalties for allowing excluded players to play vary, but usually kick in against the operator if they had knowledge and permitted it anyway. I am unaware of any circumstance of that actually happening.”

With some resignation, Feldman adds, “Research on the effectiveness of self-exclusion shows that it has very little impact on the broader issue of problem gambling in society. It does however report very high levels of satisfaction among those who self-exclude. It seems that the act of filing for self-exclusion may be, in and of itself, the best benefit. I do know that clinicians in states where self-exclusion exists often recommend it to patients as a first step.”

Tomorrow: What happens when self-banned players are detected and why are their winnings confiscated?