Gamblor’s World

For general release:

Loto-Quebec’s request to quash the class action lawsuit has
been
rejected by  the Honorable Gratien Duchesne. The trial is
scheduled to
commence in early Spring 2007 instead of February 2007 as
originally
planned. Any further questions can be directed to me by
phone 514 486 6226 or by e mail sol@vivaconsulting.com. The attachment
has not been
translated but I will respond to questions in either
language.

AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ

Ce message peut contenir de l’information légalement
privilégiée ou
confidentielle. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire ou
croyez avoir reçu par
erreur ce message, nous vous saurions gré d’en aviser
l’émetteur et d’en
détruire le contenu sans le communiquer à d’autres ou le
reproduire.

–
Join Sol Boxenbaum on Last Call With Sol
Tuesday through Saturday mornings 3:05 A.M. to 4:00 A.M.
Eastern
Standard Time on CJAD
800 in Montreal or at www.cjad.com

 
29.11.2006  
 
By John Cousins

A gambling addiction help agency is urging reforms of the pub pokie industry after disclosures that gaming machines will suck nearly $19 million out of Tauranga’s economy this year.

The impact of gambling on the spending power of city residents was spelt out by Problem Gambling Foundation strategist Adrian Straayer to a city council meeting yesterday.

On the basis that each of the city’s 509 pub pokie machines took an average of $47,500 a year more than they paid out, and an estimated $5.5m was distributed to community organisations, it left Tauranga out of pocket to the tune of $18.7m.

Mr Straayer said 90 per cent of problem gambling addictions were caused by pokie machines.

The council was reviewing its three-year-old policy which controls the total number of pokie machines allowed in Tauranga and how many could operate at each venue.

It recommended lowering the number of pokies from one machine per 147 head of population, to one per 170 people.

Mr Straayer suggested a change to the system in which pub gaming machines are operated by societies that deducted 36 per cent of pokies’ revenue as expenses. A third of revenue is paid out as grants to community groups and 31 per cent goes to the Government.

Six major national trusts handle 60 per cent of the $1 billion pokie revenues and one of them, Pub Charity, was recently named as a Tauranga City Council city partner for its funding of projects, including the museum.

Mr Straayer, a former policeman and Internal Affairs gaming compliance manager, said the societies were multimillion-dollar businesses operating in a non-disclosure and commercially sensitive environment.

One of his suggestions to reform the industry was to bring it under local control by establishing fully accountable community-elected trusts to operate all the machines in its district. Machine profits would nearly all be retained in the local community from which it came. However, the council said this was outside the scope of the review and was an issue for central Government.

Mr Straayer said acquiring and retaining pokie machine venues was becoming critical to the societies. It was being achieved by incentives, maximising payments to publicans up to the equivalent of $196 per machine per week, influencing grants and backhanders through grant processes, he said.

"The amount of money out there is huge and a lot of people are making a lot of money."

Societies that played by the book could not win because someone else was prepared to offer extras, he said.

 

Last Updated: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 | 10:18 AM ET, CBC News

A national gambling watchdog group has raised new concerns about lottery scratch cards sold in Ontario, charging that current practices are unfair and misleading to the consumer.

The Gambling Watch Network filed a letter with Ontario’s ombudsman complaining that scratch tickets are sold even after the top prizes have been won. Brian Yealland, the group’s spokesman, said retailers should stop selling tickets if the buyer has no chance of winning the jackpot.

The Gambling Watch Network has filed a complaint with Ontario’s ombudsman, saying lottery tickets should be pulled once the top prizes have been won.

(CBC) "People go on purchasing those tickets although they have no chance of winning, and it seems to us that this is a breach of the understanding one has in buying a ticket," Yealland said.

This practice has been the subject of scrutiny and lawsuits in the United States, causing some state lotteries to include disclaimers on the tickets explaining that some prizes may already be won. In Iowa, instant win tickets are pulled from stores once the grand prizes have been claimed, said Tina Potthoff, a spokeswoman for the Iowa State Lottery.

"We want to make sure our players have a chance to win the top prize every time they purchase a ticket," Potthoff said. "If by chance a top prize is missing and they only have a second- or third-tier prize, we feel that’s false advertising."

