DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Gaming International Magazine May/June 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Gaming International Magazine May/June 2017 The Damage to Brand efore exploring the ways and means The key part of the sentence is “where the Lottery Bto displace illegal operators from the consumer is located” as opposed to where marketplace, we should begin by clari- the operator is located. The members of the Caused fying what it means to be an illegal illegal gaming community are continually operator, define the difference between legal exploiting new developments in technol- and illegal lottery. That definition varies ogy and legal loopholes to claim that a legal by Lottoland depending on the continent, the country, or license in one jurisdiction entitles them to even within the jurisdiction you are taking as operate in all without regard to the legal- and Illegal a reference. Let’s refer to the definition artic- ity in the jurisdiction where the consumer ulated by the Council of Europe Convention resides. This posture enables them to essen- “Secondary” on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. tially hijack the revenues of legally licensed It addresses the issue of match-fixing in operators all around the world, depriving the Lotteries: sports, but it is a definition that can apply good causes supported by licensed operators to all forms of games-of-chance. It is the and channeling those profits over to private first time that an international institution shareholders. The evidence of this is already A Call to has endeavored to clarify the boundaries that having a big impact in Europe and Australia. separate legal from illegal gambling. Article Action 35A of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions The business model of these “secondary establishes that any sports betting activ- lotteries” works like this: First, they tech- ity whose type or operator is not allowed nically are not operating a lottery. Instead, under the applicable law of the jurisdiction they are operating a betting shop which takes where the consumer is located is illegal. By bets on the outcomes of legitimately licensed perfectly logical extension, this definition lotteries like Powerball, Euromillions, applies to lottery and other games-of-chance. EuroJackpot, Mega Millions, and many Just substitute the word “lottery” for “sports other games. But, take a look at their website betting”. This is a sound, reasonable defini- (for example, lottoland.com). The headline tion that respects the laws and authorities is “Play Lottery, Games and Scratchcards vested to each individual member state of Online at Lottoland.com”. The brand logos the EU. In the U.S., that definition applies are not exact replicas of the actual brands, to Lottery but not to sports betting (which but they are very close and would appear is prohibited by U.S. federal law in all but to the consumer to be the same. In other four states). words, the consumer is led to believe they are buying the branded lottery product from 7<)30*.(405.05;,95(;065(34(@1<5, a legal and licensed operator. In actuality, do not pay anything to support societal EuroMillions, Mega Millions, or Powerball”. the consumer is placing a bet with an opera- good causes in the jurisdiction where the tor legally licensed in Gibraltar or Malta or consumer resides, they are generating huge some other haven of low taxes and minimal profits. They pay taxes to their host juris- And what happens if or when the second- regulations and blatant disregard for the laws diction, but that is typically less than 2% of ary lottery fails to pay the winner of a big of other countries, but illegal and unlicensed net income, nowhere near the 20% to 25% jackpot? Clearly, that will blow a big hole in in many of the jurisdictions where they oper- of gross revenues contributed by authorized the brand value of legitimate lotteries. Think ate. That is why they are called “secondary” state lotteries. about it. The consumer wins a big jackpot lotteries. It is like selling a derivative of the and perceives the secondary lottery as being lottery product. legitimate. The licensed operator advises How do they honor prize-payout to the player that the ticket they hold is not winners? The secondary operator takes legitimate, that the licensed operator is not There are reasons why it is very difficult out insurance. International insurance obligated to honor their winning bet because to enforce national laws to prevent this companies and others sell insurance that it is not actually a lottery ticket. Telling the kind of illegality. The European Union covers that liability up to a certain amount. player to sue the operator in the host country efforts to harmonize and liberalize trade When the jackpot size exceeds the cost of the will not likely settle the matter! It is our among its member states serves to make all ticket, the secondary operator may choose product, our brand, the value of our licensed economic activities operate competitively, to outsource the risk