June 4,2004 

Geoffrey M. Standing Bear, P.C. 

Attorney At Law 

7 15 Kihekah 

P.O. Box 1049 

Pawhuska, OK 74056 

Jamie Hummingbird 

Director 

Cherokee Nation 

Gaming Commission 

P.O. Box 627 

Tahlequah, OK 74465 

Re: Cory Consultants - Classic II Pull Tab System 

Dear Gentlemen: 

This letter is in response to your separate inquires regarding whether, 

pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 25 U.S.C. 5 2701 et seq., 

the Classic II Pull Tab System is a Class II or Class III game. We have reviewed the 

materials you submitted, including detailed descriptions of the game. 

As set forth fully below, the Classic II Pull Tab System is a Class III game. 

I. Description of the Classic I1 Pull Tab System 

The Classic II Pull Tab System uses ethernet type communications to join 

together a pull-tab server, which contains information from a finite deal of paper 

pull-tabs', and player video terminals, which display the pull-tab information. 

The heart of the system is the pull-tab server. The server collects the 

information contained on the paper pull-tabs2, puts that information on an 

1 The finite deal of paper pu1:l-tabs is manufactured separately from the Classic I1 Pull Tab 

System, including the player terminals and pull-tab server. 

Each Deal used by Cory co~ltains 99,840 separate pull-tabs. Dispersed within the Deal are 1920 

different sets of pull-tabs with each set, and the pull-tabs thereof, having its own barcode and 

barcode identification number. The server is physically and electronically capable of storing, 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW. Suite 9100. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWw.NlGc.Gov 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento. CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa. OK .3 
electronic database, and silpplies the pull-tab information to the video terminals in 

the network. The server is not a player video terminal and does not accept money 

or display pull-tab inform;ation. When loaded with upwards of 5000 patented Cory 

pull-tabs3, which have a hidden barcode window, the server will begin to open and 

read the barcodes on the pull-tabs and store the information in an electronic 

database. The electronic database consists of 3 tables, each with the exact 

information fiom each pulll-tab barcode in the exact sequence in which it was read. 

The size of the database is; selectable and depends on the number of terminals 

connected to the network ,and the amount of video terminal activity. Immediately 

after the barcode information is stored on the electronic database, each pull-tab is 

cut in half and sent to a trash container in the base of the server. These cut and 

defaced pull-tabs are temporarily retained with the trash container. 

However, an alternate procedure exists that does not cut the pull-tab in half 

after its information has been stored in the electronic database. If a casino chooses 

this procedure for the operation of the system, immediately after the barcode 

information is stored on the database, each pull-tab is kept in a container4 and a 

pull-tab may be retrieved upon the request of a player. 

The video termina:ls in the network allow the players to receive the next 

available pull-tab information stored in the electronic database on the server. Once 

a player establishes credit(1s) on a video terminal, the player has the opportunity to 

select pull-tab information fiom any of the 3 tables in the electronic database. After 

the player nakes a selection, the server will send the corresponding barcode, in an 

retaining, and issuing pull-tab barcode data from a plurality of Deals. The additional Deals may 

be of a similar value or of a different value and prize level. In either case, the additional Deals 

would be available at each of the player terminals so that the player would be able to select from 

or switch to any of the Deals. 

While each pull-tab could be configured to include a single play, Cory Consultants prefers 

multiple play pull-tabs. Thus, the Classic IT Pull Tab System derives its pull-tab information 

from multiple play pull-tabs and stores such information in the electronic database. Each 

multiple play pull-tab contains twenty (20) plays. The electronic database uses the specific pulltab information in the exact :sequence in which the pull-tab barcodes were read. Because each 

video terminal is connected In a network, any player at a video terminal may compete against 

other players at other video terminals for the next available multiple play pull-tab in the electronic 

database. Using this system, a player is not required to play all of the plays on a particular pulltab and is able to stop playing and request a voucher fiom the video terminal at anytime. The 

voucher contains the following information: date, time, location name and address, terminal i.d., 

bank number, number of credits, dollar value of redeemable credits, value of each credit, 14 to 18 

digit validation number with corresponding barcode, company name and expiration date. Once a 

player requests a voucher, the next player that utilizes that particular video terminal has the 

opportunity to select the next unused play on the most recently received multiple play pull-tab in 

the video terminal memory as supplied from the electronic database. 