A spokesman for the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation said players can call a toll-free number printed on the back of each scratch and win ticket to find out which prizes are still available to be won.

The province’s ombudsman, Andre Marin, has launched an investigation into OLGC practices, following a report by CBC’s The Fifth Estate questioning the suspicious number of retailers and clerks who have won lotteries. Last month, it was revealed that in the past seven years Ontario clerks and retailers have claimed lottery victories nearly 200 times. University of Toronto statistician Jeffery Rosenthal said the number should have been closer to 57, and was a nearly impossible statistical anomaly.

The Fifth Estate probe stemmed from a lawsuit involving Coboconk, Ont., senior Bob Edmonds and the OLG. Edmonds alleged that his winning ticket had been fraudulently claimed at a local store and eventually reached a settlement with both the retailer and the OLG.

After the report aired, the lottery corporation announced measures such as more electronic devices for players to check their own tickets, rules prohibiting clerks from handling a ticket unless it has been signed on the back by a customer and video screens that would face customers.

CBC News later raised questions about the high number of retailers and clerks claiming wins on scratch tickets. Internal data from the OLG indicate that at one point, retailers and clerks claimed wins on scratch tickets 10 per cent of the time.

According to OLG documents, investigators routinely checked for "pin-pricking" –where a scratch ticket card is scratched very lightly to see if it contains a winning code — while looking into allegations of insider wins.

Duncan Brown, CEO of the lottery corporation, announced last week that he’s considering the idea of banning the purchase of lottery tickets by clerks who sell them.

Copyright © CBC 2006

 

By MELANIE PATTEN The Canadian Press, Halifax Herald Wednesday November 29, 2006

A former problem gambler who says staff at a Nova Scotia casino should have prevented him from wasting his life savings has received a letter from the provincial ombudsman’s office that appears to lend credence to his claim.

The one-page letter was sent to Paul Burrell in response to a complaint he lodged against the Nova Scotia Alcohol and Gaming Authority, which enforces casino regulations.

The letter, dated Sept. 21, says staff at Nova Scotia’s two casinos lack training, and the province’s regulations are not consistent with the rules in other parts of the country.

Ombudsman Dwight Bishop confirmed the letter came from his office but he described its contents as "premature" because he has yet to complete a report on the subject.

"It’s not our normal practice to make suggestive conclusions or anything like that at that stage," Bishop said in an interview.

"It’s premature because I’m the only one in power to make those decisions."

Burrell, who says he blew nearly $500,000 at Casino Nova Scotia in Sydney between 2000 and 2003, says he plans to file a lawsuit against the province in a bid to get an apology and his money back.

The letter in question, signed by ombudsman representative Allison E. Rose, suggests there may be some substance to Burrell’s claim.

"Further research by this office has revealed what we believe to be a lack of training of staff on the part of the casinos," the letter says.

"It has also been noted that the regulations for Nova Scotia are not in keeping with other provinces in respect to exclusion of persons who appear to addicted to gambling."

Burrell, a former coal miner, says he wasn’t surprised to learn the ombudsman was distancing himself from the letter.

"It’s a sad state of affairs," he said in an interview.

He says his problems started in January 2000 when he started pumping money into slot machines at the Cape Breton casino.

Burrell insists he was never offered help by the casino, even though provincial legislation says staff have the option to bar problem gamblers from the facilities.

In fact, casino staff encouraged him to keep playing, he says.

In 2004, he filed his first complaint against the Nova Scotia Alcohol and Gaming Authority, but it was dismissed.

Burrell was subsequently banned from the casino, but he says he should have been kicked out long before then.

The Nova Scotia Gaming Corp., which oversees all gambling in the province, says casino staff have been trained to recognize problem gamblers since the casinos in Sydney and Halifax opened in 1995.

Spokeswoman Margaret McGee says the ombudsman’s office has apologized to the corporation for the comments made in the Burrell letter.

"People make mistakes," McGee said Tuesday. "I’m looking forward to giving them information on the training that we do have so they can make a really good conclusion on this."

© 2006 The Halifax Herald Limited

 

November 12, 2006

100 Maryland Avenue NE, Room 311, Washington, DC, 20002 ~ (800) 664-2680 ~ ncalg@ncalg.org

The National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling feels that the distinction between Class II and Class III gambling machines should be distinct and palpable to the players. If a machine looks like, sounds like, and feels like a slot machine in play, it should be categorized as a Class III gambling machine, regardless of whether or not the technology inside the machine pits player against player rather than player against a computer.

