1. Models Of Judicial Decision Making
2. Slot Machine Theory Of Judicial Decision Making Decision
3. Judicial Decision Making
4. Judicial Decision Making Process

Compared with managers, entrepreneurs showed higher decision-making efficiency, and a stronger activation in regions of frontopolar cortex (FPC) previously associated with explorative choice. Moreover, activity across a network of regions previously linked to explore/exploit tradeoffs explained individual differences in choice efficiency. Shared decision making is ideal in theory, but in reality, it is fraught with risks resulting from cognitive biases and undue influence of even the best-intentioned physicians and family members.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe how the Supreme Court decides cases and issues opinions
• Identify the various influences on the Supreme Court
• Explain how the judiciary is checked by the other branches of government

The courts are the least covered and least publicly known of the three branches of government. The inner workings of the Supreme Court and its day-to-day operations certainly do not get as much public attention as its rulings, and only a very small number of its announced decisions are enthusiastically discussed and debated. The Court’s 2015 decision on same-sex marriage was the exception, not the rule, since most court opinions are filed away quietly in the United States Reports, sought out mostly by judges, lawyers, researchers, and others with a particular interest in reading or studying them.

Thus, we sometimes envision the justices formally robed and cloistered away in their chambers, unaffected by the world around them, but the reality is that they are not that isolated, and a number of outside factors influence their decisions. Though they lack their own mechanism for enforcement of their rulings and their power remains checked and balanced by the other branches, the effect of the justices’ opinions on the workings of government, politics, and society in the United States is much more significant than the attention they attract might indicate.

Judicial Opinions

Models Of Judicial Decision Making

Every Court opinion sets precedent for the future. The Supreme Court’s decisions are not always unanimous, however; the published majority opinion, or explanation of the justices’ decision, is the one with which a majority of the nine justices agree. It can represent a vote as narrow as five in favor to four against. A tied vote is rare but can occur at a time of vacancy, absence, or abstention from a case, perhaps where there is a conflict of interest. In the event of a tied vote, the decision of the lower court stands.

Most typically, though, the Court will put forward a majority opinion. If he or she is in the majority, the chief justice decides who will write the opinion. If not, then the most senior justice ruling with the majority chooses the writer. Likewise, the most senior justice in the dissenting group can assign a member of that group to write the dissenting opinion; however, any justice who disagrees with the majority may write a separate dissenting opinion. If a justice agrees with the outcome of the case but not with the majority’s reasoning in it, that justice may write a concurring opinion.

Court decisions are released at different times throughout the Court’s term, but all opinions are announced publicly before the Court adjourns for the summer. Some of the most controversial and hotly debated rulings are released near or on the last day of the term and thus are avidly anticipated.

On June 26, 2015, supporters of marriage equality in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building eagerly await the announcement of a decision in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). (credit: Matt Popovich)

Influences on the Court

Many of the same players who influence whether the Court will grant cert. in a case, discussed earlier in this chapter, also play a role in its decision-making, including law clerks, the solicitor general, interest groups, and the mass media. But additional legal, personal, ideological, and political influences weigh on the Supreme Court and its decision-making process. On the legal side, courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot make a ruling unless they have a case before them, and even with a case, courts must rule on its facts. Although the courts’ role is interpretive, judges and justices are still constrained by the facts of the case, the Constitution, the relevant laws, and the courts’ own precedent.

A justice’s decisions are influenced by how he or she defines his role as a jurist, with some justices believing strongly in judicial activism, or the need to defend individual rights and liberties, and they aim to stop actions and laws by other branches of government that they see as infringing on these rights. A judge or justice who views the role with an activist lens is more likely to use his or her judicial power to broaden personal liberty, justice, and equality. Still others believe in judicial restraint, which leads them to defer decisions (and thus policymaking) to the elected branches of government and stay focused on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights. These justices are less likely to strike down actions or laws as unconstitutional and are less likely to focus on the expansion of individual liberties. While it is typically the case that liberal actions are described as unnecessarily activist, conservative decisions can be activist as well.