4 This alternate procedure allows the paper p111i-tabs to be stored for a period of time as maybe 

devised by the casino. The storage capacity of the container is 3000 pull-tabs. 
electronic format, along with the complete set of pull-tab information that coincides 

with that particular pull-talb barcode. This information is recorded in the memory 

system of the player video terminal. 

The player can then view the pull-tab information on the video terminal to 

determine if he or she woil any prize(s). Specifically, the pull-tab information is 

reproduced for display on the player video terminal so that the player can view each 

single play of a multiple play pull-tab as it had been physically printed on the actual 

paper pull-tab, which was input into the electronic server. The player does not 

touch or physically examine the actual pull-tab, as the physical pull-tab is not 

actually dispensed fiom the video termina~.~ Rather, the physical pull-tab is kept in 

the server room in a trash container. 

The distribution of pull-tab barcodes and information6 among the video 

terminals in the network is done in the exact order that the server receives a request 

for such information. When a player chooses to stop play on a video terminal, he or 

she can print a voucher for any prizes won on the purchased pull-tab(s) information 

and collect such prizes fro'm an attendant.7 

11. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

IGRA divides gaming on Indian lands into three distinct categories, each of 

which is subject to differing levels of federal and state regulation and involvement. 

See Cabazon Band ofMission Indians v. NIGC, 14 F.3d 633,634-35 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

Class I gaming involves social games played solely for prizes of minimal value and 

traditional forms of Indian games played in connection with tribal ceremonies or 

celebrations. See 25 U.S.C. 9 2703(6); 25 C.F.R. 502.2. Class I gaming is not 

applicable here. Class II 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 

Although, if the casino has selected the alternate procedure in which the paper pull-tabs are not 

cut in half after their information is input into the electronic database, it is possible that a player 

may request that a casino retrieve the actual pull-tab fiom the trash container and provide the 

actual paper pull-tab to the player for his or her examination. Such an alternative becomes 

problematic, however, when different players play from the same pull-tab. See Footnote 3. 

6 This information includes the barcode identification number corresponding to the set (or Deal) 

to which the pull-tab belongs. 

7 Cory Consultants has represented that manual play of :$e pull-tabs is also possible, as a 

complete Deal could be set aside by management for the manual purchase, examination and 

redemption by those players who may select this manner of play. 
such cards, incluiding (if played in the same location) pull tabs, ... 

instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo. 

See 25 U.S.C. fj 2703(7)(.A); 25 C.F.R. fj 502.3. Class II gaming does not include 

"electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines 

of any kind." See 25 U.S.C. 4 2703(7)(B)(ii). Class III gaming encompasses "all 

forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming." See 25 U.S.C. 5 

2703(8); 25 C.F.R. fj 502.4. 

The purpose in distinguishing between Class II and Class III gaming is that, 

pursuant to IGRA, Class; III gaming may only be conducted in conformance with a 

Tribal-State compact. See 25 U.S.C. fj 2710(d)(l)(C). Class I1 gaming may be 

played without a Tribal-State compact. Consequently, state involvement in tribal 

gaming is dependent upon the class of game(s) utilized by a tribe. 

111. Analysis 

At issue here is whether the Classic II Pull Tab System is a Class JI 

technological aid to the game of pull-tabs or a Class III electronic facsimile of the 

game of pull-tabs. 

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

game. Cabazon Band ofA4ission Indians v. NIGC, 14 F.3d 633,635 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

Players purchase a card from a deck; the set of cards ("'the deal'') contains a 

predetermined number of .winners; upon purchasing the card, the player pulls the 

paper tab open to find out if he is a winner. Id. Each player competes against all 

other players in the hall playing the game. Id. "In the traditional pull-tabs game, 

bingo hall clerks sell pull-tabs from counters or mobile carts, and winners present 

the tabs to either clerks or cashiers to collect prizes." Diamond Game Enter., Inc. v. 

