May 31,2001 

President Cyrus Schindler 

Seneca Nation of Indians 

Post Office Box 23 1 

Salamanca, New York 14779 

Re: Game Classification Opinion for a gaming device know as "Break the Bank" 

Dear President Schindler: 

We were asked to review the equipment and method of play for a game known as "Break 

the Bank," developed and marketed by Cadillac Jack, Incorporated, for the purpose of 

determining whether the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission should 

regard the game as a class II or a class 111 game under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA). In addition to "Break the Bank," a name under which the game is marketed, 

Cadillac Jack also refers to the product as the Cadillac Jack PTC Multi-tab System. 

ill!# 

In considering the question, we reviewed a detailed description for the game that was 

provided to an NIGC field representative during a visit to the Seneca Nation's gaming 

facilities on February 6-7, 2001. Cadillac Jack provided these materials to the Nation as 

part of its marketing effort. This complete description is included as an attachment and is 

incorporated by reference as part of this advisory game opinion. We also examined a 

videotape of game play that was made on November 27, 2000, by another NIGC field 

representative during a visit to the Lucky Star Casino, a tribal gaming facility operated by 

the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, where the game is also in play. 

Technical specifications for the game are not in question at this time. 

Game Description Summary 

The system intends to accomplish the sale of electronic pull-tabs through use of various 

system components. According to the Cadillac Jack materials, there are separate and 

stand-alone systems that enable the play of the game, including: (i) a computer cartridge 

(a "cartridge") which houses electronic pull-tabs (referred to as "tickets" by Cadillac 

Jack) in separate files located on the cartridge and acts as a non-volatile permanent 

storage medium for the tickets; (ii) a central computer controller to which up to 32 

cartridges are attached and a network system which emanates from a central host location 

(the "Network"'); (iii) an Electronic Printing-Dispensing Station (an "EPDS") which is 

connected to the Network and which by virtue of the Network is able to transmit to and 

receive from the central computer information about the tickets; (iv) an Electronic 

%11- ' Viewing Station (an "EVS") which is connected to the Network and which by virtue of 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NICC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento. CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul. MN; Tulsa. OK 
"Break the Bank" Advisory Game Opinion 

Page 2 of 7 

Id 

the Network is able to transmit to and receive from the central computer information 

about the tickets and the game; and (v) a Point of Sale system ("POS") comprised of 

interconnected central and remote POS stations which function as cashiers for the system. 

The central computer, the Network, the EVS's and the EPDS's are collectively referred 

to as the "System." There is a separate Ticket Manufacturing Device ("TMD") that 

manufactures the electronic tickets and stores these electronic tickets on the cartridges. 

The TMD is not connected to any other system device. 

The central computer acts as an aid for the transmission by the Network of images of the 

tickets to players, which are presented to the players in their original electronic form, in 

the case of players playing the tickets at an EVS, or as "paper facsimiles" in the case of 

players playing the tickets at an EPDS. All of the players are remotely located fiom the 

central location at which the cartridge, with the actual electronic tickets stored thereon, is 

located. The EPDS's and EVS's connected to the Network may be located in several 

locations in the same bingo hall or at separate bingo halls. The Game is played as many 

players simultaneously purchase, access, and play the electronic tickets on the cartridges 

through the aid of an EVS (if two or more are in use) or an EPDS by way of the Network 

and central computer. 

Players access the game either at a player-operated EVS or at an EPDS that is operated 

by an attendant-employee of the gaming facility. During play at an EVS, a player inserts 

' II~ 

a smart card, obtained from a POS, into the device and depletes the credits that have been 

purchased and programmed on the smart card. For each credit expended, the player sees 

a visual image of a pull-tab, or "ticket" on the video screen. There are no paper pull-tabs 

available through the EVS. The electronic tickets have been stored on the computerized 

cartridge that has been placed into a central controller computer, or server, for the 

Network. Each cartridge will store electronically up to 150,000 tickets, each in a separate 

file or location on the cartridge. Players open each electronic ticket to reveal the pull-tab 

game by touching the monitor screen or through use of a hardware control button on the 

front of the EVS. A player wins by obtaining an electronic ticket containing a pattern of 

symbols that matches a pre-determined pattern previously designated a winning pattern. 

