Connect<span id="more-49905"></span>icut Expanded Gambling Dead In The Water for 2015

A bill that would expand slot machines in Connecticut beyond two Indian gambling enterprises is dead, says State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff.

Connecticut was one of early adopters with regards to came to adding casino gambling in the northeastern United States.

When Foxwoods exposed in 1986, the competition that is closest was in Atlantic City, and despite having the opening of Mohegan Sun a decade later on, those two casinos stood out like an area in an area devoid of gambling options.

But times have actually changed, and some in Connecticut have actually felt that it is time to expand gambling beyond those two gambling enterprises in order to take on increasing competition in the area.

Unfortunately for individuals who were in support 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 would have legalized slot machines outside of the two casinos that are indian their state was dead for the entire year, postponing a vote on the issue until 2016 at the earliest.

‘While this is a hard spending plan period, Connecticut’s economy continues to recover,’ Duff stated. ‘The unemployment price is down, and now we continue to grow jobs.

Former Speaker Amann’s notion of putting slot machines at off-track betting websites near the Massachusetts border is not the solution, and any expansion of gaming needs to be done in consultation with the tribes. With that said, this proposition will never be raised in the Senate.’

Expanded Competition in Region Prompted Calls for Slots

The possibility of expanding slot machines through the state ended up being raised as a result of the increasing competition cropping up in surrounding states.

Massachusetts recently authorized two casinos and a slots parlor, and could well approve a third casino later this year. Ny recently recommended adding three upstate casinos, could decide to suggest a 4th, and might add resorts that are downstate the near future.

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

However, you can find concerns that adding slots that are such the state may not be legal. Both the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes (which run the two native casinos that are american the Connecticut) operate under revenue-sharing compacts that have been agreed to 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 happens to be fairly lucrative for the state of Connecticut, though revenues have dropped in recent years. Slot revenues peaked for the state right back in 2007, when they took in $430 million.

That figure is projected to drop to $267 million in the current fiscal year, and analysts are predicting that number to fall to $191 million by the 2018 fiscal year, which will be 1st year after MGM opens their new resort in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Some Lawmakers Think Bill Will Be Considered Sooner or Later

Previous State Speaker of the House Jim Amann, a Democrat from Milford, said that while he knows why Duff would make the decision to kill the bill, he still thinks that the theory is ultimately something their state will have to take into account.

‘It’s about jobs. It’s about profits. It’s about protecting Connecticut revenues,’ Amann stated. ‘ This will be a fight for the success of Mohegan Sun, Foxwoods and our parimutuels,’ Amann stated. ‘ I do not understand just why there isn’t more urgency on this.’

Other legislators have stated that despite Duff’s commentary, it’s still early in the year, and anything could happen in 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 regulator that is belgian uses ‘gambling elements’ to encourage users to play and invest money. One 15-year-old spent €25,000, it said. (Image:

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 os and produced by software developer Machine Zone.

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

It’s one of the grossing that is top on the mobile market, doing this well in fact that the makers were 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 game is ‘free to play,’ however in order to prosper in this fantasy globe, of program, players need to fork out for upgrades.

‘Cannot be Tolerated’

And, yes, it has a casino. It’s a casino where you gamble with virtual money, but if you’d like to buy stuff to achieve that virtual money, is it gambling?

It’s really a question that happens to be troubling the BGC, which desires to see Machine area charged with operating unlawful gambling and offering these services to underage players, and has consequently filed a written report to Belgian law enforcement asking it to behave.

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

BGC director Peter Naessens said that it had been clear that Game of War utilizes casino mechanics that are ‘essential’ to the overall game and which additionally encouraged users to invest money. ‘You can play it in an even more enjoyable way if you are using the casino elements,’ he stated.

The targeting of underage players, he added, ‘cannot be tolerated, so we do not have an attitude that is permissive this.’

Gray Areas

The BGC has already established social gaming in its sights for a while. Final year it wrote an open letter towards the newly-elected Belgian government expressing its concern concerning the potential of social gaming to encourage gambling that is underage.

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

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

Which means, unless governments start to adopt some form of regulation, social gaming does not fall into 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:

The Golden Nugget in Atlantic City has won a longstanding legal 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 get back the cash they won in 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 new deck of cards had not been shuffled and that the cards had been being dealt in a specific order that repeated itself every 15 hands, permitting 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 noticed one thing was amiss, and promptly shut down the game, calling the authorities as well as the DGE.

Card Manufacturer’s Misstep

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

This deck that is particular but, somehow slipped through the machine.

In the following months, the Golden Nugget sued the gamblers to reclaim the sum it had paid down, even though the gamblers countersued for the $1 million they believed they were 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 decided to pay the disputed winnings, nevertheless the deal fell aside when some of the gamblers refused to dismiss their claims of illegal detention contrary to the casino.

Casino Control Act was Violated

The appeal that is ensuing ruled contrary to the gamblers, a verdict that has been appealed once again and upheld this week. ‘ The dealer did not pre-shuffle the cards straight away before the commencement of play, and also the cards were not pre-shuffled in respect with any legislation,’ the judge wrote. ‘Thus, a literal reading of the regulations … entails 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 came down to whether game had been a ‘game of chance’ and whether it had been ‘fair.’ Considering that the outcome was ‘predetermined’ by the deck, he stated, it could not be considered to be a game of chance at all.

This week’s ruling contradicts the opinion of the nj-new Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement at a hearing in September, which stated so it did not believe the game broke any New Jersey gambling laws.

The judge ruled that the gamblers must get back the $500,000 given out by the casino, while the casino in turn must refund the gamblers’ original stakes.