Reno, 230 F.3d 365,367 (D.C. Cir. 2000).* 

Under IGRA and PJIGC regulations, the paper game of pull-tabs is a Class I1 

game. See 25 U.S.C. 5 2703 (7)(A)(i)(m); 25 C.F.R. 9 502.3(b). However, Class I1 

* The 10" Circuit Court of Appeals has described the game of pull-tabs in the following manner: 

In the game of pull-tabs as it is typically played, players compete against one another to 

obtain winning cards from a set of cards, known as a "deal." A typical deal contains up 

to 100,000 cards andl a predetermined number of winning cards. Each individual pull-tab 

within a deal is a small, two-ply card. When the top layer of an individual card is 

removed, the bottom layer reveals a pattern of symbols indicating whether the player has 

won a prize. Winnirtg cards are randomly spaced within preprinted, prearranged deals 

which are stored in boxes or divided into rolls. One deal consists of all of the pull-tabs in 

a given game that could possibly be purchased. A single game of pull-tabs is complete 

only when all pull-tabs within a given deal have been sold 

Seneca-Cayuga Tn'be of Ok1,rr. v. NIGC, 327 F.3d 101 9, 1024 (1 0" Cir. 2003). 
gaming does not include "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles" of a game of 

pull-tabs. See 25 U.S.C. i$ 2703(7)(B)(ii). "Electronic or eIectromechanica1 facsimile 

means a game played in a electronic or electromechanical format that r licates a 

game of chance by incorporating all of the characteristics of the game.7' See 25 

C.F.R. 5 502.8. "By definition, a device that preserves the hndamental 

characteristics of a game iis a facsimile of the game." Cabazon Band ofMission 

Indians, 14 F.3d at 636 (finding that "facsimiles are exact copies or duplicates"). 

Conversely, a technologic aid is any machine or device that: assists a player 

or the playing of a game; is not an electronic or electromechanical facsimile; and is 

operated in accordance with applicable Federal communications law. See 25 C.F.R. 

§ 502.7(a). Pull-tab dispensers and readers are technologic aids. See 25 C.F.R. 9 

502.7(c). 

Helpfhl to the question at hand - whether the Classic I1 Pull Tab System is a 

technological aid or an electronic facsimile - is a review of court decisions that have 

set forth the distinguishing characteristics of both categories. 

A. Pull-Tab (f ames Found To Be Electronic Facsimiles 

Two Circuit Courts of Appeals have addressed whether particular video 

pull-tab games are Class 111 "electronic facsimiles." See Cabazon Band of Mission 

Indians, 14 F.3d at 635-37; Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535 (9'h 

Cir. 1994). The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower 

court's conclusion that the video version of pull-tabs at issue was an "electronic 

facsimile" because it exactly replicated the paper version of the game. See Cabazon 

Band of Mission Indians, 14 F.3d at 636. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit court 

described the computerized pull-tab game as follows: 

The computer randomly selects a card for the gambler, pulls the tab 

at the gambler's direction, 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 computers may be interconnected so 

that each gambler simultaneously plays against other gamblers in 

'pods' or 'banks7 of as many as forty machines. 

9 This definition applies "except when, for bingo, lotto, and other games similar to bingo, the 

electronic or electromechanical format broadens participation by allowing multiple players to 

play with or against each other rather than with or against a machine." See 25 C.F.R. § 502.8. 

This exception, however, does not apply to pull-tabs, because it is not a game "similar to bingo." 

See NIGC Guidance Memorandum, No. 03-3 "Guidance on Classifying Games with Pre-Drawn 

Numbers" (fincillg "games with pre-drawn numbers cannot be said to be gar.*es similar to 

bingo."). "[lln cirder to constitute a game similar to bingo, numbers must . . be drawn after play 

of the game begins." Id. This is not the case with pull-tabs and, therefore, it is not a game similar 

to bingo. 
Id. at 635. In its analysis, the court noted that "[tlhe Tribes concede that the video 

version of pull-tabs is the same game as the paper version[, and] [blecause class II 

gaming does not include 'electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of 

chance', this concession alone demonstrates that the video game is not in the class II 

category." Id. at 636. Thus, the court concluded that IGRA's "exclusion of 

electronic facsimiles removes games from the class I1 category when those games are 

wholly incorporated into am electronic or electromechanical version." Id. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a district court's determination 

that the "Autotab Model 101 electronic pull-tab dispenser" was a Class IJJ gaming 

device, because it was an electronic facsimile of pull-tabs. See Sycuan Band of 

Mission Indians v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535 (91h Cir. 1994). The court described the 

Autotab Model 101 as: 

a self-contained umit containing a computer linked to a video monitor 

and a printer. The player inserts money and sees a video 

reproduction of a paper pull-tab ticket. The player electronically 

reveals concealed1 numbers to determine whether he or she is a 

winner. If a winner, the player may cause the machine to print out a 

winning ticket for redemption by a cashier or may add the winning 

amount to a credit balance for further play. 

