- 32 -
Respondent did not call any witness, or expert witness, to
counter Mr. Nicely’s conclusions. We find Mr. Nicely to be
credible and rely on his expert opinion.
Mr. Nicely credibly explained why he used the figures for
return to player (RTP) set forth in his report. Mr. Nicely
stated that the machines petitioner played are “class 2
electronic pull tab machines” which have an RTP of between 55 and
90 percent. The operating manual for such machines states that
the default setting is 80 percent RTP.
We conclude that Mr. Nicely’s “best case scenario” of 90
percent RTP (the figure normally used in the gaming industry) for
Mr. Gagliardi’s expected wins or losses was reasonable, given his
research,25 his expert opinion that the casinos at which Mr.
25 Mr. Nicely never worked for any of the casinos where Mr.
Gagliardi gambled. The casinos are under no obligation to
publish their RTP. Mr. Nicely researched the expected RTP at the
casinos in such publications as the Wall Street Journal (70
percent RTP); the Sacramento Bee (90 percent RTP), which quoted
Bill Eadington (the director of Study for Center of Gambling and
Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada Reno); and the
Orange County Register (90 percent RTP). These news articles all
were about RTP at California Indian Nation casinos.
Industry contacts of Mr. Nicely thought the casinos’ RTP was
in the low 80 percent range. Mr. Nicely also testified that
Washington State promotes its Indian Nation gaming as having the
best RTP in the United States and lists the RTP as between 70
percent and 90 percent.
Mr. Nicely also explained that on some slot machines a
player can win a certain payout only if the player gambles the
maximum amount--known as “buy a bet”, “buy a pay”, or “buy a
bonus”. The maximum expected RTP is obtained only by playing the
maximum bet on this type of machine.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008