The player must affirmatively claim the prize by touching the monitor screen or by 

pushing another hardware control button. The value of the monetary prize from winning 

electronic tickets is transferred at player direction to the player's smart card as additional 

credits. 

The Game also can be played without an EVS at the EPDS where acquiring an electronic 

ticket requires assistance by an attendant. Using the equipment that includes a printer, 

the attendant, at the request of the player, prints what is termed by Cadillac Jack as a 

"facsimile" of an electronic game ticket for the player. This is simply a printed piece of 

paper with descriptive words instead of symbols listed on it in a grid format similar to the 

electronic ticket. The printed sheet is covered by another piece of paper that the player 

puIls back to reveal the game. The player then determines whether she is a winner fiom 
"Break the Bank" Advisory Game Opinion 

Page 3 of 7 

411 4 

the paper facsimile and, in a successful instance, returns the paper facsimile to the 

attendant who credits the smart card appropriately. 

According to the descriptive materials provided by Cadillac Jack, "the EVS and the 

EPDS do not act as dispensing units by which players may directly purchase a physical 

ticket. The tickets exist solely on the Cartridge in electronic format with the display and 

play of the game occurs through the aid of the EVS7s and EPDS's connected to the 

Network." 

Pertinent Statutes and Regulations 

IGRA divides gaming into three distinct categories. Class I gaming involves social 

games and traditional Indian games not applicable to this discussion. Class I1 gaming 

includes "the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, 

computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith) ... in which the 

game is won by the first person covering a previously designated arrangement of 

numbers or designations on such cards, including (if played in the same location) pull 

tabs, ... instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo." The term "class I1 gaming" 

does not include "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or 

slot machines of any kind." Class I11 gaming means "all forms of gaming that are not 

class I gaming or class I1 gaming." See 25 U.S.C. 5 2703 (6) - (8). 

I+@' Regulations of the NIGC provide corresponding definitions for these gaming 

classifications at 25 C.F.R. Part 502. 

The purpose in drawing a distinction between class I1 and class I11 gaming is that, under 

IGRA, class I11 gaming may only be played in conformance with a tribal-state compact 

permitting such gaming. See 25 U.S.C. fj 2710(d)(l)(~).' 

Discussion 

The game of pull-tabs is a game of chance played traditionally as a paper game. Players 

purchase outwardly identical cards from a stack of cards (the "deal7'). The deal includes a 

pre-determined number of winning and losing cards. The player opens the tab and finds 

out if the card is a winner.2 Under IGRA and NIGC regulations, the paper game of pulltabs is class 11. See 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (7)(A)(i)(III) and 25 C.F.R. § 502.30>). 

Proponents of the electronic version of pull-tabs suggest that the game is played with a 

similar underlying concept. A player obtains an electronic "card" or "ticket" that is 

displayed for the player on a video monitor from a "stack" of similar "cards" or "tickets" 

I In the absence of a compact, a tribe may also play a class 111 game under procedures established by the 

Secretary of the Interior. See 25 C.F.R. Part 291. 

This description of the paper pull-tab game is that used by the Court in Cabazon Band v. NIGC, 827 F. 

YI-' Supp. 26,28 (n. 2)(D.D.C. 1993), aff d 14 F.3d. 633 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 
"Break the Bank" Advisory Game Opinion 

Page 4 of 7 

stored electronically. Using the electronic equipment available to the player, the player 

"opens" the electronic pull-tab and examines the combinations on the video screen to 

determine if she has a winning combination. As with paper pull-tabs, the "deal" is finite 

which is to say that the numbers of winning and losing tickets are known when the "deal" 

is loaded, electronically, into the gaming equipment. In some versions, the deal is 

contained in a cartridge or series of cartridges that are loaded individually into'a single 

player terminal. In others, the deal is loaded into a central computer that can be accessed 

through a number of individual player terminals. In either of these instances, the game 

does not exist in paper format but only in an "electronic" format. As such, the game 

becomes an "electronic facsimile" game of paper pull-tabs and, by the statutory 

definition, cannot be a class I1 game. See 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(B)(ii). 