The National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling also feels that there are major problems relating to fraud and consumer protection under the current NIGC technical regulations concerning both Class II and Class III gambling machines. 

Both Class II and Class III machines approved by the NIGC use a "conversion" process where a random outcome from a fixed prize pool, like a bingo game (Class II) or complex paytables (Class III) are converted and displayed as game outcomes on what appears to be real slot machines. Both may use mapping and unbalanced reels that are intended to distort players’ perceptions of the true probabilities of winning. It is our understanding that the NIGC and your testing labs do not check and scrutinize these concealed processes or features to see if they can distort players’ perceptions or if they contravene US federal fraud laws or consumer protections laws.

We would suggest that a new technical standard should be introduced that bans any process or feature that has the potential to mislead players by distorting the players perceptions in any manner. The use of mapping and unbalanced reels should be outlawed because their intended purpose is to give the player the perception the odds are better than they actually are by displaying game outcomes, using mapping to "weight" various outcomes that deliberately "distort" the true odds of winning. This appears to us to violate consumer protection standards that the federal government applies to almost every other industry in the country. 

We will be watching closely and working with members of Congress to see if these major problems are corrected in your regulations, and will challenge regulations that we feel are in violation of federal standards.

Sincerely,

Dr. Guy C. Clark, chairman

National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

p.s. for a more detailed examination into the deceitfulness of video slot machines, please read the attached research article by Falkiner and Horbay

 

Man pays woman to resolve civil lawsuit

Kenneth Garbe with then-girlfriend Ludmila (Lida) Konickova on winning a $12.4-million lottery prize. Konickova later claimed she had given Garbe $20 to buy the winning ticket.

Neal Hall, Vancouver Sun

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Ludmila Konickova hadn’t known him long. They’d met 18 weeks earlier through an Internet dating service, but she claims it was a trusting and "committed relationship."

She also claims she gave her 52-year-old boyfriend, Kenneth Garbe, $20 to buy a lottery ticket for the June 2 Super 7 draw, saying she took it on faith he would pass on any winnings.

The ticket was a $12.4-million winner.

But Garbe tells a different story about the ticket, saying she has no claim to the money. And he also claims he since found out she was having sex with an 82-year-old man while they were dating — an allegation she denies.

Now, the once-happy couple, who split five months ago, have settled a legal dispute over the lottery winnings, cutting short what could have been a bitter and messy legal battle involving love and money.

The spat is outlined in court documents filed in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, where Konickova claimed half of the prize.

The case was settled this week, according to Vancouver lawyer John Logan, acting for Garbe, a former Vancouver school board employee.

The story has an interesting beginning. When Garbe checked his winning lottery ticket last June, he thought the winning sum was $12,000. When he went to claim it, he was shocked to learn his winning sum included three more zeroes. A lottery official had to give Garbe a magnifying glass so he could see for himself.

He and Konickova posed for the winning photograph, in which Garbe was in a wheelchair, recovering from knee surgery.

Days later, Garbe dumped Konickova, who then filed a civil lawsuit, claiming she gave Garbe the money that purchased the winning ticket.

In her legal action, Konickova said she should have received at least $6 million, but since Garbe breached his unwritten contract to share the winnings, she should be entitled to the entire $12.4 million, plus interest.

"I am afraid, with respect, that I disagree with that conclusion," B.C. Supreme Court Justice Eric Rice said in an interim ruling earlier this month.

"The evidence of Ms. Konickova potentially supports an entitlement to half of the prize or $6 million plus interest," said the judge, who decided to freeze only half the lottery winnings until the court could resolve the matter.

In evidence filed in court, Garbe denied that Konickova gave him any money to purchase a ticket. He said she never asked him to purchase a ticket for her or for himself. There were no independent witnesses to corroborate either version. But Garbe produced evidence from Konickova’s ex-husband, a Mr. Konicek, who recalled his ex-wife initially told him that Garbe had won the lottery. He said she made no mention at that time of Konickova giving Garbe $20 to buy the ticket.

