There is apparently no end to the hilarity surrounding gambling and the state’s increasingly hapless efforts to manage it here in Massachusetts. In just the last couple of days, things went from awful to awfuller. The latest:
- As was previously discussed here on BMG, plans are underway in Connecticut to build a brand new tribal casino just south of Springfield (MA), in order to prevent CT gamblers from crossing the border into Massachusetts when (if) MGM actually does something in Springfield. And MGM has done almost nothing, beyond scale down its original proposal. From the Globe a couple of days ago:
MGM’s pledge to fight [for CT market share] has yet to be accompanied by action on the 14-acre site that it owns in Springfield’s South End. It has done little on the property, beyond putting up fences, removing asbestos, and demolishing some buildings.
It has been well over a year since the state gambling commission awarded the license for the Western Massachusetts casino to MGM. On a recent day, the area was devoid of activity. Even MGM’s storefront “community” office in Springfield was closed, with a sign posted on the door saying it will reopen in a different location “at the start of the new year.” Visible through the window was an obsolete model of the original design for the casino and hotel, featuring a signature 25-story tower that MGM says will be replaced by a series of smaller buildings.
“I would have expected MGM to have been more aggressive on the site by now,” Enrique Zuniga, a member of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission who in 2014 voted with the other members to award MGM its license, said in an interview.
Casino boosters did a masterful job of using Springfield as the reason not to repeal the state’s casino law, and otherwise to support casino gambling in MA. A “no on 3” TV ad was totally focused on Springfield. A Globe columnist who doesn’t even particularly like casinos wrote an embarrassingly credulous column along the same lines, declaring it not his place to say whether or not Springfield should host a casino. Even Governor Charlie Baker, who didn’t like the idea of issuing three casino licenses, thought that the Springfield project should go ahead. And yet, before MGM has even broken ground on its scaled-down casino project, the threat that it will never materialize seems real, and the prospect that, once built, it will disappoint because of intense competition from the south seems a near certainty. Who could have seen this coming? Just about anyone who bothered to look.
- Massachusetts’ one functioning casino, the slot barn in Plainville, is reporting a second straight month of disappointing revenue.
[I]f daily, per-machine revenue settled at the September level of $280, annual revenue would come in quite a bit lower than the present projection of $200 million a year. For a 12 month period, $280 per machine at Plainridge would produce $147 million in revenue, or 26 percent less than currently projected.
“Plainridge is overmatched, not only in the number of machines but also in the variety of machines offered by [Twin River],” said Paul L. DeBole, assistant professor of political science at Lasell College and a specialist on gambling regulation. “I really don’t see Plainridge becoming a big success story.”
… Plainridge is expected to take a hit when two much larger casinos licensed in Massachusetts open: Wynn Resorts in Everett, and MGM Resorts in Springfield, both in 2018.
Terrific. So revenue, already disappointing, is likely to fall further if Wynn and/or MGM ever manage to get their facilities built. Now, maybe the Plainridge Park folks are right that September is typically an off month, and that revenues will recover. Maybe. Or maybe Professor DeBole is right that the facility just isn’t that good, can’t compete with other already-existing facilities, and will only sink further once the new ones are built. Again, who could’ve seen this coming? Anyone.
- Which brings us to the gambling story of the moment: online fantasy football. Is it legal? Illegal? Who knows? Not anyone in Massachusetts, apparently. One thing’s for sure, though: lots of people in MA are spending lots of money on these sites, and Massachusetts isn’t getting a cut. Is that OK? Again, nobody seems to know for sure. The Gaming Commission now says they’re going to look into it, though it’s unclear to me whether they have the authority either to make any decisions as to legality, or to regulate. Shirley Leung decided to try it out, and she enjoyed it, but she’s concerned that “[t]he marketing of fantasy contests makes it seem like any sports junkie has a shot at winning a $1 million.” And that’s much different from the marketing for, say, the Mass. Lottery, because … oh wait. Actually, that’s the entire premise of marketing for every gambling enterprise: make it seem like the average Joe’s odds of winning are much, much better than they actually are. In fact, I saw a TV ad for Plainridge during last night’s playoff game that made it look like everyone there is young, beautiful, having an awesome time, and winning a ton of money. Maybe Leung thinks the state should look into those ads too…?
Let the good times roll!
was always going to be a bust. It’s a small slot parlor. That’s it. They dressed it up with some restaurants and cheesy entertainment but don’t see if growing. I would say from being in the general area, there was some talk in the summer, but I haven’t heard anyone talk about it since then. I’ve gone to the Lowes to get LED blubs and have driven right past without ever being interested to check it out. it’s link it not there. It will be a dud.