Critics of the judiciary often deride activist courts for involving themselves too heavily in matters they believe are better left to the elected legislative and executive branches. However, as Justice Anthony Kennedy has said, “An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don’t like.”^[1] Justices’ personal beliefs and political attitudes also matter in their decision-making. Although we may prefer to believe a justice can leave political ideology or party identification outside the doors of the courtroom, the reality is that a more liberal-thinking judge may tend to make more liberal decisions and a more conservative-leaning judge may tend toward more conservative ones. Although this is not true 100 percent of the time, and an individual’s decisions are sometimes a cause for surprise, the influence of ideology is real, and at a minimum, it often guides presidents to aim for nominees who mirror their own political or ideological image. It is likely not possible to find a potential justice who is completely apolitical.

And the courts themselves are affected by another “court”—the court of public opinion. Though somewhat isolated from politics and the volatility of the electorate, justices may still be swayed by special-interest pressure, the leverage of elected or other public officials, the mass media, and the general public. As times change and the opinions of the population change, the court’s interpretation is likely to keep up with those changes, lest the courts face the danger of losing their own relevance.

Take, for example, rulings on sodomy laws: In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the State of Georgia’s ban on sodomy,^[2] but it reversed its decision seventeen years later, invalidating sodomy laws in Texas and thirteen other states.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

No doubt the Court considered what had been happening nationwide: In the 1960s, sodomy was banned in all the states. By 1986, that number had been reduced by about half. By 2002, thirty-six states had repealed their sodomy laws, and most states were only selectively enforcing them. Changes in state laws, along with an emerging LGBT movement, no doubt swayed the Court and led it to the reversal of its earlier ruling with the 2003 decision, Lawrence v. Texas.^[3]

The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas that overturned an earlier ruling on sodomy made national headlines and shows that Court rulings can change with the times.

Heralded by advocates of gay rights as important progress toward greater equality, the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas illustrates that the Court is willing to reflect upon what is going on in the world. Even with their heavy reliance on precedent and reluctance to throw out past decisions, justices are not completely inflexible and do tend to change and evolve with the times.

The Importance of Jury Duty

Since judges and justices are not elected, we sometimes consider the courts removed from the public; however, this is not always the case, and there are times when average citizens may get involved with the courts firsthand as part of their decision-making process at either the state or federal levels. At some point, if you haven’t already been called, you may receive a summons for jury duty from your local court system. You may be asked to serve on federal jury duty, such as U.S. district court duty or federal grand jury duty, but service at the local level, in the state court system, is much more common.

While your first reaction may be to start planning a way to get out of it, participating in jury service is vital to the operation of the judicial system, because it provides individuals in court the chance to be heard and to be tried fairly by a group of their peers. And jury duty has benefits for those who serve as well. You will no doubt come away better informed about how the judicial system works and ready to share your experiences with others. Who knows? You might even get an unexpected surprise, as some citizens in Dallas, Texas did recently when former President George W. Bush showed up to serve jury duty with them.

Have you ever been called to jury duty? Describe your experience. What did you learn about the judicial process? What advice would you give to someone called to jury duty for the first time? If you’ve never been called to jury duty, what questions do you have for those who have?

The Courts and the Other Branches of Government

Both the executive and legislative branches check and balance the judiciary in many different ways. The president can leave a lasting imprint on the bench through his or her nominations, even long after leaving office. The president may also influence the Court through the solicitor general’s involvement or through the submission of amicus briefs in cases in which the United States is not a party.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt even attempted to stack the odds in his favor in 1937, with a “court-packing scheme” in which he tried to get a bill passed through Congress that would have reorganized the judiciary and enabled him to appoint up to six additional judges to the high court. The bill never passed, but other presidents have also been accused of trying similar moves at different courts in the federal system. Most recently, some members of Congress suggested that President Obama was attempting to “pack” the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals with three nominees. Obama was filling vacancies, not adding judges, but the “packing” term was still bandied about.^[4]

A 1937 cartoon mocks the court-packing plan of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (depicted on the far right). Roosevelt was not successful in increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and it remains at nine.