This analysis finds support in Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 14 F.3d 633, 636 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Cabazon II) wherein the Court 

noted: 

There is now a computerized version of pull-tabs. The computer 

randomly selects a card for the gambler, pulls the tab at the gambler's 

discretion, and displays the result on the screen. The computer version, 

like the paper version has a fixed number of winning cards in each deal. 

The computer may be interconnected so that each gambler simultaneously 

plays against other gamblers in pods or banks of as many as forty 

machines. 

. . . . . . . [Tlhe tribes concede that the video version of pull-tabs is the 

same game as the paper version. . . . Because class I1 gaming does not 

include "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of 

chance" (25 U.S.C. $ 2703(7)(B)(ii)), this concession alone demonstrates 

that the video game is not in the class I1 category. "By definition, a device 

that preserves the fundamental characteristics of a game is a facsimile of 

the game." Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roach, (S.D. Cal. 1992). 

As commonly understood, facsimiles are exact copies or duplicates. 

Although there may be room for a broader interpretation of "facsimile," 

the video version of pull-tabs falls within the core meaning of electronic 

facsimile. It exactly replicates the paper version of the game, and if that is 

not sufficient to make it a facsimile, we doubt.. .that anything could 

qualify. 

. . . . 

. . . [TJhe Act's exclusion of electronic facsimiles removes games 

from the class I1 category when those games are wholly incorporated into 

an electronic or electromechanical version. 
"Break the Bank7' Advisory Game Opinion 

Page 5 of 7 

k,vr 

Cabazon 11, 14 F.3d, at 636. See also Sycuan Band v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535 (91h 

Cir. 1995) which considered an electronic pull-tab device known as the Autotab 

Model 1013 and found the device to be class 111. 

In "Break the Bank," the primary method of play is through the use of an EVS terminal 

that allows the player to access the game. The EVS does not contain a storage file of 

electronic pull-tabs. The terminal merely transforms into visual characteristics the 

electronic file that it receives from the central computer through the network. The 

electronic game tickets are stored remotely in a central computer, or server, which is not 

accessible to the player. However, the game is one wholly contained-electronically-in 

the networked game system. That the cartridge is in a server that feeds through the 

player station computer to the viewing monitor rather than in the player station terminal 

computer itself is a distinction without a difference. 

The fact that a player can receive a piece of paper with an individual game from the 

computerized deal copied to it, in those instances when the gambler plays the game 

through the EPDS feature, does not change the fact that, for play of the game at an EVS, 

the game is entirely electronic. The hybrid features of the EPDS appear to be a diversion, 

with apparently minimal player appeal, intended to create a sense that because certain of 

the pull-tabs eventually do exist in paper format, the play of the game is not primarily the 

play of an electronic facsimile of paper pull-tabs. 

'rd 

"Break the Bank" is played with networked equipment that is not substantially different 

from the device at issue in Cabazon II. The factual question is whether the electronic 

features present in "Break the Bank" wholly incorporate the game of paper pull-tabs. 

Said differently, does the game with its attendant equipment become an electronic 

facsimile-a device which preserves the fundamentals of the game or which is an exact 

copy or duplicate, as the Courts in Sycuan Band and Cabazon II applied that term? When 

the game is played with a central computer holding cartridges of electronic tickets, 

delivered to players through a network of electronic viewing stations, and even with the 

possibility of a player receiving a form of a paper pull tab that is delivered electronically 

to an attended station and printed for the player, we conclude that "Break the Bank" does 

wholly incorporate the paper game of pull-tabs, rendering it an electronic facsimile of the 

game and, therefore, a class 111 gaming de~ice.~ This conclusion is required under either 

3 "The 'Autotab Model 101 electronic pull-tab dispenser' is a self-contained unit containing a computer 

linked to a video monitor and a printer. The player electronically reveals concealed numbers to determine 

whether he or she is a winner.. .. The game retains the fundamental characteristics of the paper version of 

pull-tab: the video pull tab machine is supplied with a computer chip cartridge that insures a predetermined 

and known number of winning tickets from a finite pool of tickets with known prizes.. ." Sycuan, 54 F.3d. 

at 541. 