The ex-husband recalled Konickova saying she hoped Garbe would give her enough to pay off the mortgage on her home. The court was told that Konickova lives in North Vancouver.

The defence also spoke to an 82-year-old man who said he had sex with Konickova during the 18-week period she claimed she was in a "committed relationship" with Garbe, whom Konickova met last Feb. 8 through an Internet dating service.

The retired businessman recalled their most recent encounters were within a month or two after last April 11, when he had cancer surgery. The man suggested he didn’t want Konickova to be painted as a "floozy."

Garbe’s side also contacted another man who said he was also having sex with Konickova during the period she was dating Garbe. He recalled Konickova telling him last June that Garbe had won the lottery.

Garbe’s lawyer argued that Konickova failed to make full and frank disclosure that she had a relationship with two other men while she was supposedly in a committed relationship with Garbe.

Konickova, however, denied she was having sex with two other men while she was in a relationship with Garbe.

Garbe’s lawyer also pointed out that when Garbe and Konickova went to claim the lottery win, she said nothing to lottery officials about her claim or about providing the money to buy the ticket. He suggested those were telling omissions.

But in the end, the court didn’t have to decide the case. Neither Konickova nor her lawyer would discuss Tuesday how much Konickova was paid to settle the civil lawsuit.

"We’re not discussing the case," said Konickova’s lawyer, John Mendes.

Logan, Garbe’s lawyer, said his client was difficult to reach but he had passed along a message that The Vancouver Sun was trying to reach him. The court was told that Garbe had only spent about $400,000 of his winnings on family members and himself. Last June, the lucky man told lottery officials that he planned to buy his son a new truck, retire from his school board job, buy a new house and do some travelling

For the record/historical video archives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSps-KbhE-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXWAk0EgAAc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8baM7Q4OQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48BJzGvklSo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfZWAVnr9to

 

With the creator’s permission.

 

Letter, Tuesday, November 28, 2006, Vancouver Sun

Re: Expanded bingo hall to get 50 slot machines, Westcoast News, Nov. 25

Mission city council has decided to allow slot machines in a bingo hall, the Boardwalk Gaming Centre. The argument given by Coun. Paul Horn was that "the facts were quite compelling. There is no evidence slot machines in this type of enterprise cause an increase in crime or in addictive behaviour."

Are there other considerations besides the "facts" that should enter into such decisions? The "facts" are no doubt the result of scientific studies. Here lies the difficulty. Science by its very nature must break things down into measurable sets; it subdivides reality and selects only what can be measured. Its usefulness depends on the questions we ask. But are the right ones being asked? Can we rely on science alone to give us all the information we need?

Often we won’t even acknowledge the validity of questions that lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Social value issues critical to the health of our communities always need to be given the deepest consideration. In this case, one such question might be: Is gambling the kind of activity that enhances the society in which we live?

I wonder if this council, or any other level of government for that matter, has pondered this question in its deliberations.

Myles Ferrie, Mission

© The Vancouver Sun 2006 

The Real Cheating Must Be Stopped

Re: Open letter to André Marin, Ontario Ombudsman

November 27, 2006

Dear Mr. Marin,

This is further to my correspondence to you on October 26, 2006 and my subsequent discussions with Grace Chau. I’m concerned because I have not heard back from your Special Ombudsman Response Team. I’m a recognized leader in the fields of problem gambling and electronic gaming, but my concerns about gambling in Ontario have been consistently ignored or dismissed by OLG and others who have a vested interest in gambling revenues. I’m hoping that your Office will see the validity in my concerns and conduct a thorough investigation into my concerns and why they have been dismissed in the past.

Over the past few weeks the CBC and The Fifth Estate has revealed lottery retailers may be involved in lottery ticket fraud by stealing customers’ winning tickets or pin-pricking scratch tickets to try to discover winning tickets and keep them for themselves. There’s no doubt that there may be a few dishonest retailers. But, these allegations have really tarnished the good reputations of the majority of hard working and honest store clerks. The Fifth Estate has also disclosed how the Ontario Lottery & Gaming (OLG) badly treats those who complain. This has resulted in you, as the Ontario Ombudsman, rightfully launching an investigation into the lack of trust for OLG lotteries.