back to the lottery by lottery business that will be damaged. The on an equal footing and even playing field. simply buying the tickets from the lottery. PR backlash and potential legal issues are This is a commendable objective in the How do they make money if sell the ticket frightening. We should be planning for the provision of most goods and services and is day when a player wins a $100 million or a founding principle upon which the EU is ¸>LT\Z[JSHYPM`UV[ 100 EURO jackpot that is not honored by based. Gambling, though, was recognized the betting shop misrepresenting itself as a even in the original treaties as having social VUS`^O`ZLJVUKHY` legally licensed lottery. costs and being of service for governments to channel economic benefit back to the lotteries are harmful to service of society. It was excepted from the government lotteries. Lottoland is not the only secondary lottery, EU rules that require free and open cross- but they are the biggest and the one who border competition. The market-driven >LT\Z[JSHYPM`^O` has most flagrantly and effectively exploited mechanisms that drive down costs and [OL`HYLOHYTM\S[V the loopholes that enable unlicensed opera- drive up consumption maximizes efficiency tors to sell lottery products online across and works well for almost all economic ZVJPL[`¹ jurisdictional boundaries. Their marketing sectors. It does not work well for gambling is creative, aggressive, and effective. Legally because the goal in this sector has never licensed in Gibraltar, Lottoland began oper- been to maximize consumption or to maxi- ations in 2013 and exploded on the scene mize wealth for private shareholders. The at the same price as they pay for the ticket? over the last three years. Now, they are European Union Commission hopefully They don’t. But they make so much money also legally licensed by the UK Gambling recognizes these facts. Unfortunately, they in the run-up to that threshold that it does Commission, the Republic of Ireland are not taking action to provide the legal not matter. In fact, the secondary lotteries National Excise License Office, and the tools to eliminate illegality in the marketing typically offer bonus plays and incentives to Northern Territories Racing Commission and distribution of lottery games. This lack register that authorized lotteries are not even in Australia, and operate legally in Sweden, of decisive action creates legal ambiguities allowed to offer. They sell online so their Hungary, and Poland. But, but they also and loopholes through which these illegal costs are minimal. They do not incur the offer their products anywhere else with- operators are driving a well-funded attack product development and marketing costs out license or authorization. Through its on the businesses of legally licensed lottery to build the game brand because those costs websites, Lottoland offers fixed odds betting operators, not just in Europe but all around have already been borne by the authorized on Powerball, Mega Millions, Euromillions, the world. lotteries. As can be seen on their websites, El Gordo in Spain, Euro Jackpot in Europe they misrepresent themselves to make it and more than twenty-five other games. appear to the consumer that these are their And they are aggressively moving into other The business model of the parasitic products which in effect means they are products like online Instant as well. secondary lottery is simple. The private stealing intellectual property and expro- operator receives a remote gambling license priating the advertising, brand-building, from a low tax domicile such as Gibraltar and good-will that authorized lotteries have In Australia, Lottoland received its license or Malta in Europe. The operator offers invested in and created over many decades. from the Northern Territory government in fixed-odds betting on the outcomes of the Their hook (as advertised on Lottoland.com) December 2015. They began operation just state authorized lotteries. They sell online is “The odds of winning the jackpot are more in time for the record-breaking $1.56 billion across jurisdictional boundaries. Since they favorable than other major lotteries, such as Powerball last year in January. Within one 4(@1<5,7<)30*.(405.05;,95(;065(3 week of commencing operations in Australia it had attracted 250,000 clients drawn by the possibility of playing Powerball and winning the huge jackpot from Australia. By the end of 2016, Lottoland had a customer base of 400,000 and accounted for 8% of the online spend in the Australian market, or 1% of the overall market of 2 billion Australian dollars. Worldwide, Lottoland now has a customer base of 5 million people. They now have the marketing experience, the established customer and revenue base, and the legal and political know-how to continue this drive of exponential growth.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulating the National Lottery
