Top blackjack myths unveiled

A large number of players who prefer online casinos to brick-and-mortar gambling houses often lose their money because of believing in various myths and rumors that spread around the web. If you don't want to make part of that number you have to be cautious about the most common myths blackjack players tell about when playing online.

Myth #1: Card counting is not required

Those of you who have spent a bit of time at the table know that card counting is the most basic winning strategy, and the myth tells that you don't need it to win at the game.

Fact #1:

It's almost impossible to beat the dealer if you don't know what cards are remaining in the deck. That's why players use card counting in order to raise the odds of winning against the house. If you have read about a strategy that doesn't tell you to count cards then it's definitely not a strategy that will help you win in the long run. Card counting isn't as complicated as some players think it is, there are ways you can easily count cards and raise your chances of winning, and that's definitely what you want in the end, right?

Myth #2: In order to win you need only the basic strategy

You don't need any complicated strategies in order to win, you just need to learn the basic strategy that is available even at online casino sites and you will win for sure.

Fact #2:

Most players who use only the basic strategy lose nearly all of the time. That's because in most cases the basic strategy is given directly at the online casino's site and there's no sense for the casino to post such things other than increasing their in-house odds and fooling players. There are numerous books on blackjack winning strategies that are based around the very same basic strategy and not that many players can say that these tips have helped them. In order to win you will need something more effective in raising your odds at online blackjack than the basic strategy.

Myth #3: Get as close to 21 as you can in order to win

This is probably the most common myth among those who have only started to play blackjack and are new to the game. This is a popular misconception because blackjack is also sometimes called as the game of 21. And assuming that's the main goal of the game, new players believe that it's crucial to get close to 21.

Fact #3:

The main goal of the game is not getting close to 21. In order to win at blackjack you have to beat the dealer's hand, have a larger count with the cards you have than the house has. No matter if it will be 13 against 9, you will still win if it's your count that's larger. Many rookies make the common mistake and try to get as close to 21, taking more cards and busting their chances by going beyond 21. Leave the number behind and focus on the dealer's hands - that will give you much greater chances of winning.

Blackjack tournaments: online vs real world

The popularity of blackjack tournaments is constantly increasing and it's no big surprise that many online casinos offer more tournaments with larger prizes on a regular basis. And by "regular basis" we mean the possibility to take part in an online tournament virtually at any time of the day. However, you have to understand that there are substantial differences between online and land based tournaments, and knowing these differences is very important for any blackjack player

A large part of players get involved into tournaments because of the adrenaline rash and the intensity of playing with other participants head to head. Those who regularly take part in such tournaments say that it's a real pleasure to sit with other players at the same table, watching them make their bets, following their expressions and feeling the real excitement of a challenge that is just not the same when you play one on one with a dealer. Tournaments represent a real challenge and test of skills for any player, especially when it comes to the elimination rounds. The way the people interact and get involved in the drama is something that can be as valuable as the prize itself. No wonder that there are so many blackjack tournament games even on the TV these days.

Of course, these feelings are a bit hard to experience when it comes to playing blackjack online. Web-based tournaments just can't bring the excitement of a real life tournament because it's just you and your computer, no one else. Of course, you can play a tournament with players all over the world instantly by joining any big online casino tournament but that can be hardly compared to seeing a real living person next to you. Still, it's a matter of personal choice and preference, because some players are in for the excitement and emotions, while others are in just for the playing experience and the prize.

What makes online blackjack a really interesting feature is that it lets players all over the world put their skills to the test and win real money in a tournament against other players. There's no need to enroll in special events or even leave your home - everything you need to play a game is within your reach and it's only you and your skills that really matter. For those, who don't excited by the thrill of a real tournament or those who aren't just confident in their abilities this is probably the best way to enjoy real professional poker.One can say that it all depends on how introvert or extrovert a person is. If you're seeking attention and love seeing another person near you get nervous when you hit blackjack, then you will definitely find online tournaments boring and lacking the real excitement of the game. But if you jut want to win and don't care about who's sitting next to you and don't want to be distracted from your strategy then playing online seems like a perfect choice for you. Of course, the best way is to try both things and define what works best for you.

