Issue
Coin-in was trending upward, and management viewed this as evidence of gains in a competitive local market. The corresponding hold, however, did not increase in step. A single session can reasonably produce a hold above or below a machine’s programmed percentage — that is normal statistical variance and, on its own, not cause for concern. What set this situation apart was that the pattern held over time: coin-in continued to climb night after night while the amount retained by the house remained flat. That level of consistency does not occur by chance, and it warranted a closer review of the underlying player data.
Findings
Not every guest plays on a tracked card, but sufficient data existed to trace where the increase originated. One card accounted for a disproportionate share of the growth.
Inquiries with staff identified the player as a former employee who had previously held a line position at the property. Colleagues familiar with her circumstances did not believe she had the financial means to sustain that level of play on a nightly basis.
A site visit was initiated, during which a rumor circulating among staff suggested she was playing with the casino’s own funds. This was confirmed: the casino manager was withdrawing a fairly large amount of cash from the vault, providing it to the former employee, and having her wager it through the machines. By the time of the nightly count, the same amount had been returned to the vault.
Solution
The situation was brought to ownership’s attention and referred to Human Resources for action. The manager’s intent appeared to be projecting strong performance and demonstrating control over property operations, which left ownership with a false sense of security that the business was performing well in a challenging market. In practice, the manager’s actions had deprived ownership of accurate information needed to make informed decisions about protecting their investment.