Revenue

"Illustration" courtesy of:  https://www.craiyon.com "slot machine"

We know an individual with "money to lose" at "gambling establishments" or a "gaming problem".  The issue may or may not be imaginary or real.

The individual did or didn't have a "reward" account which they seldom or rarely "used".  The "card" for said account was or wasn't "inserted" or "registered" at "slot machines" on an intermittent or regular basis.

A "discrepancy" was noticed for said "account" shortly after a "merger" occurred between multiple "reward program" operators "reward programs".  The discrepancy was reported to the Missouri Gaming Commission as a "complaint" (a "complaint" form must be used even when providing a "compliment" or "information of concern").

Insignificant or significant events are as follows:

• An individual "gambled" or "played" "slot machines" using a "reward card".
• A "reward amount" of $1.00 and a few "cents" was "accumulated" or "earned".
• The individual stopped using the card and continued "gambling" or "playing" "slot machines" at the same establishment for between 6 and 12 months.
• A "merger" of "reward programs" was announced or expected.
• The individual "checked" their "reward balance" and noted the "amount" had increased to $6.66.
• A "merger" between "reward programs" completed or occurred.
• The individual "checked" their "reward balance" and noted the amount had been "cut" in half to $3.33.

Without a minimal understanding of how "reward programs" work, how "reward amounts" are "awarded", or how "deals" are offered to "gaming commissions" the potential problems can be unobvious.

We have no basis or business to assert that:

• "Revenue sharing agreements with "gaming commissions" appear fair or more than fair and never unfair."

Backward or they "don't need excess revenue" or "do want control".