Slots

Yes, but only if the employee can guard the cart and still see what each drop team member is doing at all times.

No, surveillance personnel may not have adequate camera coverage to monitor all areas of the casino floor and detect possible theft by drop team members.

Yes.  The security officer serving as a stand-in during the absence of a count team member is considered a count team member participating in the count.  Since the security officer is considered a count team member, the intent of this MICS is met.  As such, the security officer will need to sign documentation evidencing their involvement in the count process in compliance with Slots MICS #17 and #53 and Table Games MICS #123, as applicable.  Additionally, the security officer is to be reported as a count team member pursuant to Regulation 6.130(2).

Yes, as long as the count team members do not have access to the previous coin drop and currency drop slot machine meter amounts to calculate the actual coin drop and currency drop amounts.  However, count team members cannot record the slot machine drop meters if the slot machine meter provides the actual drop amount without requiring any type of calculation and the count team members would have knowledge of the meter drop amount during the count process.  Additionally, refer to Slots MICS #107 for further requirements.

Any currency acceptor drop is to be performed with three employees in compliance with these MICS.  However, the normal drop team is not required to participate in an unscheduled currency acceptor drop.

No. The intent of these MICS is to perform the currency counter and currency counter interface tests sometime during the count process in the presence of the count members.  When performed during the count process, the test results may indicate whether a count team member manipulated the currency counter and/or the currency counter interface when recording the currency count amount.  The test can be conducted at the conclusion of the count, but no later than immediately after the final totals are generated.

A wagering instrument from the first box that is opened may be used to test the accuracy of the currency counter.  The number of wagering instruments (or dollar amount, if applicable) from the first box is compared to the amount recorded by the currency counter.

Promotional coupons that represent nontaxable free play are not recorded as drop for revenue reporting purposes.

No, the MICS explicitly states that the form is to be used “solely” for currency acceptor count transfers.  This form represents drop funds transferred out of the count room prior to the final count process.  It is a pertinent count document that needs to be reviewed by accounting/audit personnel, internal auditors, CPAs and GCB auditors to determine whether slots currency drop has been properly calculated and reported.  A form requiring boxes to be checked could be completed incorrectly by checking the wrong box or failing to check a box.

No.  This MICS applies only to revisions made to the final count document.

Yes.

No, it only applies to manual payout forms.

An appeasement payout is a discretionary payment made to a patron that does not arise from a legitimate winning wager.  These payments are issued as a gesture of goodwill to resolve customer complaints, misunderstandings of game rules, disputes, etc.  Although the patron may be compensated, the payment is not the result of a game outcome.  Therefore, appeasement payouts are not deductible and must not be deducted from gross gaming revenue.

Standard jackpot payouts processed through the slot system are supported by system documentation and meters,and are handled through normal jackpot payout procedures.  There may be instances when a system issue requires a slot payout to be processed by overriding the system (override, cancelled credit, etc.).  When a payout must be processed in this way, sufficient documentation fully supporting the reason for the payout must be maintained for the payout to be considered deductible from revenue.  There are numerous types of supporting evidence for these types of payouts, and therefore, a licensee will need to determine which type of evidence is applicable to their operation.  Whatever type of evidence is maintained, a licensee should keep in mind that if the evidence is not sufficient to substantiate a legitimate payout, the deduction will not be allowed.

As employees (e.g., player club representatives) may be allowed to print and issue promotional coupons (cashable or non-cashable) to patrons, the issuance should be performed in accordance with the distribution policy established by management.  For example, a letter is sent to patrons instructing them to present the letter to receive a promotional coupon.  Upon receipt of the letter, a promotional coupon is printed and given to the patron.  The issuance (printing) of the promotional coupon is sufficiently documented (recorded) by the cashless wagering system; and the amount of coupons issued can be reconciled to the letters presented by the patrons.

For this specific scenario, to comply with MICS #73, management must establish the policies and programs for authorizing issuance of promotional coupons to patrons; however, it does not require management involvement to generate an on-demand promotional coupon via a coupon printer device for issuance to the patron.