Same day fantasy sports is gambling, plain and simple. You are gambling on player performance and not outcome of a game. But the end result is the same. This is not a MA problem, it an issue that needs federal review. Nevada has declared it gambling and Montana has a general fantasy law, but forthe most part it’s something that might need to get addressed on a federal level. That shouldn’t stop Healy from reviewing, Draft Kings and sue us and then the courts can decide.
eom
and Gary Piontkowski was a Brown buddy. Brown lobbied for a racino at the Plainville track for years. But Piontkowski finally got dinged by the Commission after his past dealings became too much even for them.
will be a Bradley International Airport. Some people will know this as Hartford, when it’s listed as an airport, but it’s actually much closer than Connecticut’s capital. So says The Hartford Courant:
I would think a small casino would work well in an airport where there is a somewhat captive audience.
in decades.
Behold, the progressive values.
They’re inconceivable!
fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia;” only slightly less well known is “never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line” and most importantly “never never NEVER trust a politician or developer selling a casino.”
these guys? A lot of R’s along with Scotty pushed for the racino in Plainville. It wasn’t only Deval and crew. Plainville was a Republican creation and everyone was involved with casinos.
Betty Poirier
State Representative Elizabeth A. Poirier, Republican of North Attleborough, said Plainridge is the perfect site because of its location at the intersection of several major highways and proximity to the Comcast Center, Gillette Stadium, Emerald Square mall and the Wrentham Village Premium Outlets.
Richard Ross
State Sen. Richard Ross, R-Wrentham, said he couldn’t be more pleased with the prospect of the racino. He’s been arguing in favor of such a development for about 10 years
Shawn Dooley
“I am glad I could be part of creating this fun, which will set Plainville up to grow and thrive for many years to come,” Dooley said.
Steven Howitt
Yes, I believe that legalized casino gambling in Massachusetts is a good idea. Many individuals that I have polled while door knocking favor legalized gaming in Massachusetts as well.
First and foremost, the industry is about jobs; not only the jobs that these venues will offer in the gaming industry, but all the ancillary jobs that will be created, as well as the existing jobs that the industry will maintain and foster.
brought to you by the left and right of the MA Dem Party– which, in case you must be reminded, has been in unfettered control of the government of the Commonwealth for decades– Gov. Patrick on the left, and Sp. DeLeo on the right.
And what an achievement it is!
walking all over themselves at the ribbon cutting ceremony talking about jobs that it would bring to their districts.
Not at all saying it was the Dems, but no one has their hands clean, even Chucky Baker.
that is. I wanted to say that I agree on the Dems note.
They have no power to support or oppose anything at all in this state, which is under the absolute control of the local Democratic party, and has been so for decades.
You might as well say that the squirrel “doesn’t oppose” the semi barreling down I-495 at 85mph– were the squirrel to do otherwise, the squirrel is road kill.
This was a MA Democratic Party initiative, and is a Democratic Party failure, and only a Democratic Party failure. Pretending otherwise is just like the dipshit “Freedom Caucus” pretending that Iraq became a fiasco because Obama was insufficiently resolute or something.
I think CMD is right. If the GOP had been resolutely anti-casino, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Once DiMasi was gone, there was nobody with any power in the state who didn’t want casinos, and it became inevitable. And that’s really too bad.
I will grant you that. But you have to say that about anything in that happens in the state.
But the legislature is a majority right-wing legislature, and so there aren’t many significant policy initiatives here. The last one may have health insurance reform, but the policy adopted was a Republican policy– so much so that liberals allowed it to be dubbed Romneycare.
And that’s really about it: casinos and a Republican health care reform, in 20 years of veto-proof control of the state government. That’s pretty far below the Mendoza Line.
What was the last time Massachusetts actually enacted a significant liberal legislative policy initiative?
that it’s only when the Legislature is facing the likelihood of a successful ballot initiative (minimum wage increase, 2014).
They will next, with a graduated income tax! No?
you might get a different answer.
“What was the last time Massachusetts actually enacted a significant liberal legislative policy initiative?”
And your answer was to talk about Republicans, which is answer enough.
CMD is stating, as he has consistently since he’s been on this thread, that we should ask for more from our Democratic leadership than the paltry legacy they are leaving us, including casinos which are a most regressive and unreliable generator of the revenue the state desperately needs. A progressive income tax, an infrastructure projects bill shoring up the T, and reconnecting and rebuilding our Gateway Cities are legacy Patrick and DeLeo could’ve had-they choose casinos. The fact that Republicans also supported casinos doesn’t change the fact that our supermajority legislature and Democratic Governor were the ones who got them through.
that’s accurate. Can’t argue that.
But I also wanted to point out that ‘if’ and that’s ‘if’ someone were to use this as an example of how things would have been different with more Republicans then they would be wrong. The actions of Republicans before, during and after were they were all in as well.
I mention this as I’m a cranky PIA and I sense a set up of some sort which would be woefully inaccurate. I apologize if wrong.
and Bob DeLeo to really make it happen.
In response to Kirth: the specific problems caused by casinos couldn’t all be anticipated, but we didn’t need the specifics. One specific problem–i.e. casino proliferation and competition and the the subsequent revenue shortfalls for communities–was anticipated.
Actually, we were there and our guy was the only one against this fuster cluck from the beginning.
Did your guy oppose the election of the Speaker as Speaker? Because, if not, then it was really more like appearing to oppose, while actually staying out of the way.
Per Mass Live.