    Section 5 Regulating the National Lottery The Third National Lottery Licence May 2021 The Third Licence Conditions 1. Grant of Licence 2. Definitions and Interpretation 3. Commencement 4. Handover from the Previous Licence 5. Service requirement 6. Prohibition of activities not related to the National Lottery 7. Consumer Protection 8. Retailer commission and retailer management 9. Independent section 6 licence applicants 10. Information and reporting 11. Payments to the Secretary of State 11A. Promotion of the National Lottery 12. Shareholders, other Connected parties and debt providers 13. Vetting 14. Control environment 15. Contractors 16. Employees 17. Performance monitoring 18. Handover on expiry or revocation of the Licence 19. Security for Players’ funds 20. Confidentiality and freedom of information 21. Intellectual Property 22. Data Protection 23. Licence extensions 24. No waiver 25. Severability 26. Governing Law and jurisdiction 27. Third Party rights 28. Notices 29. Survival Schedules Schedule 1 Definitions Schedule 2 Part 1 Games and facilities to be available in the first five weeks of the Licence Schedule 2 Part 2 Financial penalties Schedule 2 Part 3 Schedule 3 Handover from the Previous Licensee Schedule 4 Part 1 Ancillary activities that the Commission has consented to Schedule 4 Part 2 Further Conditions relating to Ancillary Activities Schedule 5 The Ancillary Activity Payment Schedule 6 Schedule 7 Codes of practice and strategies Schedule 8 Primary and Secondary Contributions Part 1 Definitions and interpretation Schedule
    [Show full text]
  • September | 2020
    September | 2020 The coronavirus pandemic has changed the way we use the internet. Whether it’s remote work, online shopping, online learning or remote health care, new methods and changes in consumer behaviors will likely continue after the virus has run its course. Internet gambling is another area that may soon see a COVID-19 bump. Most states do not allow internet gambling. Of the 44 states with lotteries, only 11 allow some form of internet play, either permitting lottery tickets to be sold over the internet or offering online lottery subscriptions. Of the 25 states with commercial casino gambling, internet gambling (that is, traditional casino games played electronically over the internet, usually distinct from online sports betting) is only available in Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Michigan and West Virginia have recently legalized iGaming but are not yet offering it. While there are only a handful of states that have considered iGaming or iLottery measures during coronavirus-dominated 2020 sessions, there are signs that a shift may be underway. One of the primary reasons that legal gambling has been slow to embrace the internet despite a sizable online gambling black market, is a fear that online gambling would rob brick-and-mortar casinos and surrounding establishments of visitors and revenue. This fear no longer appears to be widespread across the casino industry, and many stakeholders now point to evidence that internet gambling will actually help casinos. Those who are more inclined to bet online tend to be younger and are not necessarily active casinogoers; iGaming may offer an opportunity to appeal to a broader market.
    [Show full text]
  • Sports Betting Update: a Report on the Status of Play
    Sports Betting Update: A Report on the Status of Play Released June 14, 2021 MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION Crystal Howard, Program Manager POST-PASPA AND POST-PANDEMIC UPDATE (AS OF MAY 18, 2021) Introduction The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) was created upon the adoption of “An Act Establishing Expanded Gaming in the Commonwealth” in November of 2011. The Commission, a five-member independent body, is tasked with implementing the Act and regulating the licensed gaming establishments. The Expanded Gaming Act allows for up to three destination resort casinos located in three geographically diverse regions across the state and a single slots facility for one location statewide. The Gaming Commission, at this time, has awarded the slots only license and two of the three integrated resort licenses. Each resort casino paid an $85 million licensing fee and was required to make a capital investment of at least $500 million – a requirement that both licensees substantially exceeded. The Commonwealth receives 25% of their gross gaming revenues. The slots facility paid a $25 million license fee, exceeded a required minimum capital investment of $125 million, and is taxed on 49% of its gross gaming revenue. As of this date, the Commonwealth has collected approximately $767 million in total taxes and assessments from Plainridge Park Casino1, MGM Springfield, and Encore Boston Harbor. This paper is intended to update the MGC’s 2018 publication on sports betting. Similarly, it does not represent an adopted position of the Commission. Rather it offers a fact-based report on the status of legalized sports wagering across the nation. Post-PASPA Status of Sports Betting The sports betting landscape has evolved rapidly since the decision which overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) in Murphy v.
