Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
LOTTERIES*
Though lotteries have a long tradition in the United States that goes back to colonial days, there were
no legal, government-sponsored lotteries operating in the country from 1894 to 1964. Legal lotteries
experienced a rebirth in the 1960s. The first legal lottery in the twentieth century was the New Hampshire
Sweepstakes, which began on March 12, 1964. Other northeastern states quickly followed. In 1981,
Arizona became the first state west of the Mississippi River to authorize a lottery.
PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING*
Pari-mutuel wagering refers to the type of gaming where the total prize pool is based upon the amount
of money wagered. The more money gambled, the bigger the prize. Horse racing is the best known and
most widespread pari-mutuel betting event, but other forms of pari-mutuel wagering include dog racing
and jai-alai.
For location and economic information about the various types of legal gaming in the United States, refer to the AGA’s annual
State of the States: The AGA Survey of Casino Entertainment (http://www.americangaming.org/survey/index.cfm).
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS
The commercial casino industry continues to introduce new technologies that improve the overall customer
experience and the efficiency of casino operations. A number of technologies are changing the modern
gaming floor including: a general overall movement toward completely cashless slot floors thanks to the
increasing utilization of ticket-in/ticket-out (TITO) technology; the introduction of server-based games that
allow operators to make changes to any slot machine on the floor from a single secure computer server
within the casino; multi-player games that allow customers to compete against each other on a single
machine; and radio frequency identification (RFID), which several casinos are using in their casino chips
to improve security and player tracking, and to increase the rating integrity of both players and dealers.
For information on the technology of slot machines and similar games found on the commercial casino
gaming floor, access a copy of International Game Technology’s (IGT) Introduction to Slots and Video
Gaming at http://media.igt.com/Marketing/PromotionalLiterature/IntroductionToGaming.pdf.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The commercial casino industry is committed to environmental sustainability and is a leader in this area
among hospitality and entertainment businesses. Las Vegas is a prime example of the industry’s dedication
to the environment, as it is soon to be home to the world’s largest concentration of environmentally friendly
hotel rooms. A total of 15 major new building projects there are seeking the U.S. Green Building Council’s
Leadership in Environment and Energy Design (LEED) Certification. These properties feature
environmentally responsible construction and design, including low-water pressure showerheads,
fluorescent light bulbs, super-insulating windows and walls, and the use of recycled building materials.
Commercial casinos, resorts and manufacturers across the country have adopted additional sustainability
programs to reduce their environmental impacts. Some of these green policies include replacing
incandescent lights with cold-cathode lights on marquees; developing an environmentally-friendly laundry
facility that uses 75 percent less water, 47 percent less natural gas and 27 percent less electricity;
composting trees and plants that are no longer viable and replacing individual guest room air conditioning
units with more efficient units.
RESEARCH
The success of the industry’s diversity efforts is measured in two reports, Gaming Industry: Employment
Diversity Snapshot 2008 and Gaming Industry: Spend Diversity Snapshot 2008. Highlights from the reports
include:
• In 2007, casinos employed a greater percentage of Black, Hispanic and Asian workers than the U.S.
workforce. Overall, participating casinos employed more minorities than the national U.S. workforce by
20.6 percent.
• Casinos employed more minorities than other businesses in the arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation and food services sectors (by 9.9 percent). They also employed more minority officials
and managers, professionals and technicians than these other businesses.
• Overall, casinos purchased more than $631 million in products and services from diverse vendors
in 2007, which is 13.2 percent of total eligible commodity spend. This percentage exceeds national
standards and is significantly greater than that of other industries.
The reports were prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The 2008 employment report is the third
installment in a series of employment diversity reports; two previous studies were conducted in 2001 and
2003. The 2008 spend diversity report represents the first such report on procurement diversity from the
industry. Eight casino companies, representing 110 individual casinos and more than 202,000 employees,
participated in the 2008 employment diversity snapshot. Six casino companies, representing 100 individual
casinos, participated in the 2008 spend diversity snapshot.
Copies of the 2008 reports can be downloaded at http://www.americangaming.org/publications/diversity-
snapshot.cfm.
Responsible Gaming
While several individual gaming companies already had been at the forefront of responsible gaming
activities for many years, the creation of the American Gaming Association (AGA) in 1995 provided the
industry a unique opportunity to work together toward a consistent strategy for implementing responsible
gaming practices.
The AGA immediately built on the existing successful efforts of individual casino companies by developing
education and public awareness programs that could be used across the industry. In 1996, the AGA
released the Responsible Gaming Resource Guide, the first comprehensive guide to implementing
customer and employee education programs. Since then, the AGA and its members have made significant
progress in casting a national spotlight on responsible gaming and disordered gambling issues through the
creation of the National Center for Responsible Gaming, as well as highly successful programs such as the
AGA Code of Conduct for Responsible Gaming, the Responsible Gaming National Education Campaign and
Responsible Gaming Education Week. To learn more about the AGA’s industrywide responsible gaming
initiatives, including those listed below, visit
www.americangaming.org/programs/responsiblegaming/history.cfm.