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 54 F.3d at 541. In concluding that the Autotab 

Model 101 was an electroi~ic facsimile of pull-tabs, the court found that "[t]he pulltab machines present self-contained computer games copying the pull-tab principle, 

and they are played electrc)nically." Id. at 542. In particular, the court determined 

that "[tlhe game retains the fundamental characteristics of the paper version of pulltab: the video pull-tab machine is supplied with a computer-chip cartridge that 

insures a predetermined arid known number of winning tickets from a finite pool of 

tickets with known prizes; when all tickets have been played, all prizes will have 

been awarded." Thus, if a computerized pull-tab game preserves the fundamental 

characteristics of the papel: version of pull-tabs, it is an electronic facsimile and, 

therefore, a Class III game. 

The NIGC has previously applied the principles set forth in Cabazon Band of 

Mission Indians v. NIGC, 14 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1994), to a electronic pull-tab system 

known as "Break the Bank:." See NIGC Game Classification Opinion, "Break the 

Bank," May 3 1,2001. The primary method of play of "Break the Bank" was set 

forth as follows: 

[Ulse of an EVS terminal . . . allows the player to access the game. 

The EVS does not contain a storage file of electronic pull-tabs. The 

terminal merely i~ransforms into visual characteristics the electronic 

file that it rec,.:ives fiom the central computer through the netwo.-k. 

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 contai~~ed-electronically-in the networked game system. 

See NIGC Game Classification Opinion, "Break the Bank," May 3 1,2001. The 

NIGC found that "'Break the Bank' is played with networked equipment that is not 

substantially different from the device at issue in Cabazon II. " Id. Further, the 

NIGC decided that "[wlhen 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 III gaming device." Id. 

B. Pull-Tab Devices Held To Be Technological Aids 

On the other hand, technologic aids are not electronic facsimiles. See 25 

C.F.R. $ 502.7(a). Several Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that particular pulltab devices are technologiic aids to the play of the game, not electronic facsimiles of 

the game. For example, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of 

whether a gambling machine, known as the Lucky Tab II, should be classified as a 

Class II aid or a Class III facsimile. See Diamond Game Enter., Inc. v. Reno, 230 F.3d 

365,366 (D.C. Cir. 2000]1. The Lucky Tab I1 machine was described by the court as 

follows: 

The machine disjpenses pull-tabs from a roll containing approximately 

7500 tabs. About 100 rolls comprise a deal, within which winning 

pulltabs are randomly distributed. The machine cuts the pull-tab 

from the roll and drops it in a tray. A bar code scanner inside the 

machine automatically reads the tab and then displays its contents on 

a video screen. A placard on the machine informs players that "video 

images may vary fiom actual images on pull tabs. Each tab must be 

opened to verify." To collect prizes, players must present the actual 

winning tab to a clerk. 

Id. at 367-68. 

In determining that the Lucky Tab 11 machine was a technological aid, the 

court found that the machine was not a "computerized version" of pull-tabs, because 

the game was in the paper rolls, not in the computer. Id. at 370. Specifically, the 

court noted that although the machine had a video screen, the screen merely 

displayed the contents of a paper pull-tab and the machine actually cut paper pulltabs from vaper rolls and dispensed them to players. Id. (emphasis added). Unlike 

a computerized version ofpull-t7.h which is generated by an internal computer or 

server, plays the game of pull-tabs in its entirety, and dispenses receipts for players 

to redeem winnings, the c:ourt found that the Lucky Tab 11 dispensed actual paper 
pull-tabs that players must peel and display to a clerk before they can obtain prizes. 

Id. Thus, the court concluded that "the machine functions as an aid - it 'helps or 

supports,' or 'assists7 the ]paper game of pull-tabs." Id. Consequently, the court 

ruled that the game played with Lucky Tab II is not a facsimile of paper pull-tabs, 

but it is paper pull-tabs. Id. 

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has also held that Lucky Tab 11'' was a 

Class II technological aid. United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe, 324 F.3d 607 (81h Cir. 

2003), cert. denied, 2004 'U.S. Lexis 1 807 (U.S. Mar. 1,2004). The court's analysis 

was that: 

operation of the: Lucky Tab II machines does not change the 

fundamental fact that the player receives a traditional paper pull-tab 

from a machine, and whether he or she decides to pull the tab or not, 

must present that card to the cashier to redeem winnings. . . . the 

machines do noit replicate pull-tabs; rather, the player using the 

machines is playing pull-tabs. 

Id. at 615. 

