It's a fascinating issue. I am sure dealers are in a real quandary, even if it can be in their short-term financial interest to make players very happy. Managers want to keep the whale in the pool. In a commercial casino, upper management will want the same, but have to appear to fully support any gaming regulations. A lot of attention should properly be focused on the signal that gaming authorities send when the gaming regulators are an independent body. Of course, where the tribe runs the casino and serves as the governing body, you have a whole different issue.

When it comes to lax gaming authorities, there are some concepts in the law that a casino might use to point the finger of blame to the state. One is used in civil rights litigation, and is called "deliberate indifference." Even if the written rules say "don't do this," cities can be held liable if it turns a blind eye when its employees violate those rules. Thus, if a police department has a rule against beating prisoners, but officer routinely do it and escape punishment, the city cannot hide behind its rules to escape liability.

There is another concept that has been tested a few times (but not a lot). It's an extension of a "procedural due process" rule of law. If you have a set of rules but never enforce them, a court may hold that your decision to start enforcing them requires advance notice to those who may be affected so they are not taken by surprise by an arbitrary change of position. Again, this is applied to government agencies. When the casino and the regulator are the same, there is not a lot of room for finger-pointing.