Between losing the tower and almost half of the retail space — the two things that made the MGM project even closely resemble a “resort casino” — there is absolutely, positively NO reason for Springfield to let MGM go forward. In anyway shape or form one looks at it, MGM has reneged on its promises. Springfield should run, not walk, away: the shell of what’s left on that proposal is nothing but a slot barn meant to suck residents dry within 10-20 miles of the casino.
Now that they are in, they are squeezing the city.
This is not even just the beginning, since the gamblesters started squeezing even before the ink was dry on the permits. Odds are they will continue squeezing, just as long and as often as they think there’s any chance they can sweeten the pot. You can bet on it!
The state should immediately — immediately — pass a bill that taxes any revenue generated by MA resident at the rate the casinos are being taxed, if not higher (because, fuck it, DraftKings never even asked for permission).
I’d say craft a bill to tax a portion of all the other gambling revenue it has coming in from places beyond MA, but there’s the risk they’d just bolt.
Really, though, the federal government should regulate them away. We don’t allow online poker or online digital slots or sports betting, and what DraftKings does is not materially any different.
> The state should immediately — immediately — pass a bill that taxes any revenue generated by MA resident at the rate the casinos are being taxed, if not higher […]
Definitely this should be structured as an individual resident tax. Don’t end it, mend it! (Because you can’t end it anyway.)
But, I have to admit, there will be technical difficulties in catching all the online fantasy sports web sites, and have them provide the necessary income records. Taxing at a high rate would push the provider out of state, or even abroad.
Problem is comparable with collection of sales tax for online sales. Some US web sites charge MA sales tax, others do not.
Even after getting the news about the downsizing of Springfield MGM in the paper, the representative from the Carpenters union doubles down on his faith in the project.
No, of course not….who ever heard of a casino owner taking unfair advantage over anyone? The very idea is absurd. The casino owners are simply looking to provide jobs for our unemployed, lift everyone out of poverty, and build wholesome communities, compete with Unicorn Farms and retirement homes for leprechauns.
I don’t gamble, at all, but I’ve always been of the opinion that sports betting has a fundamental difference from casino games, namely the house doesn’t control the game. The house has no way to control sporting events (well, they could pay off athletes, but then people get arrested if they’re caught). It traditionally makes its money off the vig (the fee it charges for placing the bet). The line is designed to have the winners and losers come out even after all the bets are placed. So it’s not a game rigged against the player. You chances of winning are 50% and the book is making its money off a service fee.
You can still go broke doing it and no book should be taking bets on credit or against collateral (e.g. property). There’s a school of thought that via data mining and the use of heuristic algorithms sports books can nudge the line in order to create more losing bets. I don’t know that theory’s been proven let alone practiced. Yet it would alter the basic nature of the game.
Fantasy sports operate under a similar principle. You’re in a pool of X number of people who have paid Y dollars. Winner makes XY – vig. You can argue that the enticement to play higher stakes, lower odds games creates a trap for the gamblers, but it’s still not a case of you playing against the house in a game rigged in the house’s favor.
I believe sites like DraftKings operates 50/50 games, where half the players win (though no idea if the losing half loses their entire bet or it drops on a sliding scale). Perhaps the way these sites evolve (possibly via regulation) is that your earnings or losses are based on relative value rather than a winner take all model. Ultimately DraftKings wants to keep you playing. It doesn’t benefit DK if the winners walk away with a big score and the losers get tapped out. Also, that makes it a lot like day trading in the stock market. They can argue they should be taxed like the Nasdaq. Side question: is the money won/lost on the sites treated as capital gains?
Anyway, it’s going to be interesting to see how this evolves. Also, Yahoo’s move into this space give the fantasy sports side a lot more political heft in MA. Got a feeling the traditional gaming industry wants the government to come down heavy on fantasy sports sites, otherwise fantasy sports looks like the tsunami coming to wipe out the gaming industry. What sound more enjoyable, sitting in a chintzy neon palace pulling a lever next to some blue hairs carting around their oxygen tanks or watching a game in your home or in a bar with an enhanced rooting interest? Expect John Henry, Bob Kraft, Jeremy Jacobs, Wyc Grousbeck and Steve Pagliuca to be working behind the scenes to leave the fantasy sites alone. They want more crazed fans tuning in.
> sports betting has a fundamental difference from casino games, namely the house doesn’t control the game.
The house can skew all sorts of subtle game statistics to rig the game. And, since it’s possible to do that, it’s only a matter of time until someone does.
There’s a known example – a friend tells me – of an online poker site which had installed a back door, with full knowledge of some of the people running the site – whereby a player chosen by them could see anybody’s hand.
No, the house does not control the game, but the game is not as unbiased as one would hope. The house knows who is betting on who with a huge database and the house can play along with house players. (We’ve seen that already). Finally, there is the issue of what Joseph Stiglitz called asymmetric information (and got a Nobel Prize for it). In short, the insiders will get information about a player’s injury or other play status before you do and even if it’s a split second, as Wall Street has demonstrated, that split second can make one a millionaire.