Play online slots and watch your winnings roll in

Looking round the US right now is a bit like Alice in Wonderland (but not the big-earning version by Tim Burton which looks to beat the one billion mark in takings worldwide). There's a lot of unreality around and it all goes back to one of these pesky idioms, "Trying to get blood from a stone". Let's take it step by step. In the world of boxing, you introduce the fighters according to their corners. So, in the blue corner, you have the lefty socialist liberals and they all want to keep the entitlement spending without increasing taxes. While in the red corner, you have all those Tea Party members who want to do away with government and all its spending on little things like defense and the infrastructure that delivers electricity, drinking water and so on. Oh, and they don't want to raise taxes either. In fact, abolishing big government means no IRS. So, whoever you ask, they all agree it's impossible to raise taxes ("starve the beast" as the GOP puts it) but, without more money coming from somewhere, it will be impossible to balance the budget. Does balancing the budget matter? Well, ask Greece whether they should balance their budget. Once the riots die down, you may have an answer. In the meantime, the world's lenders think Greece will default on its debts. In ten years time, without action from the US government (big or small), the same fear may affect the US power to borrow.

So, right now, states cannot raise taxes and face paying out on entitlements. The majority are licensing more gambling. The levy is not counted as a tax and is politically acceptable. Except, there's too much gambling already. No matter how many casinos or other sites you licence, there's still the same number of gamblers. Hence, the reference to "blood from stone". It's going to be very difficult for states to get any real increase in revenue, particularly when you add in the effect of online gambling. With rising gas prices and family budgets still under pressure because of the recession, it's cheaper and more convenient to stay home to gamble.

So, let's pick a few states and see what plans are in the pipeline. Go to Boston and you find yourself in a war zone with New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island all pushing their own gambling agendas. Wherever you look, there are plans for new resort-casinos and thousands of slot machines at race tracks and dedicated slots parlors. With all these states in competition to attract the same hard-core gamblers, they all risk ending up with little improvement to their revenue streams. More interestingly, you have to doubt the commercial judgement of the corporations still prepared to consider building new casinos. Just as the states have looming deficits to fill, many of the existing casinos have fallen on hard times as online slots have grown more popular. Indeed, if the GOP and its Tea Party element are against big government, they should oppose the use of gambling to prop up state finances. Surely, the libertarian stays home to play slots, keeps all the winnings and pays no taxes, direct or indirect.

Casino games and certificates of fairness

If you walk into a real-world casino in the US, you can be reasonably sure the games are fair. Each state runs oversight of the casinos' operations and, so far as it can, ensures we all have a reasonable chance of winning. Put another way, real-world casinos have a claim to be transparent. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the online gambling world. Most of the virtual casinos are based in countries interested only in taking the licence fees. This produces a real lack of transparency so that, even when there are legitimate complaints made and the regulators "investigate", there's little to explain what the investigators actually do and how aggressively they enforce control over the casinos in their countries. It's all about killing the goose laying the golden jackpots. If the regulators are an effective police force, the casinos will move their virtual operations elsewhere and the state treasury loses out.

Which brings us to the certificates issued by Technical Systems Testing (TST). This is an organization making its living by compliance testing games and it works closely with the regulators in Canada, the UK, Australia and other countries with developed gambling industries. Most recently, it has been certifying the random number generators used online. All the fair and honest sites based in highly regulated countries like the UK carry certificates such as those issued by TST. So how reliable are the TST certificates?

As TST honestly states on its own site, it's not a policing body. It works in the same way as the auditing profession. It looks at what it is given and gives its opinion. Because of the nondisclosure agreements it signs, it can never discuss how or why some certificates are (or are not) issued. You have to take on trust the assertion that TST is an independent body and gives an unbiased opinion. This is rather like the defense raised by the rating agencies in the financial meltdown. They certified the investments issued by the banks as AAA only to see them worth nothing a few months later. When an organization depends on the fee income from a single source, there's an inevitable conflict of interest. If you do not certify, you get no fee income.

But, the real question comes about what happens to the software TST tests and certifies fair. As it rightly says, it's not a policing body and it's not a regulator. It has no power to check whether the software it verified is the software in play a few weeks later. For any certificate to be worth the pixels used to display it on a screen, there should be monthly testing on site. With Bodog and other casino games operators using TST certificates in their press releases, the burden of proof is now on TST to prove its certificates have real value. As it stands, there would seem to be every chance that TST could end up in the same unhappy position as the auditors who declared Enron accounts a fair representation of its trading position. Without regular, routine and random testing on site, there would seem no guarantee the certificates show fair and honest casino games in play.

