Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore
If the casinos really do not want poker, why would they fight poker only rooms? Plus if both casinos and state are against poker only rooms, the referendum vote would only be the start of a very long process. “They” could write the regs so onerous that even if once approved rooms still would not open. Certainly more than one way to stifle poker if that is their intent.
If Wynn does care, it would prompt action. If Wynn doesn't care, this would be a path, maybe the only path, to getting poker back in Boston (MGM is already bringing poker back to Springfield).
If you want a referendum that possibly stings the casinos a little more, make it so that, once a poker club opens in a region, the casino in that region can no longer offer it, and then add that, if online gaming becomes a thing, the casinos cannot offer games online that they don't also offer physically.
I think poker was likely profitable for Encore. It was a $25 million/yr business for them before the pandemic. It just wasn't -as- profitable as the other games, making up only 5% of their business. If there were relatively infinite resources (infinite parking, infinite floorspace - e.g., Foxwoods), I think they'd love to have poker. Every Wynn location has been a supporter of poker (pre-pandemic). Plus some poker players don't only play poker. They contribute to the other games and consume events and services.