No.  The supervisor must validate the wagering instrument at the time of payment.  It may be necessary for the supervisor to examine a slot machine’s play transaction history or other CWS records to verify the validity of the wagering instrument.  All slot machines approved on or after
February 1, 2004, will have a 35-event history, by type of event.  Some slot machines currently have this capability.  So, in this instance, the supervisor could go to the slot machine and examine a record of the last 35 tickets issued.

A threshold is to be established whereby amounts exceeding this threshold require supervisory approval for the payment of wagering instruments when the cashless wagering system is inoperative.  For a threshold of $1,000 or below, the payment may be made by a cashier without supervisory approval.  This threshold cannot be set at an amount greater than $1,000, but may be set at $1,000 or lower (e.g., the licensee can set a policy that all wagering instruments of $300 or more require supervisory approval for redemption).

As a complete validation number may be required by the cashless wagering system for redeeming a slot wagering instrument, the slot wagering instrument may only be voided in the cashless wagering system pursuant to MICS #78.  A complete validation number may not be available from a cashless wagering system report.  It is only printed on a physical slot wagering instrument, which the patron claims has been lost or stolen. 

To prevent a patron from being paid twice for a slot wagering instrument, it is necessary to immediately “void” the initial slot wagering instrument issuance transaction in the cashless wagering system, even if it needs to be performed by a slot department employee. 

Yes.  The main cage would also be functioning as a slot booth or carousel in which the cashiers would be cashing coin for patrons.  Additionally, for MICS #90, bagged coin may be used for slot machine hopper fills.

All bagged coin created by slot booth and carousel attendants must be verified if being used as a slot machine hopper fill.  The bagged coin could be verified for amount accuracy then sealed to ensure the bagged coin cannot be accessed until used as a slot machine hopper fill.  The objective of the standard is to detect any potential cashier theft and to ensure the correct amount is placed into the slot machine hopper.

Yes.

Yes.

No.  However, Cage and Credit MICS #82 does require a reconciliation of change machine funds to be performed twice per year.

The slot machine’s “audit” function does not satisfy the requirement of this MICS.  This method relies on the game itself to tell you if it contained approved software or not. The intent of this MICS is to externally verify the programs using a device or mechanism independent of the slot machine.  This can be done by removing the EPROM or other game storage media and comparing the signature of the image contained on that device to the known image signature approved by the Board.

The Board’s Gaming Lab has developed a program that operators can use to assist with satisfying the MICS requirement.  This program is freely available on the Board’s website.  This can be used in conjunction with an EPROM reader to determine the approval status of the program.

The Technology Division has developed a program that operators can use to assist with satisfying the MICS requirement.  This program is freely available on the Board’s website.  For non-EPROM based devices, the hash verifier has a lookup function that can be used to search based on criteria such as program number, approval number, and hash value.  The verifier also has the ability to generate a hash signature for an image.  The user is required to place the image in a location the verifier can access it through.

Yes.  For multi-game slot machines, the slot machine number is changed only when the entire library of paytables is replaced with a new library of paytables.  Additionally, pursuant to MICS #115, a new slot machine number is assigned when adding and/or removing a progressive percentage contribution to one or more paytables of a multi-game slot machine.

Yes, a record for the multi-game slot machine will have already been prepared in the event more than one game is activated for play in the future.  For example, if there is a multi-game penny machine (or any single denomination) that is active and the machine has multiple paytables, then it is considered a multi-game slot machine because if one paytable is deactivated and/or reactivated or another paytable is activated then the theoretical weighted average par percentage is calculated by the TS3 OSMS.

No.  An employee is not required to physically go to the slot machine to read and record coin-in meters by paytable for multi-game slot machines to use in calculating a weighted average theoretical hold percentage.

To comply with Slots MICS #103, a TS3 OSMS is to be used in reading and recording the coin-in meters by paytable, and the system will use these coin-in amounts to calculate a weighted average theoretical hold percentage for the multi-game slot machine.  Regulation 6.045 requires certain licensees to install a TS3 OSMS approved by the Board pursuant to Regulation 14 Technical Standard 3.

