While the suggestion of a casino would not be new, perhaps I have a novel idea regarding the inevitable slot machines that would accompany them. As the devices would use electronic currency, the dreaded crowbar conundrum is no issue. However, to separate the player from the common mark that accepts a (unnecessary) less than even chance at success , they could hack the beast with a difficult electronics and computer test. They could then change the probability of a payout to a certain degree. The parasite in their dermis is that if the machine pays out more than a set amount within a day, an amount that the higher scores exceed on their own, then the contraption requests a manager and locks up.
In summary (although I’m sure you’ve already deduced this), the default behaviour for the slots is to slowly consume money with the periodic lucky break given to those that know when to quit; no surprises on that front. For the tech-savvy, the machines provide two more options: First, the player can greatly boost the probability of a payout for quick money; a short-term gain for a short-term problem. Second, they can boost the probability modestly, for a net gain, and farm the machine for money long-term. Eventually, a high payout will destroy the machine, and a higher adjusted probability will make it harder to control when that happens. I suppose the hacking interface would display the daily limit and the progress towards it to make the second option feasible.
My greatest initial concern is that it might be too grindy, even with optimal fine-tuning. As for their being little to actually spend money on, the casino could have an auto-bar, or perhaps an arcade to entertain oneself in for a time. Perhaps buying things legitimately, rather than prying your problems away, could give a small morale boost every time you performed it.
“Ha! My perfectly valid enterprise of zombiecide and electronic fraud has resulted in many water bottles. Work well done!”
-Survivor, wearing a top hat, in front of a vending machine, to himself
The clear handsomeness of the concept (and it’s progenitor) aside, what clear and obvious flaw in my reasoning have a failed to address?
Note: My sincere apology for implying an “a” rather than an “an” before the parenthesized unnecessary in the third sentence. The offending neurons have been fined.