A bill that would expand slots in Connecticut beyond two Indian casinos is dead, says State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff.

Connecticut was certainly one of the early adopters when it came to casino that is adding in the northeastern United States.

Whenever Foxwoods opened in 1986, the competition that is closest was in Atlantic City, and despite having the opening of Mohegan Sun 10 years later, those two casinos stood out like an island in an area devoid of gambling options.

But times have changed, and some in Connecticut have felt that it is time to expand gambling beyond those two casinos in order to contend with increasing competition in the region.

Regrettably for many who were in favor of such measures, they don’t be to arrive 2015.

Connecticut State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) announced on Monday that a proposal that could have legalized slot devices outside of the two Indian casinos in their state was dead for the year, putting off a vote on the issue until 2016 during the earliest.

‘While this is a hard spending plan season, Connecticut’s economy continues to recover,’ Duff said. ‘The unemployment price is down, so we continue to grow jobs.

Former Speaker Amann’s notion of putting slot devices at off-track betting sites near the Massachusetts border is not the solution, and any expansion of gaming needs to be done in consultation utilizing the tribes. With that said, this proposition shall not be raised in the Senate.’

Expanded Competition in Region Prompted Calls for Slots

The prospect of expanding slot machines through the state had been raised as a result of the competition that is increasing up in surrounding states.

Massachusetts recently authorized two casinos and a slots parlor, and could well accept a casino that is third this year. New York recently recommended adding three upstate casinos, could decide to suggest a 4th, and might add downstate resorts in the near future.

And other locations like Pennsylvania, Atlantic City, and Rhode Island are all within driving distance for all Connecticut residents as well.

However, there are concerns that adding such slots around the state may maybe not be appropriate. Both the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes (which run the two indigenous American casinos in the Connecticut) operate under revenue-sharing compacts which were agreed to a lot more than 25 years ago.

The tribes must pay 25 percent of their slot revenues to the state; however, they in turn have the exclusive rights to operate such machines under those agreements.

That agreement has been fairly profitable for the continuing state of Connecticut, though revenues have dropped in recent years. Slot revenues peaked for the state back in 2007, once they took in $430 million.

That figure is projected to drop to $267 million in the current year that is fiscal and analysts are predicting that number to fall to $191 million by the 2018 fiscal year, which is the initial year after MGM opens their brand new resort in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Some Lawmakers Think Bill will Still sooner be considered or Later

Previous State Speaker of the House Jim Amann, a Democrat from Milford, said that while he understands why Duff would decide to kill the bill, he still thinks that the concept is eventually something their state will have to think about.

‘It’s about jobs. It’s about revenues. It is about protecting Connecticut revenues,’ Amann said. ‘ This is a fight for the survival of Mohegan Sun, Foxwoods and our parimutuels,’ Amann stated. ‘ I don’t understand why there is certainlyn’t more urgency on this.’

Other legislators have stated that despite Duff’s feedback, it’s still early in the year, and anything could take place within the months in the future.

‘Pitchers and catchers have actuallyn’t even arrived yet,’ said State Representative Stephen Dargan Haven that is(D-West). ‘It’s early in the period.’

Belgian Regulator Denounces Game of War: Fire Age as ‘Illegal Gambling’

Game of War: Fire Age, which the Belgian regulator says uses ‘gambling elements’ to encourage users to play and spend money. One 15-year-old spent €25,000, it stated. (Image: gamer.com)

The Belgian video gaming Commission (BGC) has declared war on the social media game Game of War: Fire Age, which it accuses of providing casino-style games to players as young as nine.

Game of War is a massive multi-player video game (MMO), an in-depth strategy role-player, big on social elements, that’s available primarily on the iOS operating-system and produced by software developer Machine Zone.

In it, budding heroes that are roman invited to train armies, form alliances, and build empires, using the aim of becoming all-powerful. Or something.

It is certainly one of the top grossing games on the mobile market, doing this well in fact that the makers had been recently able to fork away $40 million to hire Kate Upton, clad in plunging silver corset, to star in a series of big budget commercials.

The overall game is ‘free to play,’ however in order to prosper in this fantasy globe, of course, players need to fork out for upgrades.

‘Cannot be Tolerated’

And, yes, a casino is had by it. It is a casino where you gamble with virtual money, but it gambling if you need to buy stuff to attain that virtual money, is?

