14 / 60
14
// PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL // November/December 2015
to changing conditions and risk profiles.
This will be particularly important in the
early stages of developing regulations for
skill-based games. The people who at-
tempt to cheat or otherwise take advan-
tage of the system are constantly finding
new ways to accomplish their objective.
So we need to be constantly finding new
ways to prevent them from accomplish-
ing their objective.
What kinds of issues are regulators having to
think about as regards to skill-based games?
K. Mullally:
There will need to be risk-
control systems to protect from cheating
and to ensure player fairness. We need
safeguards for players and operators alike,
to ensure that the players are complying
with the rules and that the game-play
cannot be manipulated to give players
an advantage, either against the House
or against each other. For example, joy-
sticks are precisely calibrated to function
in a certain way. If the calibration for
the joy-stick gets out of adjustment even
by small amounts, that could lead to an
unfair advantage or disadvantage for the
player. There will need to be more robust
controls to ensure that joysticks are cali-
brated properly. The technical solutions
for operating a joy-stick that exist for rec-
reational skill-games may be adequate for
non-money-wagering applications, but
wagering games will require a far more
sophisticated level of protection.
What are some skill-based design concepts
that may challenge the ability of regulators
to safeguard against cheating?
K. Mullally:
GLI steadfastly avoids ad-
vising on game design. However, I have
observed that one of the challenges for
the industry will be developing an opti-
mum blend of skill and chance—some-
thing that gives the average player a rea-
sonable expectation of some type of a
return. How does that objective get rec-
onciled with the fact that players will all
have varying degrees of skill?
Poker, for instance, represents a good
balance between skill and chance. An
average player has a chance to beat an
above average player if the cards fall their
way. The element of chance is an equal-
izer. The highly-skilled poker player also
has the ability to apply their skills such
that they acquire an advantage and will
likely beat an average player over time. In
Las Vegas poker rooms, or online poker
rooms, players may try to avoid joining
a game of professional poker players.
But in regards to poker, there does not
need to be regulatory controls applied
because the element of chance mitigates
the degree to which skill determines the
outcome. New skill-based games that are
designed with that kind of skill/chance
balance may not need any more regula-
tory controls than poker. But there will
be new skill-based games that won’t have
that equilibrium of skill mitigated by
chance and will require additional regu-
latory layers to ensure that players do not
have an unfair advantage or manipulate
the outcomes of multi-player games. Of
course, giving the players a fair chance to
win is a market-driven necessity since the
consumer do not want to play games that
are perceived as unfair. Skill-based games
will need to have the tools to create a fair
opportunity in order to build a following
with the broader market of recreational
gamers. Players trust games like Lottery
and slots because they understand there
are controls giving everyone an equal
chance to win the random-based games.
Golf has a handicap system that theoreti-
cally levels the playing field enabling play-
ers of varying skill levels to compete directly
with each other. Tennis has a tiered system
that theoretically puts people of similar skill
levels together in the same field to compete
with each other. But some people “sandbag,”
deliberately playing worse when the stakes
are small so that they will perform better
against their handicap or the field when the
stakes are big. It seems to me that the chal-
lenge of preventing that kind of manipula-
tion will be problematic, won’t it?
K. Mullally:
Yes, of course. That is just
another area where regulators will need to
work through issues and create some rea-
sonable system of controls. The process of
developing these regulations to provide
consistency and safeguards protecting the
consumer will be a learning experience for
everyone. It will be iterative and evolve
and span across multiple jurisdictions.
The appropriate levels of risk control will
be a matter of some debate, but regula-
tors will likely begin with higher levels
of control to minimize the potential for
faults or vulnerabilities in the early stages
of this process. Hopefully, the process will
be collaborative in an effort to reach some
level of standardization in risk control
measures. If the regulatory effort is too di-
verse, it increases the likelihood that some
markets will fail to develop in this area.
And combining social-gaming with skill
and wagering could make things even more
complicated. Like, turning the old Zynga-
style games into money games would seem to
open up a whole new can of worms.
K. Mullally:
You mentioned handicap-
ping. I think there will be lots of differ-
ent ways to deal with these issues. For
instance, players could create their own
pools, choosing their own group of play-
ers, be it friends or people of similar skill
levels. Especially when the stakes are high-
er, players may want to know they can
trust the other players. With some games,
the play-style may be more focused on
the social aspect, playing with people you
know and and are part of your social net-