State officials want to modernise Nevada’s gaming regulations. Industry changes demand new approaches. Gaming Control Board members met Tuesday for several hours. Participants discussed rules covering multiple gaming industry sections. Board members completed their third workshop this month. Nevada seeks to update and simplify its regulatory framework. Industry representatives complained for years about Nevada’s outdated systems. Newer gaming states operate with better efficiency and technology. Games and systems regulations need the most improvement. Board members prioritised these rule changes over multiple years. Nevada wants to remain the gold standard for US gaming.

Tuesday’s workshop covered slot machine testing procedures and table game approvals. Wagering account usage might expand under new proposals. Cloud computing services received attention during discussions. Other minor changes appeared on the agenda, too. Representatives supported most changes except for technical legal issues. These discussions mark only the beginning of the process. Board members handle daily regulatory work in Nevada. The Gaming Commission holds final decision-making authority, however. The Commission must approve all board recommendations first. Regulatory changes typically require several discussion rounds. Tuesday showed this pattern clearly. Some proposals moved forward while others got delayed.

NGCB Chair Mike Dreitzer champions these regulatory updates. Dreitzer started his position in June this year. His background includes senior positions at Gaming Arts, Ainsworth, and BMM Testlabs. Proposed changes represent careful consideration, according to Dreitzer. Best regulations emerge when everyone works together, he stated.

Game Approval Process Takes Centre Stage

Regulation 14 updates dominated the workshop discussions. These rules control game approval procedures in Nevada. Assembly Bill 58 was passed in June, requiring many changes. Deputy Chief Jeremy Eberwein explained the proposed updates. Nevada needs competitive product regulations to succeed. Submission problems plagued the industry for 10 years. These changes address these longstanding issues directly. Board members want everything aligned properly now. Industry groups welcomed most proposed modifications. The Association for Gaming Equipment Manufacturers sent two representatives. President Daron Dorsey and counsel Dan Reaser attended. Both expressed support with minor exceptions. Adaptive play regulation removal caused the biggest concern. This rule currently prohibits skill games in Nevada.

Reaser helped write the original adaptive play rule. Removal might create unintended loopholes, he warned. Skill games have spread through Pennsylvania and Virginia already. Board members assured this won’t happen in Nevada. Members voted to advance changes to commission review. AGEM looks forward to continued engagement, Dorsey confirmed. Supplier sector interests need protection throughout the process.

Wagering Accounts and Cloud Services Evolve

Regulation 5 changes sparked additional workshop discussions. Casino chips might fund wagering accounts soon. Withdrawal options could include chips, too. Cloud computing service provider rules need loosening. Operators want more freedom in choosing technology partners. Wagering account expansion remains a regulatory priority. Nevada approved account usage for property purchases last year. This represented major progress for payment systems. The gaming industry adoption of banking technology lags behind. Patron expectations come from retail sector experiences.

Current cloud computing rules prove difficult to enforce, Eberwein explained. Implementation happened years ago under different circumstances. Cloud provider activities don’t relate directly to gaming. Regulators understand this distinction better now. Amazon Web Services sent attorney Erica Okerberg. She supported changes while suggesting minor clarifications. MGM’s legal counsel Chandler Pohl raised operator concerns. Liability protections need simultaneous updates, he argued. Board members tabled this matter for later.