The following pages present the facts about the social and economic impacts of the commercial casino
industry. The summaries provided here are intended to give an overview of these issues; further detail on
these topics and others can be found in fact sheets on the American Gaming Association (AGA) Web site at
www.americangaming.org/Industry/factsheets/issues.cfm.
In addition, many of the studies mentioned in this section can be found in the FAQ section of the AGA
Web site (www.americangaming.org/industry/faq_index.cfm), the NCRG Web site (www.ncrg.org), or by
contacting the AGA’s director of communications. (See contact pages in section six.) For an electronic
version of the NGISC’s final report, which contains detailed reviews of the issues summarized here, as
well as others, visit http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/fullrpt.html.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Studies investigating the economic impact of casinos on the community have been conducted in many
jurisdictions throughout the United States. As a whole, these studies report that casinos provide significant
economic benefits to the communities in which they operate, as well as their employees. Among the
specific findings of these studies are:
• A study by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) found that
communities closest to casinos experienced a 12 percent to 17 percent drop in welfare payments,
unemployment rates and unemployment insurance after the introduction of casino gaming. NORC also
found that communities with casinos have 43 percent higher earnings in their hotel and lodging sectors
than those communities farther from casinos. (National Opinion Research Center, et al. Gambling Impact and Behavior Study:
Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. pp. 70-71. April 1, 1999.)
• “ It appears that Detroit’s casinos are effective in contributing to the tourism activity in the community:
1) They are effective in attracting tourists and generating new money in the area. 2) They generate taxes
and employment. 3) They contribute to other community tourism-related businesses. On the other hand,
crime volume did not increase following casino gaming development in the city. In addition, it was found
that bankruptcy filings in Detroit did not increase a year after the casinos opened in the city.” (Moufakkir,
Omar and Holecek, Donald. Impacts of Detroit Casinos on the Local Community. Unpublished Dissertation. Michigan State University. p. 6.
2002.)
• In an economic analysis he prepared for the NGISC, Penn State University economist Adam Rose found
little evidence of economic substitution after the introduction of new casinos: “ The preponderance of
empirical studies indicate claims of the complete ‘cannibalization’ of pre-existing local restaurants and
entertainment facilities by a mere shift in resident spending is grossly exaggerated.” In fact, Rose
concluded that “ [A] new casino of even limited attractiveness, placed in a market that is not already
saturated, will yield positive economic benefits on net to its host economy.” (Adam Rose and Associates. The
Regional Economic Impacts of Casino Gambling: Assessment of the Literature and Establishment of a Research Agenda. State College, Pa.:
Adam Rose and Associates. pp. 19, 22. Nov. 5, 1998.)
• “ In three of four cases, rural counties that adopted casino gaming experienced increases in household
and payroll employment. This seems to hold even though casino employment is dispersed over several
counties rather than just the home county.” (Garrett, Thomas A. “ Casino Gaming and Local Employment Trends.” Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 86(1), p. 21. January/February 2004.)
Research also shows that the presence of a casino has no recognizable effect on the number of personal
bankruptcies within a community. For example, a 2004 study of personal bankruptcy rates conducted in
the riverboat gaming states of Iowa, Illinois, Missouri and Mississippi found that “ access by individuals to
pari-mutuel or casino gaming facilities was found to have no statistically significant impact on personal
bankruptcy filings.” (Thalheimer, R. and Ali, M. “ The Relationship of Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Casino Gaming to Personal Bankruptcy.”
Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(3), 2004, 420-32.) Other research on this topic has come to similar conclusions.
PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING
The American Psychiatric Association uses the term “ pathological gambling” to describe the clinical
disorder characterized by a persistent and recurring failure to resist gambling behavior that is harmful to
the individual and concerned others (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition). This diagnosis
identifies the most severe form of the disorder, or level 3 as categorized by scientists. Level 2 refers to
individuals who experience problems with their gambling but do not meet the criteria laid out by the
diagnostic manual.
Numerous studies published since the mid-1990s have found that while the vast majority of Americans are
level 1 gamblers — i.e., can gamble without experiencing adverse effects — there exists a small
percentage of people who are identified as level 3 or pathological gamblers. These studies have established
the prevalence rate of pathological gambling as close to 1 percent of the U.S. adult population. Despite
the tremendous expansion of casino gambling in the U.S. in recent years, numerous studies have indicated
that the prevalence rate has remained stable. Examples of these studies include:
• A 1997 meta-analysis by Harvard Medical School’s Division on Addictions, which estimated
1.29 percent of the adult populations of the U.S. and Canada could be classified as having serious
pathological gambling problems. (Shaffer, H.J., Hall, M.N., and Vander Bilt, J. “ Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling
behavior in the United States and Canada: a meta-analysis.” Boston: Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College. 1997. Shaffer, H.J., Hall,
M.N., and Vander Bilt, J. “ Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis.”