Likewise, Congress has checks on the judiciary. It retains the power to modify the federal court structure and its appellate jurisdiction, and the Senate may accept or reject presidential nominees to the federal courts. Faced with a court ruling that overturns one of its laws, Congress may rewrite the law or even begin a constitutional amendment process.

But the most significant check on the Supreme Court is executive and legislative leverage over the implementation and enforcement of its rulings. This process is called judicial implementation. While it is true that courts play a major role in policymaking, they have no mechanism to make their rulings a reality. Remember it was Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 who remarked that the courts had “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” And even years later, when the 1832 Supreme Court ruled the State of Georgia’s seizing of Native American lands unconstitutional,^[5] President Andrew Jackson is reported to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” and the Court’s ruling was basically ignored.^[6] Abraham Lincoln, too, famously ignored Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s order finding unconstitutional Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus rights in 1861, early in the Civil War. Thus, court rulings matter only to the extent they are heeded and followed.

The Court relies on the executive to implement or enforce its decisions and on the legislative branch to fund them. As the Jackson and Lincoln stories indicate, presidents may simply ignore decisions of the Court, and Congress may withhold funding needed for implementation and enforcement. Fortunately for the courts, these situations rarely happen, and the other branches tend to provide support rather than opposition. In general, presidents have tended to see it as their duty to both obey and enforce Court rulings, and Congress seldom takes away the funding needed for the president to do so.

For example, in 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower called out the military by executive order to enforce the Supreme Court’s order to racially integrate the public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower told the nation: “Whenever normal agencies prove inadequate to the task and it becomes necessary for the executive branch of the federal government to use its powers and authority to uphold federal courts, the president’s responsibility is inescapable.”^[7]Executive Order 10730 nationalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce desegregation because the governor refused to use the state National Guard troops to protect the black students trying to enter the school.

President Eisenhower sent federal troops to escort nine black students (the “Little Rock Nine”) into an Arkansas high school in 1957 to enforce the Supreme Court’s order outlawing racial segregation in public schools.

So what becomes of court decisions is largely due to their credibility, their viability, and the assistance given by the other branches of government. It is also somewhat a matter of tradition and the way the United States has gone about its judicial business for more than two centuries. Although not everyone agrees with the decisions made by the Court, rulings are generally accepted and followed, and the Court is respected as the key interpreter of the laws and the Constitution. Over time, its rulings have become yet another way policy is legitimately made and justice more adequately served in the United States.

Summary

Like the executive and legislative branches, the judicial system wields power that is not absolute. There remain many checks on its power and limits to its rulings. Judicial decisions are also affected by various internal and external factors, including legal, personal, ideological, and political influences. To stay relevant, Court decisions have to keep up with the changing times, and the justices’ decision-making power is subject to the support afforded by the other branches of government in implementation and enforcement. Nevertheless, the courts have evolved into an indispensable part of our government system—a separate and coequal branch that interprets law, makes policy, guards the Constitution, and protects individual rights.

Practice Questions

1. What are the core factors that determine how judges decide in court cases?
2. Discuss some of the difficulties involved in the implementation and enforcement of judicial decisions.
3. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual than are the elected branches of the government?
4. On what types of policy issues do you expect the judicial branch to be especially powerful, and on which do you expect it to exert less power?
5. Discuss the relationship of the judicial branch to the other branches of government. In what ways is the judicial more powerful than other branches? In what ways is SCOTUS less powerful than other branches? Explain.
6. What should be the most important considerations when filling judge and justice positions at the federal level? Why?
7. Take a closer look at some of the operational norms of the Supreme Court, such as the Rule of Four or the prohibition on cameras in the courtroom. What is your opinion about them as long-standing traditions, and which (if any), do you believe should be changed? Explain your answer.

Show Selected Answer

2. The judicial branch has no power of its own over implementation of enforcement of its rulings and is thus dependent on the other two branches to make this happen, relying on the executive to enforce its decisions and on the legislature to fund it. Hamilton said the judiciary has “no influence over either the sword or the purse” and “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” stressing the court system’s reliance on assistance from the other two branches.

6. The shirking of jury duty is a real problem in the United States. Give some reasons for this and suggest what can be done about it.

