Home Gaming Industry InsightsNevada Gaming Control Board Plans Technical Standards Revisions

Nevada Gaming Control Board Plans Technical Standards Revisions

by Sienna Marques
0 views 3 minutes read
Nevada Gaming Control Board Plans Technical Standards Revisions

Next month, on October 7, the Nevada Gaming Control Board will review a set of proposed revisions to the state's Technical Standards for Gaming Devices and Associated Equipment. This comprehensive review will cover multiple areas including slot systems, cashless wagering accounts, and race and sportsbook regulations.

A total of ten standards are slated for revision, with draft proposals dating from June to August. The board alerted licensees regarding these revisions and the meeting date on September 4, allowing interested parties to submit comments until October 5.

While the severity of the revisions varies, many involve significant language changes. For example, proposed modifications to Standard 9 (digital parimutuel systems) include primarily minor additions, whereas Standard 3 (slot metering systems) requires major modifications with entire sections being added or removed. The revisions feature numerous explanatory notes to clarify the changes proposed throughout the standards.

Despite Nevada's reputation as the leading gaming state in the United States, its regulatory framework for technology has often been described as outdated compared to other emerging jurisdictions nationwide. Since Mike Dreitzer became chair of the NGCB in June, modernization has become a key focus, as evidenced by these forthcoming revisions.

"We finally reached a point where we decided to prioritize these changes, get them out for comment, and ensure we remain current," remarked Jeremy Eberwein, head of the board's Technology Division.

The main task consists of centralizing the technical information to create a single reference point for licensees. Previously, certain requirements were scattered across the state's Minimum Internal Control Standards, which included a mix of technical specifications and procedural guidelines.

The aim is to streamline access for licensees, eliminating the need to sift through multiple documents. Most of the explanatory notes in the revisions relate to adaptations taken from the MICS and various other sources, highlighting a process that has evolved over several years, with work frequently pausing and resuming.

"Our internal drafts have undergone various iterations over the past decade without ever reaching completion for multiple reasons," Eberwein explained.

While the drafts are nearly finalized, input from stakeholders during the comment period and at the hearing could influence the proposals. The Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers, a group that typically comments on regulatory updates, did not respond before the publication deadline.

The NGCB faces a crucial period, especially considering the series of multimillion-dollar anti-money laundering fines issued since the start of 2025. Four investigations focused on violations associated with illegal bookmaker Mathew Bowyer, whose name was added to the state's exclusion list in April. The entities involved in these inquiries include prominent Las Vegas Strip operators like Resorts World Las Vegas, MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, and the Venetian. Another case regarding Wynn Las Vegas concerned different infractions altogether.

Wynn agreed to forfeit $130 million to the federal government for proxy betting infractions, which authorities noted could be the largest forfeiture by a casino linked to admissions of criminal misconduct.

On the regulatory front, Dreitzer has also been working on revising other regulations, including those related to gaming salons and AML reporting. His current tenure marks the fifth chair of the NGCB since 2019, and he is expected to serve until January 2027. Earlier this year, Dreitzer expressed interest in securing a full four-year term once his current term concludes, acknowledging the pressing technical challenges faced by the state as he noted, "I was consistently told by licensees that they would consider Nevada only after other states due to concerns regarding regulatory delays and inconsistencies. This feedback compelled me to take decisive action upon my appointment."

You may also like