    [Show full text]
  • DEMAND for LOTTERY GAMBLING: Evaluating Price Sensitivity Within a Portfolio of LOTTERY Games
    National Tax Journal, September 2014, 67 (3), 595–620 DEMAND FOR LOTTERY GAMBLING: EvALuATING pRIcE sENsITIvITY wIThIN A pORTFOLIO OF LOTTERY GAMEs Michael A. Trousdale and Richard A. Dunn This article introduces a new approach to analyzing whether lottery games are complements or substitutes, and whether a portfolio of lottery games is optimally priced. We estimate Barten’s synthetic differential demand system for the on-line lottery games operated by the Texas Lottery Commission. The demand system ap- proach imposes theory-consistent demand restrictions that allow identifcation of parameters for games without price variation. We use the estimated parameters from the Barten model to construct expenditure and price elasticities. Results indi- cate that on-line games in Texas are generally substitutes for one another and the portfolio of games is not priced to maximize proft. Keywords: gambling, lottery, consumer demand, elasticity, demand system esti- mation, Barten synthetic demand system JEL Codes: D12, H21, H27, H71, L83 I. INTRODUCTION roceeds from lottery gambling are a signifcant source of revenue for U.S. state Pgovernments. As of 2012, all but seven states operate or sponsor lottery gambling with total sales of $68.7 billion and profts of $19.4 billion.1 In Texas, lottery gambling provides more revenue than excise taxes on alcohol or cigarettes, accounting for approxi- mately 2 percent of total tax revenue (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 2010). Although lottery games serve as a form of entertainment, they are established frst and foremost as a source of revenue for the jurisdictions that operate them. A number of studies estimate the elasticity of total sales with respect to effective price to investigate whether a lottery game maximizes expected proft (Cook and Clotfelter, 1993; Gulley and Scott, 1993; Scoggins, 1995; Farrell, Morgenroth, and Walker, 1999; 1 See “Lottery Sales and Transfers,” North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, http:// www.naspl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=17&pageid=1025.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Lotteries
    The History of Lotteries Gerald Willmann Department of Economics, Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6072, U.S.A. [email protected] August 3, 1999 Abstract In this pap er wegiveanoverview of the history of lotteries. Start- ing from early evidence in the Bible and in the classical Roman world, th we trace lotteries up to their reapp earance in Europ e in the 15 cen- tury. From that period onwards, lotteries b ecame so numerous that we concentrate on a few exemplary cases: the old French lottery, early lotteries in New York, and lotteries in the German states. Finally,we give a brief account of more recent developments and discuss some related issues. JEL: B15, B25, D80, G29, H27, N4. 1 1 Intro duction Lotteries have a long history. Their use is do cumented in the Old Testament, and several Roman emp erors used them for entertainment. They reapp ear th in Europ e in the 15 century mainly as a means to raise revenue for the state. Since then they have survived all opp osition. From an economic viewp oint, lotteries are interesting for at least two reasons. First, the fact that p eople buy lottery tickets presents achallenge to the theory of decision making under uncertainty. The prevalent Exp ected Utilityhyp othesis cannot 1 explain this phenomenon satisfactorily. Second, lotteries are an imp ortant source of revenue for the state. If we lo ok at the voluminous literature on tari s in international trade and note that lotteries often contribute more to the state budget than tari s, we can only wonder why the economic literature has remained so silent on this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • State Lotteries: Gambling with the Common Good by Julia Fleming
    Copyright © 2011 Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University 29 29 State Lotteries: Gambling With the Common Good BY JULIA FLEMING While their regressive burden upon the disadvantaged is a strong ethical reason for rejecting state lotteries, we should also consider the messages that their promotion conveys to the community as a whole. Lotteries, as alternatives to taxation, undercut the development of civic virtues and social responsibility. ithin the last fifty years, state governments in the United States have made a radical change in their policies towards gambling, as Wevidenced especially in their sponsorship of lotteries. Today, ninety percent of the U.S. population lives in lottery states; in 1960 no Americans did. As Erik Owens has observed, “Every action the government takes, every policy the government makes, conveys certain values to its citizens.”1 So, what values are state governments indirectly endorsing, or at least tolerating, in their new reliance upon lotteries as a source of revenue? Does govern- mental promotion of lotteries exploit the weaknesses of problem gamblers, prey upon the disadvantaged, and encourage a superstitious belief in lucky numbers? In a broader sense, do lotteries, as alternatives to taxation, under- cut citizens’ development of civic virtues and social responsibility? Roman Catholic social thought provides a helpful vantage point from which to consider the ethics of state lotteries as a regular revenue source. The tradition’s general principles, especially its emphasis upon civic responsibil- ity and the importance of social virtues, suggest that reliance on the lottery poses a risk both to vulnerable citizens and to the character of the community as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • BGC-APP-009A, Cardroom Applicant's Spouse Supplemental
