Inside Asian Gaming

INSIDE ASIAN GAMING | May 2011 18 Cover Story A ruling on sic bo pay outs by Macau’s gaming regulator the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) could have wider implications for the future of electronic games in the market, according to some manufacturers. In essence, the decision means automated sic bo games are now required to offer the same odds and pay outs as live tables. Previously on some bets some automated tables had been offering superior odds and pay outs compared to live tables—apparently without any complaints or enforcement action from the DICJ. Electronic sic bo machines in Macau had been able to offer odds on any triple bet (the upturned face of the three dice showing the same number simultaneously) of up to 190-1, according to some industry sources. By contrast, the maximum pay out allowed on live sic bo games in Macau is 150-1. Inside Asian Gaming understands notices went out recently to suppliers and casino operators informing them about the change to a table odds regime and all the relevant sic bo electronic games on the floor have been adjusted accordingly. The ruling hasn’t destroyed the commercial case for automated sic bo . Even with odds and pay outs on a par with live sic bo , automated sic bo still offers the prospect of better margins for operators than the live table version. That’s because of its lower overheads (for example there’s no need to hire three dealers a day in eight-hour shifts to man it). In return for the valuable right to ply their lucrative trade, casino operators and casino equipment suppliers are occasionally required to accept gaming law decisions they don’t especially like. So why is this ruling apparently causing so much fuss? Essentially it’s because of the way and the circumstances in which it’s been made, according to some voices from the supplier side of the industry. The sic bo pay out issue arose after Sands China introduced Rapid Sic Bo at its Venetian Macao and Sands Macao properties—a product with a live ‘dealer’ but electronic betting and electronic bet settlement. When the DICJ told the company that permissible pay outs on the product would be the same as on a live table, Sands China pointed out that other automated sic bo games in the market were allowed to offer superior pay outs on some bets and that therefore Rapid Sic Bo would be at a competitive disadvantage. Players of live sic bo wouldn’t have any incentive to switch to Rapid Sic Bo , nor would players of the fully automated version.When Sands Chinamade representations to the DICJ, the regulator’s answer was not to switch Rapid Sic Bo onto automated game odds, but instead to switch all automated sic bo tables to a live table pay out regime. A supplier spoken to by IAG says the supply industry is concerned about the implications of this DICJ ruling. “It’s not a question of bashing the DICJ on this game pay out question,” says the supplier. “The DICJ moved in a way it thought The Battle of Big and Small A gaming law ruling on sic bo pay outs in Macau has got some manufacturers worried for the future of electronic games in the territory