Slots MICS #119(a) requires the TS3 OSMS to be connected, functioning and communicating with slot machines equipped with meters described by the Regulation 14 Technical Standards, approved on or after 8/1/04.  Slot machines with SAS version 6.01 and after fall into this category.  As such, slot machines with an earlier SAS version are only required to communicate the coin-in, coin drop and bill-in meter information to the TS3 OSMS as required by MICS #119(b).

For multi-game slot machines that are prior to SAS version 6.01 and are capable of communicating coin-in by paytable, when electing to use a weighted theoretical hold percentage, the by paytable meter information should be utilized for the calculation used in the slot analysis report.  For these machines, per the Slots MICS #188173 quarterly reconciliation, it is important to review the information for any variances of the coin-in amount by paytable to the total coin in amount for the slot machine to ensure the accuracy of the information.

Various versions of the computerized payout receipt system are being utilized, and it is possible that the version of the system being utilized at a gaming establishment does not meet the requirements of this MICS since the system was approved several years ago.  Where this is the case, a MICS variation is required to establish compensating procedures to meet the objectives of these MICS.

No.  All slot machines will be included in the same slot analysis report.  Of course, only slot machines that are connected to theTS3 OSMS will be able to generate the meter information for the special reports required in Slots MICS #126.

No.  The drop activity recorded in the slot analysis report should be the same as the drop activity reported on the NGC tax return.  Accordingly, the accrual drop (metered drop) can be recorded in the slot analysis report when reporting the slot accrual drop on the NGC tax return.  MICS #176 addresses the procedures to be followed when reporting on a modified accrual basis.

Yes.

No.  As indicated in the note, when a TS3 OSMS is utilized, the slot analysis report provides a separate category for multi-denomination slot machines.  A single-denomination slot machine, even if multi-game, is included in the appropriate denomination category of the slot analysis report.

A library refers to all of the games available to be activated in a multi-game slot machine.  If an entire library is changed, then a new machine number is required.  A change in the mix of games offered for patron play within the same library does not require that a new machine number be established.

  For the slot machines impacted, the machine number for the purpose of the slot analysis report is to be changed immediately when converting to an SSG.   

Licensees should investigate year-to-date variances for individual machines and for each denomination total.  In some instances, it may be necessary to examine the life-to-date variance when a sufficient amount of coin in has not been played.

The type of slot analysis report reviewed to be in compliance with this MICS depends on whether the drop amount reported on the NGC tax return is based on the drop amount actually counted by the count team (cash basis) or is reported based on the drop amount recorded by the slot machine meter (meter basis).  For example, if the drop amount reported on the NGC tax return is the drop amount actually counted by the count team members, the slot analysis report (cash basis) should be reviewed since it reflects the same drop amount as reported on the NGC tax return.  The slot statistical report (meter basis) may be secondarily reviewed for investigating large variances between the two reports.

The Nevada Gaming Commission adopted Regulation 14 Technical Standard 3 on May 22, 2003, and became effective August 22, 2004.  This technical standard provides a framework for the system manufacturers to develop on-line slot metering systems and cashless wagering systems that process data and provide casino operators with appropriate reports.  This standard also sets engineering guidelines for the systems that should provide for secure and accurate reporting of transactions.  This regulatory framework provides guidance and consistency to manufacturers and operators alike.  Accordingly, any on-line slot metering system and cashless wagering system submitted to the Board for approval on or after August 22, 2004 must meet the requirements of Technical Standard 3. 

No, only the slot machines that are capable of communicating with the TS3 OSMS.  For any slot machine approved prior to 8/1/04 that is not equipped with meters described by Regulation 14 Technical Standards, a minimum of the coin-in, coin drop, bill-in and cashless wagering meters, if applicable, must be transmitted to the system.  For slot machines approved after 8/1/04 equipped with meters described by Regulation 14 Technical Standards all applicable meter information must be transmitted to the system.