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Cardroom Applicant's Spouse Supplemental Information for a State Gambling License BGC-APP-009A (Rev. 12/11) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL (916) 227-3584 (916) 227-2308 facsimile CARDROOM APPLICANT'S SPOUSE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR A STATE GAMBLING LICENSE Type or print legibly in ink an answer to every question. If a question does not apply to you, indicate with "N/A" (not applicable). If the space available is insufficient, use a separate sheet and precede each answer with the applicable section and question number. Do not misstate or omit any material fact(s) as each statement made is subject to verification. Any corrections, changes or other alterations must be initialed and dated by the applicant. PLEASE SEND THE COMPLETED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR A STATE GAMBLING LICENSE, A $1,000 NON-REFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEE, AND A $6,600 DEPOSIT TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED INVESTIGATION AND PROCESSING COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 19867 TO: California Gambling Control Commission, 2399 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 220, Sacramento, CA 95833-4231. A. PERSONAL 1. Full Name: Last First Middle 2. Alias(es), Nicknames, Maiden Name, Other Name Changes, Legal or Otherwise: 3. Date of Birth: 4. Place of Birth: City County State Country 5. Residence Address: Street City State Zip 6. Business Address: Street City State Zip 7. Occupation: 8. Telephone: Residence: Business: 9. Social Security Number*: 10. Driver License/Identification Card No./State Issued: 11. Eye Color: Hair Color: Weight: Height: 12. Distinguishing marks (scars, tattoos, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of Sports and Lottery Markets
    HANDBOOK OF SPORTS AND LOTTERY MARKETS Edited by Donald B. Hausch University of Wisconsin, Madison William T. Ziemba University of British Columbia Oxford University University of Reading AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO L< JJO*S F.I ASP,V I F,R North-Holland is an imprint of Elsevier Contents List of Contributors xvi Preface xix Introduction to the Series xxiii Part I Industry Studies 1 1 Pari-Mutuel Horse Race Wagering—Competition from Within and Outside the Industry 3 Richard Thalheimer and Mukhtar M. AH 1. Introduction 4 2. Competition from Casino Gaming 5 3. Competition from State Lotteries 7 4. Competition from Professional Sports 8 5. Competition from Live Racing 8 6. Competition from Simulcast Wagering 11 7. Summary and Conclusions 13 References 14 2 Modeling Money Bet on Horse Races in Hong Kong 17 John Bacon-Shone and Alan Woods 1. Introduction 18 2. Variables examined . 18 2.1. Outcome Variables 18 2.2. Independent Variables 19 3. Results and Discussion 19 4. Conclusion 21 References 22 Appendix: 31 Independent Variables Examined (Excluding Quadratic Terms) 23 vii viii Contents Part II Utility, Probability, and Pace Estimation 25 3 Empirical Evidence on the Preferences of Racetrack Bettors 27 Bruno Jullien and Bernard Salanie 1. Introduction 28 2. Some Stylized Facts 30 3. Expected Utility 33 4. Distortions of Probabilities 36 5. Reference Points and Asymmetric Probability Weights 39 6. Heterogeneous Preferences 42 7. Exotic Bets 45 8. Concluding Remarks 46 References 47 4 Approximating the Ordering Probabilities of Multi-Entry Competitions by a Simple Method 51 Victor S.Y.Lo and John Bacon-Shone 1.
    [Show full text]
  • State Lotteries and Their Customers
    MILLER_ARTICLE FORMATTED 5-27-19.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 6/6/19 2:41 PM STATE LOTTERIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS Keith C. Miller* INTRODUCTION On Tuesday, October 23, 2018, a lucky person in South Carolina who purchased a Mega Millions lottery ticket learned she or he was the winner of the second largest lottery prize ever awarded in the United States—$1.536 billion.1 The ticket was sold by a convenience store in rural South Carolina.2 The build- up to the drawing was dramatic; people stood in lines waiting to buy a ticket, hoping they would become the winner of a prize that would make them fabulously wealthy.3 The United States had another case of lottery fever. Lotteries have a history in our country that predates the U.S. Constitution.4 Not surprisingly, our affection for lotteries can be traced to their popularity, and *Ellis and Nelle Levitt Distinguished Professor of Law, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. Many thanks to my research assistant Anne Reser-Moorehead for her hard work, research, and editing assistance. 1 The Associated Press, $1.537B jackpot won in South Carolina is 2nd largest in U.S., AP NEWS (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.apnews.com/91503645c0e5488c91e 48bb60718966b. Actually, the ticket would only pay a total of $1.536 billion if the winner chose to take the prize over a 29-year period. If the winner elected the immediate cash payout, she or he received $878 million. The SC Education Lottery has a message for the Mega Millions jackpot winner, who has not yet come forward, FOX CAROLINA (Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling Law Review Gambling L Aw R Eview