Slots in New Hampshire are becoming a battleground

One of the more exciting features of the latest recession has been the collapse of tax revenue flowing into the coffers of the individual US states. Sales are down so there's less tax take there. Property values have crashed through the floor so, where tax is a percentage of valuation, the tax take has fallen - with so many properties foreclosed and families unemployed, payment of the tax has been difficult to enforce. People have been earning less and businesses have made less profit so, again, less income tax. Put everything together and many states are effectively bankrupt, their bonds reduced to junk status by the credit rating agencies. Yet there is no political will to really grasp the nettle of tax increases. If the electorate want the same level of services from the state, they have to pay for them. If they genuinely will not pay, they must be prepared to accept real cuts in the quality of the services. Perhaps this recession will finally break through the stubborn refusal to pay a larger percentage of income as tax. While we wait for this revolution, individual states are playing around the margins to save a few dollars here, and raise a few dollars there. Their theory is that federal government will not allow them to fail. Like AIG, many of the states are "too big". So bail-out money will save them from having to make the hard decisions.

This has not prevented some states from getting creative. In New Hampshire, Governor John Lynch has a new policy. To help bridge the gap between solvency and insolvency, he's proposing to legalize online gambling. The detail of the plan is to be announced soon, but it's already controversial. Ignoring the problems created by the federal law clamp-down on the transfer of funds for gambling purposes, the Governor has been caught in a classic flip-flop. Not so long ago, the lawmakers who represent the real-world casino interests proposed a bill to licence some 17,000 slots and table games. The recession was not yet in its full glory and the hole in the budget was not today's gaping chasm. The Governor decided to veto the bill.

He gave two reasons. The first a simple calculation that there were already a significant number of machines in the state and licensing more was unlikely to produce a real increase in revenue. It would only share out the same money among more machines. But it's the second reason that has landed him in trouble. He said the bill would lead to an increase in gambling. Whether he was concerned at the rising level of addiction, the risk of more young people being tempted into gambling or he had some moral objections is not clear. The bill died. The new proposal to legalize online gambling is likely to make gambling more accessible. If people have to travel to specific locations, their behavior can be more closely monitored and controlled. The age of players can be verified. Operators can stop someone when they have obviously lost too much. Allowing gambling from PCs, lap and palm top machines, and Blackberrys is opening the flood gates. Playing online slots, people can burn through a lot of money very quickly without anyone to stop them. The Governor can't have it both ways. If proliferating gambling is a bad thing, legalizing online gambling is a bad thing. While he decides how to answer, we can all have fun playing slots wherever we find them.

Casino online games lose out to the real world

In many ways, the US has the best and the worst system of federal and state governments in the world. Arguably it has the qualities of being the best because, even though it's a two-horse race, there's enough of a difference between the political intentions of the successful candidates to make life interesting. But it's one of the worst because of the level of corruption in the lawmaking following elections. Money speaks loud behind the scenes with different lobbying groups pressuring the elected representatives to deliver on the promises they made to get the campaign funds. For these purposes, it makes no difference which party you look at. All the individuals at every level in the political system depend on "donations" to get elected. When it comes to the world of gambling, the politics get particularly complicated. For individual states, the revenue derived from the different forms of licensed gambling helps avoid complete financial meltdown. Yes, there's a recession, but this has only slowed the flow of money into gambling. Unlike other sources of tax revenue, the gamblers of America are helping balance budgets. But there are different interested parties. In one corner stand the real world casino operators who want the least possible regulation on their activities. Their group is not united because the casinos on Indian land have advantages and, some say, represent unfair competition. We should not forget the other sites who can get licences to run slots. In another corner stand the racing interests. They are long-standing political players and also want the maximum freedom to run their own betting operations with the least interference from states. This blurs into another group that runs betting operations on other sporting events. While a more distant group runs online casinos.

As an example of the conflict of interests, let's go to Massachusetts where there's a new bill in the state House to establish two new real world casinos. As always, the declared intention is to generate more revenue for the state. To maintain a monopoly for the land-based casino operations, the bill proposes to criminalize all online gambling. It will be an offense for any resident of Massachusetts to place or accept a wager placed by a telecommunication device, no matter where they may be located. You will realize, of course, this includes all telephone betting and would hit the racing and sports betting operations. Not surprisingly, this has stirred up an intense lobbying exercise.