Slots MICS #119(a) requires the TS3 OSMS to be connected, functioning and communicating with slot machines equipped with meters described by the Regulation 14 Technical Standards, approved on or after 8/1/04.  Slot machines with SAS version 6.01 and after fall into this category.  As such, slot machines with an earlier SAS version are only required to communicate the coin-in, coin drop and bill-in meter information to the TS3 OSMS as required by MICS #119(b).

No, this standard applies only to on-line slot metering systems that read and record the value indicated on the slot machine meters (e.g., specific value system).

Two employees are required to accompany the slot machine coin drop cabinet keys while they are checked out.  The employee(s) who is the key custodian cannot be the employee accompanying the slot machine drop cabinet keys while they are checked out.  For example, if the coin drop cabinet keys are maintained by the main cage, employees of the main cage are considered to be the key custodian and could not accompany these keys when checked out.

This MICS applies only to drop team employees during scheduled drops.  Slots MICS #140 and #141 apply to emergency/unscheduled drops and/or access to the contents of the currency acceptor drop box at the slot machine.

This MICS requires three employees from separate departments, one of which is management, must be involved in obtaining the currency acceptor drop box contents key. 

No.  The intent of Slots MICS #143 Note is for the system administrator to be allowed to assign an employee’s access to the keywatcher system to change key control access (i.e., adding/removing personnel) but not actually assign themselves to be able to obtain keys (giving themselves sole access to the slot drop and count keys).

Yes.  The issuance of wagering credits refers to credits issued to a patron, either through slot play or other than slot play (i.e., a promotional coupon mailed to the patron and the patron receives slot wagering credits upon redemption), through the cashless wagering system.  Therefore, if a promotional program exists wherein patrons receive slot wagering credits, then Slots MICS #147 would apply.  Additionally, Slots MICS #147 is applicable when slot wagering credits are issued to a patron other than through an automated process related to actual slot play.

No.  The Slots MICS apply to both free and buy-in tournaments with the exception there are no entry fees to account for in the free tournaments.  Additionally, refer to the “Note” following Slots MICS #160 regarding the information required to be recorded for free tournaments.

Slot MICS #162 requires that the amount of the progressive payoff schedule be recorded daily unless it meets specific requirements, as indicated in Notes 1 and 2 to MICS #162.  If the progressive doesn’t meet the criteria in either Note 1 or Note 2 the reading should be read and recorded daily.  If the progressive meets the criteria of one of the notes to MICS #162, the payoff schedule should be read and recorded with the frequency noted in that particular note.

Slots MICS #146 requires that “the addition/deletion of points to player tracking accounts other than through an automated process related to actual slot play must be sufficiently documented (including substantiation of reasons for increases) and authorized/performed by supervisory personnel of the player tracking, promotions, or slot department”.  For MICS #165(a), the review of documentation should include, at a minimum, an examination of the documented reason for adding points to ensure that it is legitimate.  Also, the document is to be examined to determine that the addition/deletion of points was authorized or performed by a supervisor.  This could be done by reviewing a signature or user ID to ensure that the person is a supervisor in the appropriate department.

Licensees with on-line slot metering systems are required to perform procedures to verify that the on-line slot metering system is transmitting, receiving, and recording data from the slot machines.  MICS #171 indicates the slot machine meters to review, the frequency of the review, the procedures to perform and the number of slot machines to review.

The on-line slot metering system is reviewed only for the meters that are transmitted, received, and recorded from the slot machine.  Accordingly, if the system only has the capability to record the slot machine’s coin-in meter then MICS #171 procedures are applicable to only the coin-in meter.

A minimum sample of 3% of the slot machines connected to the on-line slot metering system is reviewed each month.  During a two-year calendar period, each slot machine connected to the on-line slot metering system must be reviewed at least once.  As such, a sample of more than 3% will need to be selected in certain months in order to achieve a 100% review during a two-year calendar period.