    the Gambling Law Review Law Gambling Gambling L aw R eview Fifth Edition Editor Carl Rohsler Fifth Edition Fifth lawreviews © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd Gambling Law Review Fifth Edition Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in May 2020 For further information please contact [email protected] Editor Carl Rohsler lawreviews © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Tom Barnes SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Joel Woods SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Pere Aspinall, Jack Bagnall ACCOUNT MANAGERS Olivia Budd, Katie Hodgetts, Reece Whelan PRODUCT MARKETING EXECUTIVE Rebecca Mogridge RESEARCH LEAD Kieran Hansen EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Gavin Jordan PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS DIRECTOR Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Steve Haines SUBEDITOR Claire Ancell CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Nick Brailey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London Meridian House, 34–35 Farringdon Street, London, EC4A 4HL, UK © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided was accurate as at May 2020,
    [Show full text]
  • The 15Th International Conference on Gambling & Risk Taking
    The 15th International Conference on Gambling & Risk Taking The world’s first and finest gambling conference. May 27-31, 2013 Caesars Palace, Las Vegas Presented in partnership by: LEADING THE INDUSTRY AND MAKING IT STRONGER. IGT is a proud sponsor of the 15th International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking. We look forward to working with our peers to strengthen the gaming industry. © 2013 IGT. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements: We would like to express a special thank you to all of those individuals who have helped make this conference happen. Our “founding father,” Dr. Bill Eadington, built a very special collective in what is now an international Financial Sponsors: field, and our collaborative efforts reflect his pioneering spirit. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the important contributions of the following people: Program Co-Chairs: William R. Eadington Bo J. Bernhard David G. Schwartz Conference Organizing Committee: Brett Abarbanel Bo J. Bernhard Robyn Hadden PLATINUM Darren Heyman Katherine Jackson Nakia Jackson-Hale Kristin Malek Cheryl Olson David G. Schwartz From Caesars Palace: Jan Jones Karlos LaSane And an extra special thank you to Judy Cornelius, who always answered our questions even after her retirement! Associate Sponsors: GOLD Asia Pacific Association for Gambling Studies, Macau Alberta Gambling Research Institute, Canada Center for Gaming Research, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Center for Policy Analysis, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth Centre for Risk Research, United Kingdom European Association
    [Show full text]
  • Fantini's COVID
    FANTINI’S GAMING REPORT© More Important Than Your Morning Coffee… ™ … And Now More Important Than Ever Special Reporting Service June 21, 2020 Frank Fantini – Publisher Ashley Diem – Associate Publisher and Executive Editor Blake Weishaar – Editor Fantini’s COVID-19 Gaming Daily – Weekend Update INDEX WHITE PAPER: CONVERGENCE MATTERS LV: JULY 4, RATES RISING, G2E RETURNS CASINO TRAFFIC RISES OPENINGS US, CANADA: CA, MB, MD, MGM, NM, ND, PENN, PA, TRWH INTERNATIONAL: BAHAMAS, IRELAND, REEF, SOUTH AFRICA STEPS BACK: AZ, CZR, MERUELO, RUSH ST, WA GUIDELINES: CDC, CULINARY COMPANIES: BLOOMBERRY, GATEWAY, PENN, RESORTS US: LV INTERNATIONAL: ASIA-OCEANA DOING GOOD: LOTTOLAND FANTINI’S VIRTUAL TRADE SHOW CONVENTIONS, TRADE SHOWS, CONFERENCES, EXPOS WHITE PAPER: CONVERGENCE MATTERS Developing an omnichannel strategy that diversifies revenues, serves customers and builds brands through online, sports betting and the social gaming world is explained in the second installment of post COVID-19 white papers by The Strategy Organization and Fantini Research. The white paper will be available at https://www.fantiniresearch.com/links/the- strategy-organization-fantini-research-white-paper.html. LV: JULY 4th RATES RISING, G2E RETURNS Las Vegas casinos expect growing crowds for July 4th weekend, but short of the 330,000 people who crowded the city last year. Visitors will pay higher hotel rates over the holiday weekend as resorts are getting back pricing power. Among publicly listed casinos reported by the Las Vegas Review- Journal, recent rate changes are Harrah’s $75 a night jumping to $149, MGM Grand from $169 to $189 and Wynn from $209 to $299. And, while festivities might be less flamboyant than usual, Plaza Hotel in downtown is still planning a fireworks show.
    [Show full text]