Real world operations are preferred because they are easier to police and monitor when it comes to collecting the tax or levy. Once operations disappear down telephone lines or into the internet, they can be based anywhere. This seriously complicates the collection of any tax. States like to keep their worlds simple. They want the maximum revenue from licensed gambling with the lowest possible cost for collection. Just crossing state lines makes collection more difficult. If casino games are offered from outside US territory, tax cannot be collected. That's one of the reasons why the federal government clamped down on the use of credit cards and other easy payment methods. It forced more operations onshore where they could be taxed. Whether you agree with this approach to balancing the budgets is irrelevant. Casino games are seen as the easy way to raise money without upsetting the electorate. Imagine a world without gambling and hear the roar of anger if states announced an increase in sales tax.

Casino games offered on Chatroulette

One of the fascinating things about the internet is the speed with which some new sites take off. One minute, you have this tiresome start-up calling itself Facebook, the next everyone has an account. In this context, the rise (and rise) of Chatroulette is all the more exciting. We've all been chatting and skyping for so long we can't remember. Webcams have been standard pieces of kit, turning up to allow machine-to-machine video conferencing and to show all kinds of interesting activities when they are planted in unexpected places. So adding in the gambling element completes the picture (as it were). At one level, you could describe the site as your chance to meet new people, except these people could be doing absolutely anything when random chance connects you. In a conventional world, everyone participating would sit calmly in front of their PCs, wearing all their clothes and a welcoming smile. Unfortunately, the randomness and anonymity of the system encourages people to slide towards pornography or voyeurism depending on your inclinations. A remarkable number of people seem prepared to get naked and show off their genitals, or dress up as animals or apparently conduct weird social experiments by giving viewers curious instructions. It's the more sane people who hit the news. Ben Folds has been singing us songs, and a new celebrity is running a primitive gambling scam.

Chance can now connect you to a live dealer offering roulette and blackjack. If you are inclined to play, our mystery croupier gives you his PayPal address and, with a deposit made, the game of your choice begins. You can play for as long as you like. If luck is not with you, topping up the PayPal account is quick and easy. But something that should be not unexpected happens if you tire of this amateurish show and ask for your winnings. The croupier reaches for the "Next" button and disappears from your screen. OK, so let's take two steps back. You were prepared to part with your money to a complete stranger. Well, now's your chance to learn all about the PayPal contract. You have a record of the payment(s) made so, in theory, you can get your money back. Although you will look a fool, you could also report this sad episode to your local law enforcement agencies. They would be delighted to spend time tracking down this guy. But there's a much more interesting question to ask.

The majority of jurisdictions around the world regulate gambling. Online casinos must have a licence. So, Chatroulette is allowing someone to run casino games without a licence. In many jurisdictions, this could make Andrey Ternovskiy, Chatroulette's owner, liable to one or more criminal offenses. If our mystery croupier's activities are small scale and PayPal is able to recover most of the money paid into his various accounts, it's unlikely any country will take action against Chatroulette or its owner. But if the volume of pornography rises, the police might get increasingly interested in trying to shut the site down which would also take down these unofficial online casino games and the scammer behind them. There does come a point when, for better or worse, governments step in and take down some of the fun sites. Politicians and moral guardians never seem to have a sense of humor about anything.

Should lawmakers ban smoking in casinos?

This site is not Libertarian but we know what we like about gambling and the experience of going into casinos. While we can all approve of regulations to keep gambling reasonably honest and fair, there comes a point when enough is enough with the lawmaking. Let's take the issue of smoking as an example. Most of us probably believe the science linking tobacco with fatal diseases. Whether you smoke or draw in the smoke second-hand, the risks of cancer and heart disease are even admitted by the tobacco industry. So, on New Year, we all repeat our resolution not to start or to quit. It's all down to us - a personal decision. If we do decide to smoke, this is a "victimless crime". No-one is forcing us to do this and it should not be for the law to get involved in making any part of smoking a crime. There are no laws criminalising overeating even though the obese die younger, or threatening to put alcoholics in jail because they are damaging their livers. People own their own bodies and should be allowed to do what they want with it.

