Mr. Engelstad's public relations man, Alan Hilburg, said the casino owner would not agree to an interview. ''He's a very private guy, very quiet,'' Mr. Hilburg said. ''This issue is behind him - leave this guy alone.'' He suggested that the source of Mr. Engelstad's problems was some disgruntled former employees who spread rumors about him in the press.

The Jewish community remains equivocal. ''After all was said and done, we felt the man was punished as much as possible,'' said Norman Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas. But, he added, ''We will not go into his hotel.'' The acting Governor of Nevada, Bob Miller, a Democrat, said in an interview that he hoped to use the $1.5 million fine for a Holocaust education fund, perhaps for an international conference on the matter.

Meanwhile, Las Vegas tongues are wagging over another gaming matter, the $38.8 million verdict that the blackjack dealers won on March 8 against the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel, which summarily discharged them in 1983. The trial shed rare light on the inner workings of casinos.

The plaintiffs, all older men, were dismissed after nine months in which the casino's take from the blackjack table was abnormally low. Normally, the casino expects its win percentage to run about 18 to 21 percent of bets; the take then was averaging 12.8 percent. The men were quickly replaced by young women.

Hilton officials maintained that the industry tradition under which anyone can be dismissed at will was essential, given the chances of cheating. Though no proof was offered that the men cheated, that was the implication. ''You have to understand the nature of our business,'' testified Barron Hilton, chairman of the Hilton Hotels Corporation. ''We have a tremendous amount of cash. You have to make decisions. When there's a problem, you have to act.''

Brian K. Berman, attorney for the dealers, accused the hotel of age and sex discrimination, breach of contract, bad faith discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. If there was cheating, he argued, it was a scheme in which management was diverting money on its way to the tables.

''The jury was trying to send a message to the casino industry that they cannot fire at will as they have historically done,'' Mr. Berman said. Hilton, which is also facing charges by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said it planned to appeal.