Thanks, I thought that this was a simply excellent thought experiment about regional casinos. The most significant difference from your stylized example that I can think of is that, in most cases, states don’t allow unrestricted casino openings within the state overall and often only in specific locations (e.g., designated tribal lands, only as riverboats, a license for NYC, etc.). Most jurisdictions that I’m aware of have a set number of licenses for the state, and once those licenses are taken, that’s it. (Although some states have expanded licenses from time to time.). Texas and Alaska are possibly the most restrictive of the 48 states that allow any gambling (UT and HI don’t allow gambling) and just have tribal casinos and poker cardrooms. This could be because neither state needs the revenue from gaming taxes - both states receive significant royalties / taxes from natural resources extraction. However, Texas is considering allowing a non-tribal casino in the Dallas Area, with Mark Cuban and Las Vegas Sands’ Adelson family both pushing for legislation which would allow that. A Dallas commercial casino would obviously put the Oklahoma tribal casinos at significant risk of declining revenues from North Texans given the greater convenience of a Dallas-based casino.
Thanks, I thought that this was a simply excellent thought experiment about regional casinos. The most significant difference from your stylized example that I can think of is that, in most cases, states don’t allow unrestricted casino openings within the state overall and often only in specific locations (e.g., designated tribal lands, only as riverboats, a license for NYC, etc.). Most jurisdictions that I’m aware of have a set number of licenses for the state, and once those licenses are taken, that’s it. (Although some states have expanded licenses from time to time.). Texas and Alaska are possibly the most restrictive of the 48 states that allow any gambling (UT and HI don’t allow gambling) and just have tribal casinos and poker cardrooms. This could be because neither state needs the revenue from gaming taxes - both states receive significant royalties / taxes from natural resources extraction. However, Texas is considering allowing a non-tribal casino in the Dallas Area, with Mark Cuban and Las Vegas Sands’ Adelson family both pushing for legislation which would allow that. A Dallas commercial casino would obviously put the Oklahoma tribal casinos at significant risk of declining revenues from North Texans given the greater convenience of a Dallas-based casino.