So what do we make of all these laws banning or restricting smoking in public places? There are no federal laws. It all comes down to the lawmakers in each state. Some have fairly comprehensive laws restricting smoking in the workplace. Others go on to include some bars and restaurants. But, so far, most states have avoided any kind of restrictions on the operation of casinos. The consensus view has been to avoid anything that might reduce the revenue from gambling operations. As the recession has taken hold and the tax-take from conventional businesses has fallen, maintaining the flow on money into the state coffers has become even more important. So far, the need for money has outweighed the health concerns. After all, no-one forces people to go to a casino. If you are not a smoker and want to avoid passive smoking, do not go to a casino.

Based on the experience in Atlantic City which went through a two-week ban on smoking, casino operators estimate their gross revenues would drop by more than one-third. Where would these gamblers go to play roulette? There are two obvious alternatives. The Tribal casinos stand outside state laws on smoking, and people can always stay home to gamble online. There are no laws to restrict what people do in the privacy of their own homes. We could also get into a kind of bidding war where some states with high costs on the healthcare front may clamp down on smoking only to find their own citizens drive into neighboring states to play there. That's a double whammy because the lawmaking states lose tax revenue and still have the health costs of treating their citizens who fall ill because of their smoking. There should be federal legislation to replace this current patchwork of different laws. Health is a national priority. Washington should decide the limits on what people should do in public places. As it is, drinking and smoking goes with casino games just like turkey goes with Thanksgiving. Breaking the link is going to make one set of lawmakers really unpopular. Shall we bet on whether federal laws are introduced?

How will live dealing affect online casinos?

Whichever time you look at, there has always been gambling. For example, there is evidence of keno, dice and mahjong being played in Ancient China from 2,000 B.C. onward. Different forms of gaming were also a popular pastime in the other major ancient civilizations of India, Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome. Despite attempts to ban or control gambling because of its addictive nature, it has persisted until today. Sometimes it went underground, while other governments allowed commercialisation. Throughout, gambling has been seen as a social activity. The rich would gather in each others palaces and mansions to play or attend exclusive clubs. The poor would flock to "dens of iniquity" which were often run by criminal gangs tied into the worlds of prostitution and street drugs. This history is one long transfer of wealth from one individual to another. Before regulation, it was usually the criminal gangs that became rich. After regulation, those in positions of power took their commissions while governments subsidized the taxpayers through levies and taxes. But there was one constant thread. Whether you were an aristocrat lounging in a casino in an exclusive spa town in Europe or panning for gold in the 1840's and 50's, the majority of games depended on live dealing or the supervision of the betting by an employee of the House. In the more modern clubs and casinos, the dealers and croupiers have often been beautiful women, dressed attractively. In their own right, they were part of the attraction of the "place". The men would come, leaving their wives at home, to lose their money while ogling the girls.

Then along came the internet. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the graphics, animation and soundtrack. In most cases, they represent a brave attempt to create an experience similar to a real-world casino. But players can never suspend disbelief. They continue to sit at home or nursing their laptops in a hotspot with their attention fixed on a small screen. Nothing can replace the smell, noise and crush of people in a casino. Except, as the technology has matured and bandwidth improved, online casinos have begun to introduce live dealers for a range of your favorite casino games. This has two advantages. Many people prefer to avoid the random number generators that drive the software versions of the games. RGNs are too perfect. They feel it is better to gamble where human beings shuffle the packs or spin the wheels because human beings make mistakes and are inefficient. Secondly, animations only go so far. Even though it is a small screen, a live video feed of a sexy lady dealing blackjack or running a roulette table brings in the business.

Live dealing has been increasingly common on sites serving Europe but the first online casinos in the US are now recruiting live dealers and launching their own service. You can only go so far to compete on animation and welcome bonuses. Web cameras are cheap and not much of a studio is required to create interactive play between dealer and you sitting at home. With your favorite casino games now coming to you live, the pressure will be on the majority of the other casinos to innovate ad improve the interface and user experience. As bandwidth improves, your gaming experience will improve.c