Show References

Books written by current and former justices:

Breyer, Stephen. 2006. Active Liberty: Interpreting the Democratic Constitution. New York: Vintage; 2010; Making Democracy Work: A Judge’s View. New York: Knopf.

O’Connor, Sandra Day. 2004. The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice. New York: Random House.

Rehnquist, William. 2002. The Supreme Court. New York: Vintage.

Scalia, Antonin. 1998. A Matter of Interpretation: The Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sotomayor, Sonia. 2014. My Beloved World. New York: Vintage Books.

Stevens, John Paul. 2011. Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir. New York: Little, Brown.

Thomas, Clarence. 2008. My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir. New York: Harper.

Books about the U.S. court system:

Coyle, Marcia. 2013. The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ferguson, Andrew G. 2013. Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen’s Guide to Constitutional Action. New York: New York University Press.

Millhiser, Ian. 2015. Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted. New York: Nation Books.

Peppers, Todd C., and Artemus Ward. 2012. In Chambers: Stories of Supreme Court Law Clerks and Their Justices. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Tobin, Jeffrey. 2012. The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. New York: Doubleday.

Vile, John R. 2014. Essential Supreme Court Decisions: Summaries of Leading Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law, 16th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Films:

1981. The First Monday in October.

1993. The Pelican Brief.

HBO. 2000. Recount.

2015. Confirmation.

2015. On the Basis of Sex.

Show Glossary

concurring opinion an opinion written by a justice who agrees with the Court’s majority opinion but has different reasons for doing so

Slot Machine Theory Of Judicial Decision Making Decision

dissenting opinion an opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion of the Court

judicial activism a judicial philosophy in which a justice is more likely to overturn decisions or rule actions by the other branches unconstitutional, especially in an attempt to broaden individual rights and liberties

judicial restraint a judicial philosophy in which a justice is more likely to let stand the decisions or actions of the other branches of government

majority opinion an opinion of the Court with which more than half the nine justices agree

1. Matt Sedensky. 'Justice questions way court nominees are grilled.' The Associated Press. May 14, 2010. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/14/justice_questions_way_court_nominees_are_grilled/. ↵
2. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). ↵
3. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). ↵
4. Louis Jacobson. 'Is Barack Obama trying to ‘pack’ the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals?' Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact.com. June 5, 2013. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/05/chuck-grassley/barack-obama-trying-pack-dc-circuit-court-appeals/. ↵
5. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). ↵
6. 'Court History.' Supreme Court History: The First Hundred Years. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html (March 1, 2016). ↵
7. Dwight D. Eisenhower. 'Radio and Television Address to the American People on the Situation in Little Rock.' Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Eisenhower, Dwight D., The American Presidency Project. September 24, 1957. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10909. ↵

No, the machine does not have a huge element table of over two billion elements. The random number generators choose each number once in the cycle using mathematical algorithms and do not need to keep track of which numbers were already chosen. Regarding the pause, it has nothing to do with how much it is going to pay. I think the game does some internal auditing from time to time. There is no such thing as hot and cold cycles with slot machines. The ups and downs are just normal random variation.

These are just random events. The laws of probability dictate that some days will be dry with a few big winners and others will have a lot of lower payouts. Most days will have a balanced mix and these days are always the first forgotten by the player. There is no switch the casino is throwing to alter the mood of their machines. I tend to think you're just remember what you want to in order to substantiate your theory.

No, this does not happen. How much the slot machine pays is determined by a microchip called an EPROM, which is generally left alone. To change it, at least in Nevada, the casino would have to get permission from the gaming authorities. Even without permission, they would have to open up each machine and change the EPROM by hand.
I speculate that the reason for what you observed about all the machines on a carousel getting hot at the same time is due partially to chance, partially selective memory, and partially to a snowball effect where players will gravitate to an area where they hear a lot of winning and simply add to the number of wins because of more players.

Your explanation of virtual versus physical slot machine reels was most informative.

