Maryland sags; Dustup at Red Rock; Sands’ big NY play; The dangers of Fanatic-ism

Whilst 2022 may have come in like a lion for casinos, it’s going out like a lamb, despite an extra weekend day last month. Revenues in Maryland dipped 4.5% to $165 million statewide in December, still 11% better than the comparable period in 2019 (i.e., Just Before the Shyte Hit the Fan). Two casinos gained traction: Hollywood Perryville was up 1.5% to $7 million and Ocean Downs galloped 7% to $7 million. Everyone else was revenue-negative, even MGM National Harbor, down 7% to $69.5 million. Maryland Live ceded 4.5% but stayed close at $60 million. Horseshoe Baltimore was 1.5% down for its usual $17 million, seemingly the hard ceiling for this snakebitten property. Rocky Gap Resort slipped 4% to $5 million.

If you’re visiting Red Rock Resort, there’s a thing or two you might want to know about Lucille’s Smokehouse BBQ. The food may be outstanding, for all we know, but there is something untoward about “Lucille.” Namely, she never existed, although a fictive (and nauseatingly cornpone) biography graced the corporate Web site until it was allegedly scrubbed in 2020. That’s insufficient penance from Long Beach-based Hofman Hospitality Group, at least as far as the Culinary Union is concerned. Its beef with Hofman seems to center upon the Lucille’s moniker itself, which it deems racially insensitive.

Queries Culinary spokeswoman Bethany Khan, “Who is Lucille Buchanan? Are Lucille’s Smokehouse Barb-B-Que and its owners proud of their branding strategy? Lucille’s Smokehouse invented a fictional Black woman from the South as the main persona for their brand and they have never explained why.” The Culinary tries to tie this in with its ongoing blood feud with Station Casinos, which has the whitest, male-est corporate board—and executive team—in gaming (according to that leftist rag The Wall Street Journal) and there might be something to that. (Namely, insensitivity.) Regardless, the Lucille’s brand should probably go away—quietly and soon … and definitely not be exported to Station’s new Durango Casino resort.

We’ve been waiting for Las Vegas Sands to get off its duff regarding downstate casinos in New York and it has done so, looking beyond the Five Boroughs to Nassau County. Nothing is official yet but the Nassau Hub, which includes Nassau Memorial Coliseum, is said to be on Sands’ wish list. An alternative site is UBS Arena. Both would fulfill Sands’ need for some kind of major-event center, its signature. Casino.org describes the “tangible benefits” of the area thusly: “Not only would an integrated resort project there avoid bringing more traffic congestion to Manhattan, but Nassau County is the second-most populous county in New York after New York City. Additionally, Long Island is a short drive to the Kennedy and LaGuardia airports.”

We like it. If MGM Resorts International and Genting Group are juiced into two of the three urban licenses (as they should be) we think Sands would give New York City the third destination property it’s seeking. Still, we believe the momentum is with Caesars Entertainment‘s bid for Times Square, so Sands CEO Rob Goldstein had better get cracking.

Fanatics is trying (with more dollars than sense) to rush into the sports-betting marketplace in as many states simultaneously as possible. It’s a strategy that we regard as bordering on delusional, especially when so many of the punters have already pledged fealty to first-mover providers. This is not a case of the tortoise and the hare (a rather seamy tortoise at that). And Fanatics’ intention to plunge pell-mell into Massachusetts is raising some regulatory eyebrows. Fanatics, an apparel company, has the rather crude strategy of using its clothing database to monetize BetFanatics, its putative online-gaming brand. Of course, this has the inherent danger of marketing to the underaged.

As Commissioner Eileen O’Brien said, “It’s pretty aggressive in the pitch. That kind of runs counter to the [responsible-gaming] sense for me. And so I have a concern about wanting to see more specifics.” Fanatics Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Alex Smith put the onus on consumers, saying, “So customers that don’t want to see the gaming ads can opt-out easily.” Not good enough? (No.) Smith added, “we think there are really exciting opportunities to work with third-party technology providers that can help us identify and eliminate direct marketing to known minors.”

BetFanatics’ license would be tied to—wouldn’t you know it?—risk-friendly Penn Entertainment‘s Plainridge Park racino. (We knew it would be Penn even before we turned the page.) Maryland and Ohio have already green-lit BetFanatics but Massachusetts tends to regard sports-betting licenses with more deliberation, although it finally caved and gave classless Barstool Sports one. So while there may be some fretting over the BetFanatics business model, we expect it to get eventual regulatory assent—followed relatively quickly by a free-market collapse.

Speaking of Ohio (and sports betting), OSB providers in the state continue to trip over their shoelaces. Joining DraftKings in the penalty box—for a second time—are BetMGM and Caesars Sportsbook. The trio has flunked the test of “clearly and conspicuously” displaying problem-gambling-help verbiage in their advertising. Also, disingenuous and slightly illegal verbiage about “free” bets or “risk-free” ones continues to manifest itself, even though the supposedly “free” money is contingent to placing risk-inherent bets with those same providers. This is the kind of monkeyshines that give the gaming industry a bad name and needs to be cleaned up, stat. Maybe a $150,000 fine will get the message across. As Ohio Casino Control Commission Executive Director Matthew Schuler warned, “The Commission takes responsible gambling seriously—and expects the industry to value the same.” We agree.