Hey, there! Log in / Register
The lying liars behind the Revere slots question
By adamg on Fri, 11/04/2016 - 8:57am
The Globe reports the real backers of Question 1, which would carefully define a trailer home in Revere as a possible site for a slots parlor, screwed up and filed their financial forms too early, so now we know that, rather than just one guy living somewhere way outside the continental US, the real backers of the ballot question are a bunch of casino developers.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Easy one
NO on 1.
Depends on what someone wants to accomplish
I'm voting "yes" on this one. The best way to see any gamblers get an even break in any state that has gambling is for there to be competition among the gaming interests. Wynn has contributed a lot to the "no" effort because he doesn't want any competition relatively close to his casino in Everett.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
And the way to foster true competition
is not by having a system of "oh, another company wants to open a slots parlor, so we need to put the question to a statewide vote."
That's why I plan to vote "NO on Question 1. It only fosters needless regulation and bureauracy.
OK
But how would you otherwise look to provide the competition? Unless you have the pull with the State Gaming Commission, of course.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
??
That's pretty funny. You are being sarcastic right?
Not Sarcastic
"Even Break" was an unfortunate choice of words. "Fair Shake" might be better.
Obviously, all of these places have a goal of separating you from your money, but some will give a player more chance at possibly hitting a jackpot or, at least, not going broke in under an hour.
Casinos in Las Vegas, especially those in the more locally frequented areas like downtown, have to compete for customers. With so many options, the customer can look for a better deal. LV slots sometimes offer payback rates of 98 or 99%. While that is still a losing proposition in the long run, the sucker's money will last one hell of a lot longer, in general, than via playing a machine with say an 85% payback - and the possibility of actually getting lucky and hitting for something significant may be extended.
Now, this is something we'll likely never see in Massachusetts, but some casinos in LV will even offer certain video poker variants that, with perfect play, will pay off at OVER 100% (again, in the long run - and the perfect play involves memorization of best ways to play every hand offered on the deal). These machines are offered with the knowledge that most player-derived profit will flow back to the casino on other games and via good word-of-mouth from the winners to other possible patrons. But, when a casino operator has a virtual monopoly in a territory, there is no reason whatsoever to offer such better odds. The compulsive types will keep coming to him anyway and the one-time curious bettors will have little idea of how badly they are being fleeced.
So, no, no sarcasm.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Wait, you mean a gambling question is rigged?
I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
Round up the usual suspects...