An OSMS may read and record meter data in one of two ways.  The OSMS may either read and record the actual meter reading values from the slot machine, or the OSMS has its own meter values in which the change is calculated since the prior reading, and only the change is recorded (a delta system).  Testing communications for a delta system requires taking two meter readings.  The first type of OSMS mentioned above would require only one meter reading, ensuring that the meter value in the machine matches the value recorded in the system.

No.  A representative sample of the active paytables of a multi-game slot machine is sufficient for this review.  The number of paytables to include in the sample is at the licensee's discretion.

The accuracy of the coin-in amount by paytable for multi-game slot machines is also reviewed when performing the required quarterly reconciliation to the total coin-in meter amount pursuant to MICS #173.

No.  The intent of the standard is to ensure that the slot machines currently on the floor are properly communicating meter information.

A log documenting the information required by the MICS would be satisfactory.

  The procedures for coin-in by paytable information are not required to be performed.   

To meet the intent of this MICS, the procedure is to be performed at least quarterly for one day, which is to include all multi-game machines.

The Board is not dictating any specific procedures to comply with this MICS.  The intent is to develop procedures that best fit the slot operation, especially in the area of cashless wagering, to prevent and/or detect the issuance of fraudulent vouchers. 

The main reason for this MICS is due to the occurrence of a theft which involved a slot technician with an accomplice who were placing slot machines “out of service” on the floor and then hooking up another live slot machine in a back office with the same machine number as the one on the floor that was “out of service” to issue fraudulent vouchers.  An example of possible detection of such activity is to walk the casino floor and look for slot machines that are “out of service”.  A determination is then to be made whether the slot machine is legitimately “out of service” and that no vouchers were issued from that slot machine during the time period it was “out of service”.

Preventive controls to have in place may include maintaining all critical system components in a secure area with restricted access.  Additionally, controls and restrictions over the issuance of key chips (used to change the denomination of the slot machine) is another possible deterrent.

Awareness is a key factor in the use of the cashless wagering system to prevent and detect fraudulent activity.

No.  Meters must be used.  Estimating a percentage of the drop is not an acceptable method for recording the modified accrual drop as required by this standard.

Yes.  An alternative method to meet the intent of this MICS is to import or scan the redeemed wagering instruments using a device, such as the IVS Tally Ticket, which provides a batch total amount.  This amount is then compared to the total indicated by the cashless wagering system and the related accountability document.

The Slots MICS do not require specific information to be printed on the drawing ticket.

The slot machine door keys and slot fill cabinet keys have always been considered sensitive.  These keys are specifically addressed in the MICS.  It is not necessary to rekey locks to establish a verifiable baseline.  However, a baseline should be established for these keys by conducting an inventory of keys currently maintained by employees.

Note that Industry Notice # 2023-40 was issued, which grants a variation to exclude the 2341 keys from the key inventory when performing the requirement for this MICS.  Additionally, any keys that do not open the slot cabinet or the bill validator door; access the logic compartment; alter meter data or stored accounting information within the machine are not required to be inventoried.

No.  It does not matter which denomination is used for this recalculation.  The objective is to ensure the system is accurately calculating the floor par.

Yes.  The slot analysis report includes all slot machines performance (active and inactive) for the business year.  The total coin-in amount used to calculate the floor par includes coin-in from inactive slot machines.  Floor pars are the sum of the theoretical hold percentages of all machines within a denomination, weighted by coin-in contribution.

No.  These standards only apply if the licensee chooses to pay mailed-in wagering instruments.

No.  It does not even need to be stated in a percentage.  The report could simply indicate that 1/7 of the slot machines on the floor will be dropped and counted.  The objective of this note is to provide the Board with an approximate number of slot machines to be dropped and counted.  This information is important when drop and count observations are being scheduled by the Board.

No.  The Regulation 6.130(1) report only needs to disclose when the entire count team takes a routine break lasting more than 15 minutes (e.g., a meal break, a change of shift, or breaks by the entire count team to perform other functions).  In other words, when the entire count process has ceased due to a scheduled routine break longer than 15 minutes, this should be indicated on the submitted report.