Slots can make you rich unless there's a glitch

OK, so here's a question for everyone who has ever been into a casino to play a slot machine or who has played online. Why did you do it? The answers will all have differences in the detail, but the simple truth is easy to write. You want to win some money. There's this machine. It's got a simple system for deciding when you win. In old technology, there were physical reels turning. Now we have video technology. You get to see the representation of the different characters turning. There's an air of breathless excitement. You watch the key numbers or symbols pass ever more slowly in front of your eyes. Just one or two more turns and you'll hit the jackpot. Ah, so close! You were within touching distance of millions of dollars. If only you'd been able to reach out with your mind to just push one wheel through one more turn to the pay line. But the fact you did come so close means you could win next time. If your luck is in. And the stake for each spin of the virtual wheels is so small. And the winnings are so much, they will clear all your losses to date and leave you with cash in hand. Some of those combinations make you rich. But then there are the few combinations that make you even richer. And then there's the jackpot itself. Your heart races and you think what you could do with that big a pile of cash. Yes, your answers would be something like that - it' exciting to anticipate a win.

So let's all have a moment of sympathy for Louise Chavez. She's a resident of Denver, but was visiting Central City, Colorado. Having taken in the local scenery, she had settled into The Fortune Valley Casino. The slot machines were all lined up and she was ready to hit the big time. Time passed and then came the experience everyone dreams about. The reels settled into place and the light on top of the machine lit up. As every player knows, this tells you and everyone watching you have just picked up the jackpot. In this case, she imagined she had won the Phantom Jackpot which was standing at a mere $43 million. The other players gathered round. Casino employees rushed over. And Louise Chavez was partying. It was her birthday and she had just been given the very bestest present in the world.

That's why she was more than a little angry when the casino told her there was a computer glitch. She had not actually won anything. That's a rapid makeover from multimillionaire to a big zero in one sentence. Now let's be honest. It's always possible for a computer to foul up. There are all these lines of code and, at any time, one of them can just decide to play a game with our heads. It doesn't matter whether you're in the real world or playing slots online, a machine error can catch you out. What makes this interesting is the idea of a "phantom" jackpot. The pay lines for conventional slots are always clear. Are the rules for winning phantom jackpots always so clear? Presumably the state gaming officials will publish a report and confirm this phantom jackpot system is fair, can be won and is not a scam. No matter where you play slots, you always need confidence the computers are programmed to give you a fair chance of winning. As it stands, this is a PR disaster for the casino.

The slots operators are threatening to sue

Just as we all used to follow the form of horses - think the Great Depression and the success of Seabiscuit to see we all love a champion - the latest form book covers the race among US states to balance their budgets. Of course, everyone has been focussing on California with Arnold Schwarzenegger leading the charge to the winning post on getting the budget signed into law. He has enough strength for arm twisting and 'gator wrassling to bulldoze the bill through. But Pennsylvania is just as interesting with the Governor's office matching California's use of IOUs by refusing to pay funds to the four state universities. Probably someone somewhere is running a book on which US state will be the first to declare itself bankrupt. These would be the front runners among an alarming number of states lacking initial prudence and the political will to raise taxes, to cut spending, or both.

Anyway, the real point of interest in Pennsylvania is the growing threat of litigation from the group of license holders who run slot machines. When the licenses were first issued, the state sold maximum exclusivity for a high fee (that's $50 million a license). The enabling law is very clear. No other gambling outlet will be allowed to compete directly with the market for slot machines. At the time, this looked a good deal for both sides. Gambling was a popular activity and the state benefited from a generous input to its finances. Fast forward and the recession has forced people to cut back on their discretionary spending. This means less money to spend on trips to gamble. Ironically, the casino operators to benefit from this have been online. Had it not been for the changes in the law making it difficult to move money into and out of the online casino accounts, they would have cleaned up. So this leaves the current license holders under pressure with building work on some of the proposed casino and resort sites put on hold. While the government finds an expanding black hole eating up its cash reserves as tax revenue falls. The state's answer is proposals to increase the number of slot machines allowed in the existing resorts and to license new resorts. To the existing license holders, this looks like plans to allow direct competition from new operators. They are up in arms with their attorneys slavering on the end of a short leash, just waiting for the chance to sue.

There's no doubt slots still represents a pot of gold for both the license holders and the state. The machines are still a big draw even though the recession is biting hard. But this plan looks like an expansion too far. The average spend has dropped. If the state increases the number of machines, this will only spread the same amount of money around more machines. It's not going to increase the size of the spend. This leaves the state with a growing hole in its accounts and the existing license holders with a good case in contract and constitutional law. With the online casinos introducing new slots games every month and keeping up player interest, this is no time to be fighting over a reducing market in the real world.