The Magical Irish Instant Bingo Dispenser System also constitutes a 

technologic aid. See Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Okla. v. NIGC, 327 F.3d 10 1 9, 1 042-44 

(loth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 2004 U.S. Lexis 1651 (U.S. Mar. 1,2004). The Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals diecided that the Magical Irish machine was a Class II aid 

because: 

the Machine (1) cuts tabs from paper rolls and dispenses them to 

players, and when its "verify7 feature is enabled, displays the contents 

of the paper pull-tab on the video screen; (2) does not use a computer 

to select the patterns of the pull-tabs it dispenses; and (3) requires 

players to peel e.ach pull-tab to confirm the result and provide the 

pull-tab to a clerk for inspection prior to receiving any prize. 

'O The court described the gaime as follows: 

It . . . has a manual feed for money, a roll of paper pull-tabs, a bar code reader to 

read the back of eaclh pull-tab, a rubber roller to dispense the pull-tabs, a cutter 

which cuts the pull-tabs from the roll, and a cash drawer. The bar code reader 

reads the pull-tab as it passes through the machine to the player, and based on 

this reading, a video screen displays the contents of the pull-tab -- whether it is a 

winner or a loser. .. . . The machine then dispenses the paper pull-tab to the 

player. 

United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe, 324 F.3d 607,610 (8" Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 2004 U.S. 

Lexis 1807 (U.S. Mar. 1,2004). 
Id. at 1043. Therefore, the court concluded that the "Machine is not the game of 

pull-tabs; rather, the Machine facilitates the playing of pull-tabs, the game is in the 

paper rolls." Id. 

C. Classic I1 Pull Tab System Is A Electronic Facsimile, Not A 

Technological Aid 

The Classic II Pull Tab System is an electronic facsimile of the paper game of 

pull-tabs, not a technological aid to the game. Initially, the system is an electronic 

facsimile because it wholly incorporates the paper game of pull-tabs into an 

electronic version. In other words, the fundamental characteristics of the paper 

version of pull-tabs are preserved in the electronic Classic II Pull Tab System, 

making it an "electronic fi~csimile." See, e.g., Cabazon, 14 F.3d at 635-36. 

As detailed above, the traditional paper version of pull-tabs is played in the 

following manner: 

Players purchase a card fiom a deck; the set of cards ("the deal") 

contains a predetermined number of winners; upon purchasing the 

card, the player pulls the paper tab open to find out if he is a winner. 

In the paper version, each player competes against all other players in 

the hall playing the game. 

See Cabazon Band ofMis.sion Indians, 14 F.3d at 635. 

Likewise, in the Cllassic II Pull Tab System, the pull-tab server contains 

information fiom a finite deal of paper pull-tabs; information fiom actual pull-tabs 

is displayed on the player video terminals in the exact order that the server receives 

a request for such information; the video terminals in the network allow the players 

to compete against each other for the next available pull-tab information stored in 

the electronic database on the server; a player can then view the pull-tab 

information on the video tierminal to determine if he or she won any prizes; and, 

when a player chooses to stop play on a video terminal, he or she can print a receipt 

for any prizes won and collect such prizes fiom an attendant. 

Accordingly, the filndamental characteristics of paper pull-tabs exist in the 

Classic I1 Pull Tab system but in an electronic format: the purchase of a pull-tab 

card (or information fiom a card) fiom a finite deck with predetermined winners; 

display of the information contained on the pull-tab; and the ability to compete with 

all other players for the chance to purchase a pull-tab that is a winner. The game is 

wholly contained-electronically-in a networked game system. 

Similar to "Break the Bank," in the Classic I1 Pull Tab System, the player 

video terminal merely transforms into visual charac'eristics the electronic pull-tab 

information that it receives from the central server through the network. The pulltab information, which is converted from paper pull-tabs to electronic pull-tab 
information, is stored remotely in a central server, which is not accessible to the 

player. In fact, once the pull-tab information is stored on the server, each aper T: pull-tab is destroyed and sent to a trash container in the base of the server. Thus, 

it is fundamentally the same game as paper pull-tabs, but it is entirely contained 

within an electronic version. "By definition a[n] [electronic] device that preserves 

the hndamental characteristics of a game is a facsimile of the game." Cabazon, 14 

F.3d at 636 (quoting Sycualn Band of Mission Indians, supra); see also 25 C.F.R. tj 

502.8 (electronic facsimiles are games played in a electronic format that replicate a 

game of chance by incorpolrating all of the characteristics of the game). 