4 Courts have often interpreted the relevant provision of IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(B)(ii), by relying on a 

commonly accepted definition of the term "facsimile" and not by applying the NIGC regulatory definition 

for "electronic facsimile" found at 25 C.F.R 5 502.8. Under the Commission's definition, "Electronic or 

electronic facsimile means any gambling device as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1171(a)(2) or (3)." The statutory 'IYJ section, referred to as the "Johnson Act," defines a gambling device in pertinent part as: 
"Break the Bank" Advisory Game Opinion 

Page 6 of 7 

a formal application of current NlGC regulations that incorporate the Johnson Act or an 

application of the plain language of the relevant statutory language of IGRA. 

We recognize that not all games of chance that make use of electronics are electronic 

facsimiles. A particular game, otherwise class I1 under the IGRA definition, could be 

played with a technological aid, even an electronic technological aid, and remain class 11. 

The statute recognizes as much for the play of bingo. See 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(~)(i).~ 

However, the equipment used to the play the "Break the Bank" game is not a mere 

"technological aid" as that term is defined in NIGC regulations. See 25 C.F.R. § 502.7 

which provides that to qualify as a technological aid, the device "when used ...( b) is 

readily distinguishable from the playing of a game of chance on an electronic or 

electromechanical facsimile ..." When using the critical component pieces of the 

Network-the central computer, the EVS, and even the EPDS--the Break the Bank game 

is not readily distinguishable from the play of the game on an electronic facsimile. In 

(2) any other machine or mechanical device (including but not limited to, roulette wheels 

and similar devices) designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with 

gambling, and (A) which when operated may deliver, as the result of the application of 

chance, any money or property, or (B) by the operation of which a person may become 

entitled to receive, as the result of the application of an element of chance, any money or 

property; or 

(3) any subassembly or essential part intended to be used in connection with any such 

machine or mechanical device, but which is not attached to any such machine or 

mechanical device as a constituent part. 

15 U.S.C. 1171(a). 

Some courts recognize that this possibility also extends to the play of paper pull-tabs. In Diamond Game 

Enterprises v. Reno, 230 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2000), United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit concluded that a gaming device known as the Lucky Tab I1 was a technological aid to the 

play of paper pull-tabs and a class I1 device under the IGRA. There is, however, a substantial difference in 

how the Lucky Tab I1 game described in Diamond Game is played compared to the game in Cabazon R. 

The Lucky Tab I1 device uses a paper roll of pull-tabs that are read by optical scanner and then displayed 

on a video monitor. The Court concluded that the game was not an electronic facsimile of the paper game 

and thus was not excluded from the class I1 definition. 

We think the Lucky tab I1 is quite different from the machine at issue in Cabazon II. To 

begin with, the Lucky Tab I1 is not a "computerized version" of pull-tabs. Although the 

Lucky Tab I1 has a video screen, the screen merely displays the contents of a paper pulltab. Instead of using a computer to select patterns, the Lucky Tab I1 actually cuts tabs 

from paper rolls and dispenses them to players. In other words, the game is in the paper 

rolls, not as in the case of the Cabazon machine, in the computer. 

Diamond Game v. Reno, 230 F. 3d at 367. However, the Court's evaluation of the game did not include a 

discussion of the Lucky Tab I1 game under the NIGC regulation (25 C.F.R. 5 502.7) which removes from 

%4 the definition of technological aid a device which, when used, cannot be readily distinguished from the play 

of a game as an electronic facsimile. 
"Break the Bank" Advisory Game Opinion 

Page 7 of7 

-4 e' 

fact, the game is the computer network and not in paper pull-tabs, the play of which 

might somehow be aided by a computer. 

Conclusion 

For this advisory opinion, we evaluate the entire Network system, including the central 

computer, the EVS terminals, and the EPDS. We do not evaluate separately the play of 

the game with only the central computer and the EPDS because that it not how the game 

is presented. 

We conclude that "Break the Bank" game and its attendant network of gaming devices, 

also known as the Cadillac Jack PTC Multi-tab System, is a class 111 game under the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

Sincerely yours, 

kd:yab ene Counsel 

'Irukrrl William F. Grant 

Senior Staff Attorney 

Attachment 

Copy to: 

Cadillac Jack, Inc. 

1804-1 Montreal Ct. 

Tucker, GA 30084