The Fifth Estate revealed that they discovered, through a Freedom of Information request, that too many lottery retailers have been winning jackpots than is statistically possible. In fact, about 150 major jackpots have been awarded to lottery retailers than is statistically possible. I believe The Fifth Estate jumped to the conclusion that retailers must be stealing the winning tickets from customers who naively and trustingly give to the retailers to check for them. This may or may not be true. But, it also may be an indicator of other more serious problems with the electronic lottery draw systems. It’s been rumored for the past year that some lottery systems may have been compromised or "hacked" because there are simply too many winners overall, not just retail winners, than is statistically possible. The major mega-jackpot lotteries haven’t been "performing" as anticipated with frequent wins of the top jackpot before they have time to build to astronomical proportions, like they should be doing. This may be an indicator of a serious breach in security of the electronic lottery systems and may account for why too many retailers have won. So, instead of accusing the retailers of fraud, the obvious place to start is to have an independent statistician openly analysis all the past lottery draws for any anomalies that would reveal any compromises in the lottery systems’ security.

Along with focusing on possible retailer fraud, your investigators need to look at the possible deceptive trade practices within all the OLG operated systems and games and within the OLG itself. Here are some issues I have raised over the years that have been dismissed or ignored.

When the top prizes are won on instant scratch tickets and no longer available, OLG lets retailers continue to sell the tickets even though there is absolutely no chance of winning the jackpot. But, the tickets and their website continue to advertise the top prizes, without disclosing there is 0% chance of winning the posted prize? This is false and misleading and an unconscionable representation. It most likely contravenes the Ontario Consumer Protection Act

 

and criminal laws. If the OLG wishes to continue to sell these tickets after the top prizes are won, they have a "duty to inform" each potential purchaser that they have no chance of winning the top prize. Otherwise, it’s deceptive. But, to be fair, you can find out if the top prizes have already been won by phoning OLG "Excellence Centre" toll-free: 1-800-387-0098. But, the onus is on the player and they must provide the OLG with the specific game number in order to find out which prizes are still available. The onus needs to be on the OLG to inform customers which prizes are still available before they purchase instant scratch tickets.

OLG routinely pulls batches of instant scratch games (game lots) when they please, even if no one has won the jackpots. How prevalent is this practice? Where does the unclaimed money go?

Also, progressive slot machine "jackpots" are reset during "regular maintenance". Again, where does the accumulated jackpot pool money go that 1000s of players paid into trying to hit the jackpot? The jackpot money also disappears when these progressive slot machines are "retired".

Advertising jackpots that are not available or misappropriating jackpot monies is unacceptable! As a consumer I have a right to know if the jackpots are no longer available. Also, if I feed a jackpot pool by playing a game and they pull the game without paying the jackpot I contributed to, I have a right to get my money back. The "expectation" is that the jackpot pool will be distributed back to the players. In fact, Ontario Gaming Regulation seems to imply that players have a right to their money back if they still have their tickets:

ONTARIO REGULATION 198/00 - LOTTERY SCHEMES

Cancellation, etc., of a Lottery Scheme

14. (1) The Corporation may suspend, recall, withdraw or cancel all or part of a lottery scheme at any time before the period for claiming prizes expires. O. Reg. 198/00, s. 14 (1).

(2) The Corporation may impose such conditions on the suspension, recall, withdrawal or cancellation of all or part of a lottery scheme as it considers appropriate. O. Reg. 198/00, s. 14 (2).

(3) Upon suspending, recalling, withdrawing or canceling all or part of a lottery scheme, the Corporation shall not pay to any participant in the scheme an amount greater than the amount the participant paid to a vendor in order to participate in the scheme. O. Reg. 198/00, s. 14 (3).

(4) Upon suspending, recalling, withdrawing or canceling all or part of a lottery scheme, the Corporation is not liable to reimburse a participant in the scheme unless the participant’s ticket or such other evidence of his, her or its participation or attempted participation as the Corporation may require is returned to the Corporation. O. Reg. 198/00, s. 14 (4).

Also, OLG calculates the "return to player percentage" of each game based on the fact the jackpot should eventually be won. If they are not, players are simply not receiving the full payback percentage of the games advertised by OLG. In the case of slot machine progressives, the OLG must return at least 85%. This is impossible if the jackpots are not paid out. The players are being cheated and OLG is contravening gaming regulations by misappropriating jackpot money and not paying back the minimum return to progressive slot machine players.