Moreover, the Classic II Pull Tab System is not a technological aid. A 

technologic aid is any machine or device that: assists a player or the playing 

of a game; is not an electrclnic or electromechanical facsimile; and is 

operated in accordance with applicable Federal communications law. See 25 

C.F.R. 502.7(a). 

Courts have concluded that the Lucky Tab II and the Magical Irish 

machines are technologicajl aids because these machines assist players in 

playing actual paper pull-tabs. See, e.g., Diamond Game, 230 F.3d at 370 

("the machine functions as an aid - it helps or supports, or assists the paper 

game of pull-tabs"); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 327 F.3d at 1043 (the "Machine 

facilitates the playing of p~~ll-tabs, the game is in the paper rolls"). These 

machines do not alter the fixmat of the game - the game remains in the 

actual paper pull-tabs, not in a computer or electronic format. See, e.g., 

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 327 F.3d at 1043; Diamond Game, 230 F.3d at 370; 

Santee Sioux Tribe, 324 F.:3d at 615. 

Specifically, if the ]Lucky Tab II or Magical Irish machines are used 

the game remains in the paper pull-tabs because both machines: (1) dispense 

the actual paper pull-tab to the player and (2) require the player to provide 

the actual paper pull-tab to a clerk to redeem the prize, if any. Id. 

Therefore, courts have fou~~d that these machines are not computerized 

versions of the game of pull-tabs, but are aids to the actual paper game of 

pull-tabs. 

- 

11 This is the case unless the alternate procedure is utilized. The alternate procedure does not cut 

the pull-tab in half after its information has been stored in the electronic database, but keeps each 

pull-tab in a container with a storage capacity for 3000 pull-tabs. Therefore, under this 

procedure, a pull-tab may be iretrieved upon the request of a player. Nevertheless, the game, even 

with the existence of this alternate procedure, continues to be one that is wholly contained in a 

networked system, because: (1) actual paper pull-tabs have been converted to electronic 

information contained in a central server which is viewed by the player on a video terminal and 

(2) actual paper pull-tabs are .not dispensed to the player. Therefore, in either instance, the 

Class .: I1 Pull Tab System is an electronic facsimile of paper pull-.~bs, aClass III game. 

Furthermore, the concept that more than one player could play one pull-tab further disconnects 

the player from the play of the actual pull-tab. 
Unlike the Lucky Tab II or Magical Irish Bingo machines, the Classic 

II Pull Tab System alters the format of the game - it presents the game of 

paper pull-tabs in a computerized or electronic version. As described above, 

in this system, the server collects information contained on the paper pulltabs, puts that information on an electronic database, and supplies the pulltab information to the player video terminals in the network. Once the pulltab information is stored on the electronic database, each ull-tab is cut in P, half and sent to a trash container in the base of the server. Once a player 

establishes credit(s) on a video terminal, the player may select pull-tab 

information from the electironic database and upon making a selection, the 

server sends the correspon~ding barcode along with the complete set of pulltab information to the player video terminal. The player can then view the 

pull-tab information on the video terminal to determine if he or she won any 

prize(s). When a player ch~ooses to stop play on a video terminal, he or she 

can print a voucher for any prizes won on the purchased pull-tab(s) 

information and collect such prizes from an attendant. 

Consequently, the (2lassic 11 Pull Tab System does not assist a player 

in the play of paper pull-talbs, because: the paper pull-tab is not dispensed to 

the player; the player is not required to open the pull-tab to verify his or her 

winnings; and, finally, to redeem any prizes, the player does not provide the 

actual paper pull-tab, but a voucher, to an attendant. Essentially, in this 

system, the player is not playing paper pull-tabs, but an electronic 

reproduction of the paper game. The player has no contact with the paper 

pull-tabs, as those pull-tabs remain in a trash container after their 

information is input into the server. Thus, the Classic I1 Pull Tab System is 

not technological aid to the: play of the paper game of pull-tabs. 

IV. Conclusion 

The Classic 11 Pull 'Tab System is an electronic facsimile of paper pull-tabs, 

because the machine replicates the game of paper pull-tabs in a computerized form, 

and is a Class III game under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 9 2701 

et seq. 

If you have any questions, please contact Jo-Ann Shyloski at (202) 632-7003. 

Sincerely yours, 

6-Q-.a, 

3 

Penny J. Coleman 

Acting General Counsel 

'* See Note 10.