It is a question that was troubling the BGC, which desires to see Machine Zone charged with operating gambling that is illegal offering these services to underage players, and has consequently filed a written report to Belgian police force asking it to behave.

It cites the case of just one 15-year-old Game of War player who invested a total of €25,000 playing the overall game over an unspecified duration.

BGC director Peter Naessens said that it had been clear that Game of War makes use of casino mechanics that are ‘essential’ to the game and which also encouraged users to invest money. ‘You can play it in a far more enjoyable way he said if you are using the casino elements.

The targeting of underage players, he added, ‘cannot be tolerated, so we don’t have a permissive attitude towards this.’

Gray Areas

The BGC has had gaming that is social its places for a while. Last year it wrote an open page to your newly-elected Belgian government expressing its concern concerning the potential of social gaming to encourage gambling that is underage.

It complained that the prior government appeared unwilling to tackle the niche and has made no significant work to manage the social gaming industry. Legislation related to the issue and drafted by the Commission had already been presented to parliament, it said.

The situation with social video gaming is, while games of chance may well be present, since there is absolutely no ‘stake,’ included, at minimum in the sense that is traditional strictly speaking it’s can’t be gambling, by meaning.

Which means, unless governments start to follow some type of regulation, social gaming does not fall under the remit of the gaming operator at all.

Golden Nugget Wins $1.5 Million Mini-Baccarat Case

The judge ruled that the mini-baccarat game at the Golden Nugget violated the Casino Control Act, and consequently all winnings and stakes must be returned. (Image: destination360.com)

The Golden Nugget in Atlantic City has won a longstanding appropriate battle that erupted following a game of mini-baccarat during the casino in 2012.

State Superior Court Judge Donna Taylor said that 14 players must return the funds they won within the game because the overall game itself contravened state gaming guidelines.

During the overall game under consideration, the opportunistic group of gamblers spotted that a brand new deck of cards wasn’t shuffled and that the cards had been being dealt in a specific order that repeated itself every 15 hands, allowing them to know which were coming next.

Upping their wagers to as $5,000, they won the ensuing 41 hands in a row, banking $1.5 million.

The casino had paid out $500,000 before it realized one thing ended up being amiss, and promptly shut down the game, calling the authorities while the DGE.

Card Manufacturer’s Misstep

The court heard that the cards were meant to arrive from the manufacturer, Kansas-based company Gemaco, in a pre-shuffled state, via a machine that makes use of complex algorithms to make sure that no two decks are the same.

This particular deck, nonetheless, somehow slipped through the system.

what casino has the titanic slot machine

In the following weeks, the Golden Nugget sued the gamblers to reclaim the sum it had paid down, even though the gamblers countersued for the $1 million they thought they had been owed. a initial court ruling in 2012 ruled in favor of the gamblers and the casino vowed to appeal.

However, owner Tilman Fertitta overrode his lawyers and consented to pay the disputed winnings, however the deal fell apart when a few of the gamblers refused to dismiss their claims of illegal detention up against the casino.

Casino Control Act was Violated

The ensuing appeal case ruled from the gamblers, a verdict that was appealed once again and upheld this week. ‘ The dealer did not immediately pre-shuffle the cards before the commencement of play, and the cards were not pre-shuffled in respect with any legislation,’ the judge wrote. ‘Thus, a reading that is literal of regulations … requires that the game violated the (Casino Control) Act, and consequently was not authorized.’

The Golden Nugget’s lawyer, Louis Barbone, had argued that the game’s legality arrived down to whether game was a ‘game of chance’ and whether it ended up being ‘fair.’ Because the outcome ended up being ‘predetermined’ by the deck, he said, it may not be viewed to be described as a game of chance at all.

This week’s ruling contradicts the opinion regarding the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement at a hearing in which said that it did not feel that the game broke any New Jersey gambling laws september.

The judge ruled that the gamblers must return the $500,000 settled by the casino, while the casino in turn must refund the gamblers’ original stakes.

Connecticut Expanded Gambling Dead In The Water for 2015


LIKE THIS VIDEODISLIKE THIS VIDEO
0
0
Posted by
March 4th, 2020


Next Post | Previous Post

Comments