Thank you for the feedback.

With all due respect, this is what I'm perceiving (as a non-lawyer):

Common law it appears states that the concept of fairness and reasonableness are foundations of law or of contracts.

I read this in an article:

"Terms Change at Any Time - On Line or Off
Contracts that can change at any time, whether online or offline, are not contracts at all but illusory offerings that have no specificity worthy of meeting the good faith terms to be contracts.

If contract has no meaning and doesn't fulfill legal qualifications to be a contract, it creates the appearance of a contract but denies its own purpose for existence - to be bound."




Some cases which seem to back that up:

"On April 15, 2009, a Texas federal district court held that an arbitration provision in Blockbuster’s online terms of service was “illusory” and unenforceable because Blockbuster had reserved the right to change the terms of service at any time."

https://www.jdsupra.com/post/documen...c-0b448bb1898a
___________________

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archive...ircuit_s_1.htm
(Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Contract Amendment Without Notice–Douglas v. Talk America

"Even if Douglas had visited the website, he would have had no reason to look at the contract posted there," said the judgment, from Judges Kozinski, Gould and Callahan. "Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side. Indeed, a party can’t unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party’s consent before doing so."

"This is because a revised contract is merely an offer and does not bind the parties until it is accepted," said the ruling.
___________
From "Online Contracts: We May Modify These Terms at Any Time, Right?"

"Traditional contract doctrine clearly forbids the unilateral modification of contracts and treats a proposed modification as an offer that is not binding until accepted. Although state contract law may vary, there generally are three requirements in traditional contract law for modifying contracts. First, the offeree must have proper notice of the proposed modification. It is axiomatic that no offer can be accepted unless the offeree knows that the offer has been made. In addition, the offeree must manifest assent to the proposed modification in some manner, either explicitly or implicitly. Last, in order for a modification to be enforceable, it must be supported by consideration, or, in the case of contracts governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, it must be entered into in good faith. See U.C.C. § 2-209 cmt. 2."

" For example, in one case where a bank attempted to modify credit card terms by adding an arbitration procedure where one was not already part of the contract terms, the court found that the offeree did not receive proper notice of the modification because the proposed change was printed on an insert with the monthly bill and nothing otherwise called the change to anyone’s attention. [Even worse, "notifying" by putting a sign in the sportsbook rather than attempting personal notification] Badie v. Bank of America, 67 Cal. App. 4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Other companies have found out the hard way that simply providing a complete set of the proposed revised terms, without any indication as to which terms had been changed, was not sufficient notice. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Mattingly, 829 A.2d 626 (Md. 2003)."

https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ringiello.html

PS - I am aware that the NGCB has a history of siding with the casinos, often unreasonably, and that casinos basically do whatever they want to their customers and almost always get away with it.
But that is a different issue than "do I have a case?", i.e., a legal justification (regardless of the unfairness of the eventual proceeding).