1. Given the random number generator stops on a virtual Cherry say, how does the machine make the physical reel stop on a visible cherry? I mean technically speaking.
2. Does this explain how pachinko machines from Japan can electronically alter payout percentages without altering the physical reel symbols?
3. Suppose the machine decides its time for a BAR, the only BAR on the third reel, just as one passes the pay-line. Does it let the reel go one full turn and catch it on the next go-round?
4. Suppose a physical reel stops on a paying combination by mistake, i.e. a symbol other than the virtual one pre-ordained. What happens then?

Thanks much.

Let me answer each question individually.

1. It is just programming code that dictates to the machine that if the virtual reel stops on a cherry to make the actual reel stop on a cherry. There are actual notches on the reels which may help the machine to stop in the right place. If you peer through the glass at and angle you can sometimes see these notches. However, I am not an engineer and am not sure exactly how the machine knows to stop at just the right moment. It just take it for granted that it can.
2. Theoretically, the casino could change the payout on a slot machine with just a remote control. The remote control could tell the machine to use any previously programmed virtual reels. Practically speaking, the major casinos need to get approval from the gaming authorities to change the payback of a machine. If they did get such authorization all a slot technician has to do is replace a chip inside the machine, known as an e-prom. This happens infrequently and would not warrant the expense of a remote control.
3. It seems to me the reels spin at least several times before stopping.
4. In the unlikely even that happened, then I think it would trigger a malfunction and the bet would be voided.

I will say that for class 3 slots by major slot makers like IGT, Bally, and Williams do not resort to these sort of tricks. With respectable slot machines every play has the exact same probability of winning. If you don't believe me then why don’t you go from machine to machine playing each one for half an hour.

Not often. Contrary to popular myth the casinos don’t tighten the machines on weekends or whenever it is busy. Here in Las Vegas the casinos have to fill out a form every time they change the percentage on each game. Most slot managers I have spoken with have a policy on what coinage is set to what return. I tend to think the most likely reason to change the percentage would a change in ownership and/or management, which do not happen often.

No. Neither the amount you put in nor the denomination affects the odds. The same is true of slots.

From what I hear anything you can configure at the machine you can configure remotely through the server. This would include the theoretical return percentage. However most casinos report that changing the theoretical return of a slot machine necessitates a lot of paperwork.

Even if it were effortless to move the slot machine return up and down, it strikes me as a conspiracy theory to think the casinos would do that on a player by player basis. Living here in Vegas, I hear all kinds of theories about the lengths the casinos go to in order to win, like pumping in oxygen and playing a subsonic mantra that says 'lose lose lose.' These are just urban legends. Most casinos correctly believe that if you give the player a good experience and a fair gamble then he will keep coming back. As they say, you can only slaughter a sheep only once, but you can shear it many times. (My webmaster, Michael Bluejay, who is a vegetarian, tried to get me to use this analogy instead: 'You can seize all of a sheep’s money only once, but you can force it to take you bowling many times.')

I asked a source of mine who works at one of the casinos that utilize this technology. Besides the Treasure Island, this technology is also used at casinos in California, Michigan, and Mississippi. Here is what he said,

'Nothing can be changed if there are credits on the game. The slot machine will always reject any changes sent when there are credits on the meter. In Nevada, the machine also has to be idle for four minutes prior to and following any changes. It’s also not completely transparent to anyone standing in front of the slot machine. A black window pops up that says ’Remote Configuration In Progress’ (or something like that).

We mainly use ours to change the available denominations on our games. Similar to how table games will raise minimum bets on when the casino is busier, we will remove lower denominations on Friday morning and return them on Monday morning.'

So, rest assured, that the slot manager can not tighten up a game on you just because he doesn’t like you. As long as you have credit in the game, nothing can be changed.

Judicial Decision Making

If you are implying the casino is changing the odds of the game while you're sitting there playing it, then I would say that is just a myth. To change the odds of a game, the slot maker would have to open up the game and change the EPROM chip. With server based game, where this can be done remotely, regulations require that the game be unplayed for a certain number of minutes before any changes can made.

If you are implying that the casino sets a slot machine loose for the first so many days, to draw new players, and then switches the EPROM to a stingier one, then I would disagree as well. That could easily be done, and legally, but I doubt it is. In my slot machine survey I found that any given casino was fairly consistent in how loose or tight they set their slots.