Further, OLG refuses to disclose the identity of slot machine jackpot winners. This is counter to their policy on lotteries that state:

"The publishing of winners is important in demonstrating the integrity of our lottery games. OLG reserves the right to publish the name, address and photograph of any winner. This is necessary for us to demonstrate that people do win. Winner information is released to the news media and may be used in OLG ’s advertising. For every prizewinner there are a number of other players who did not win but have a legitimate desire to know that someone won."

 

Also, there have been persistent rumours for years that cheating teams are consistently winning slot machine jackpots and that OLG is using secret "bonusing systems" that can target jackpots to specific players and machines.

Additionally, OLG conceals the odds (probabilities of winning) any prizes on all Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs), while using "unbalanced reels", "virtual reel mapping" and "non-linear paytables" (that change the players’ odds of winning depending on amount wagered). All these concealed processes and features distort players’ perceptions and give players a false impression of favorable odds, multiple near misses affects and that a win is imminent. All of which can be described as unconscionable representations and deceptive trade practices.

Here’s a list of laws I believe the OLG are blatantly contravening by operating deceptive slot machines and continuing to sell tickets after the jackpots have been won without disclosing this to each and every player who goes to purchase tickets thinking they have a chance of winning a jackpot when they do not:

Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002

False, misleading or deceptive representation

14 (1) It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 14 (1).

Examples of false, misleading or deceptive representations

(2) Without limiting the generality of what constitutes a false, misleading or deceptive representation, the following are included as false, misleading or deceptive representations:

…14. A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive

Unconscionable representation

15. (1) It is an unfair practice to make an unconscionable representation.

(2) Without limiting the generality of what may be taken into account in determining whether a representation is unconscionable, there may be taken into account that the person making the representation or the person’s employer or principal knows or ought to know,

(a) that the consumer is not reasonably able to protect his or her interests because of disability, ignorance, illiteracy, inability to understand the language of an agreement or similar factors;

Section 209 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

Cheating at play 209. Every one who, with intent to defraud any person, cheats while playing a game or in holding the stakes for a game or in betting is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

The Competition Act - Part VII.1 - Deceptive Marketing Practices

74.01 (1) A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever,

 

1. (a) makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect;

    

   (6) In proceedings under this section, the general impression conveyed by a representation as well as its literal meaning shall be taken into account in determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

   
   

   74.06 A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product, or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, conducts any contest, lottery, game of chance or skill, or mixed chance and skill, or otherwise disposes of any product or other benefit by any mode of chance, skill or mixed chance and skill whatever, where (a) adequate and fair disclosure is not made of the number and approximate value of the prizes, of the area or areas to which they relate and of any fact within the knowledge of the person that affects materially the chances of winning;

In light of a legal opinion (attached) the government received in 1996, I also have grave concerns that the use of "private operators" to conduct and manage casinos, sell lottery and Nevada tickets, is described as a "scheme calculated to circumvent provisions of the Criminal Code" and are unlawful. Also, why does the AGCO regulate casinos and slot machine operations when OLG is left to regulate their own lottery games?

I also have grave concerns about the arrangements between OLG and "Slots at the Tracks", where the horse racing industry in Ontario has already received over $2 billion in slot machine revenue with no overall benefit to the agricultural sector in Ontario.

All these concerns have been raised with the OLG, AGCO, and various governments and politicians over the years, always fallen on deaf ears, indifference and inaction. If the private sector sold such products to consumers and behaved like OLG and their regulator, the Attorney Generals would shut them down and call their operations a scam. I believe that in order to restore real trust in the OLG their needs to be a full and open public inquiry into the OLG and all their operations and practices and to ascertain why the OLG doesn’t abide by consumer protection laws and why AGCO hasn’t insisted the OLG abide by all laws, especially federal laws in regards to casino operations and slot machines, which protections supersede provincial gaming laws and regulations.

I’m available to assist your investigation team with my expertise and extensive knowledge of lotteries and electronic gaming machines.

Respectfully,

Roger Horbay, HSC President Game Planit 

Posted with permission from author.