For the benefit of other readers, the way slot machines have usually work is that a chip inside the machine, called an EPROM chip, determines how loose or stingy the machine is. The vast majority of slots today still function this way. Contrary to popular myth, slots don’t achieve their desired return percentage by paying more when the actual return is too low and less when it is too high. Rather, it is just subtle changes in the reel stripping on video slots and the virtual weights on stepper slots. It is usually up to the casino manager which chip to put in. Some jurisdictions leave that decision up to the state. A common myth about these slots is that the slot manager can flip a switch in his office and cause any slot machine, or all of them, to pay more or less. The truth is a slot technician has to open up the machine and physically change the EPROM chips.

However, with the new generation of 'server-based slots,' the myth has potential to be a reality. Slots on this system can indeed be controlled remotely. The slot manager is now able to change the theoretical return, pay tables in video poker, denomination, as well as the entire game, in the comfort of his own office. Here in Nevada there are safeguards to prevent abuse of this power. The Gaming Control Board has the following regulation:

'The conventional gaming device or client station must be in the idle mode with no errors or tilts, no play and no credits on the machine for at least 4 minutes. After this time, the conventional gaming device or client station must be disabled and rendered unplayable for at least 4 minutes. During the time the machine is disabled a message must be displayed on a video screen or other appropriate display device notifying the patron that the game configuration has been changed.' — Technical Standards for Gaming Devices and On-line Slot Systems 1.140

So the slot manager couldn't tighten up the game you’re playing just because he didn't like your polka-dotted hat. However, in theory, he could loosen or tighten every machine that wasn’t being played. To finally get at your question, would he loosen and tighten the slots like a yo-yo depending on the time of day or day of the week? On my forum, I argued that would be bad business, but many who submitted comments disagreed with me. To help argue my side, I asked Nick Dillon, Executive Vice President/Assistant General Manager at the Barona Casino in San Diego County about it. Here is what he wrote back.

'The concern with SBG (server-based games) is that the manufacturers and most casinos are looking at it mostly from a cost savings (less slot techs/labor needed to convert games, etc) perspective. At Barona, we really only want it if it proves a true value to the player. We have approximately 80 units on the floor that we began testing a couple of years ago. We are not yet at the point where we can say there is a true benefit to the player. We have tested many aspects of these games but have never raised/lowered the hold based on time of day, day of week, etc. We have, however, tested some other things. One is changing the minimum denom based on day of week (penny during the week moved to nickel on the weekend, for example). The idea being the same as table games whereby the denom (table minimum bet) moves higher when demand is peaking. This maximizes revenue. However, we found that was not the case with our test (likely because tables are limited and full capacity during the increase, but slots generally are not, and because a “penny” player can actually be a “dollar” player regardless of what min denom he is playing). We found more dismay from guests that were used to finding their preferred game/denom and that it was now changed. We also tested changing only the default denom from penny to nickel. This is the denom that shows on screen when the game is idle. The majority of players may not be aware of multi-denom and play the default the majority of time. Again, we found no real difference in revenue.

Judicial Decision Making Process

As evidenced by our Loose Troop and Manufacturers Best programs, best blackjack rules, loosest video poker, no ATM fees, etc. we truly believe the player deserves the best gamble he can get. We feel that providing the longest play time for the dollar is the best strategy we can employ. There is no need to play with hold percentages and adjusting them 1-3 points either way for a day or two. Of course, a Strip property may feel differently as they only have a limited amount of time to win the money.

We are hopeful that we can help push the manufacturers to continue to develop SBG in favor of the player. We are hopeful that a player can put his player card in and his preferred games, denoms, etc will appear for his enjoyment at whatever device he sits. There are so many opportunities for this to be a great product for the player, which we believe will be good for our casino and the industry. If cost savings also come, great, but that should not be the main focus of a product like this.' -- Nick Dillon

In conclusion, I think you are safe playing server-based slots. If you don’t believe me, keep an eye on the video poker pay tables. If you don’t see those going up and down on a daily basis, chances are the slot returns are being left alone as well.

This question was raised and discussed in the forum of my companion site Wizard of Vegas.