American Journal of Public Health, 89, pp. 1369-1376. 1999.)
• A study conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences for the
NGISC re-analyzed the data from the Harvard Medical School meta-analysis in order to isolate the
estimates for the United States and found a pathological gambling prevalence rate of 0.9 – 1.5 percent.
(National Academy Press. Pathological Gambling: A Critical Review. 1999.)
• A study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 2005, which estimated a lifetime prevalence
rate of pathological gambling at 0.42 percent based upon data derived from a sample of more than
43,000 U.S. residents aged 18 and older. The authors also concluded that, “ Pathological gambling is
highly comorbid with substance use, mood, anxiety, and personality disorders, suggesting that treatment
for one condition should involve assessments and possible concomitant treatment for comorbid
conditions.” (Petry, N.M., Stinson F.S., Grant B.F. “ Comorbidity of DSM-IV Pathological Gambling and Other Psychiatric Disorders: Results
from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66(5). May 2005.)
• In a 2008 study published in Psychological Medicine, researchers reported a pathological gambling rate
of 0.6 percent and a problem gambling rate of 2.3 percent. These findings are consistent with other
previously published large-scale prevalence studies. Researchers also found a high rate of concurrent
psychiatric problems among disordered gamblers, as well as evidence that disordered gamblers often
start gambling at an earlier age than those who can gamble responsibly. (Kessler, R.C., Hwang, I., Labrie, R.,
Petukhova, M., Sampson, N.A., Winters, K.C., & Shaffer, H.J. DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.
Psychological Medicine, 38(9), 1351-60. Sept 2008.)
Additional research on gambling disorders and the potential effect of casinos on the public health has
revealed the following:
• “ Probable pathological gambling rates may actually have fallen in Connecticut, and have certainly not
risen, during a period in which one of the largest casinos in the world was opened in the state.” Follow-
• In its final report to the NGISC, the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission summarized the evidence
as follows: “ In short, there is no solid basis for concluding that the wider legalization of gambling, which
has cut into illegal gambling and friendly betting, has caused a concomitant increase in pathological
gambling. In fact, it appears that pathological gambling is quite rare within the general population, [and]
it does not appear to be increasing in frequency.” (Public Sector Gaming Study Commission. Final Report of the Public
Sector Gaming Study Commission. p. 35. 2000.)
• A 2008 study published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors found that the current prevalence rates
of pathological gambling are not higher near a casino than they are far away from it. Researchers
concluded that, “ in a setting in which many types of gambling activities are available, casino proximity in
itself does not appear to explain the rate of gambling-related problems.” (Sévigny, S., Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C.,
Cantinotti, M. “ Links between casino proximity and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology.” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.
Vol 22(2), pp. 295-301. Jun 2008.)
Recent research has shown that disordered gambling behavior might be a manifestation of an underlying
addiction syndrome that accounts for all addictions, meaning addictions — whether to drugs, alcohol, food,
shopping or gambling — are all related. According to this model, all addictive disorders generally follow the
same development pattern and share similar risk factors and consequences. In fact, many individuals who
suffer from gambling addiction also suffer from other addictions, a phenomenon known as comorbidity.
(Shaffer, H.J., LaPlante, D., LaBrie, R., Kidman, R., Donato, A., and Stanton, M. “ Toward a syndrome model of addiction: Multiple expressions,
common etiology.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12, pp. 367-374. 2004.)
The concept of addiction as syndrome and the recognition of comorbidity in disordered gamblers holds
promise for the diagnosis and, particularly, the treatment of gambling disorders. Already, significant
research has indicated that pharmaceutical treatments used to treat drug abuse may be effective at treating
some cases of disordered gambling. (Grant, J.E., and Kim, S.W. “ Medication Management of Pathological Gambling.” Minnesota
Medicine, 89(9), pp. 44-48. 2006.)
Addictions researchers also are developing practical applications of their work. Drs. Alex Blaszczynski,
Robert Ladouceur and Howard Shaffer developed a science-based strategic framework, called the Reno
Model, to guide responsible gaming policy. The Reno Model sets out principles to guide industry operators,
health service and other welfare providers, interested community groups, consumers, and governments and
their related agencies in the adoption and implementation of responsible gaming and harm minimization
initiatives, with the aim of reducing both the incidence and prevalence of gambling-related harm in the
community. (Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., and Shaffer, H.J. “ A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model.”
Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), pp. 301-317. 2004.)
Approximately one third of pathological gamblers experience natural recovery, meaning they recover without
seeking or accepting formal treatment. (Slutske, W.S. “ Natural Recovery and Treatment-Seeking in Pathological Gambling: Results of
Two U.S. National Surveys.” American Journal of Psychiatry. 163:297-302, February 2006.)
For more information on gambling disorders, visit the NCRG Web site at www.ncrg.org.
UNDERAGE GAMBLING
According to a 1997 meta-analysis study conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School, most young
people who gamble do so on non-casino card games, games of skill, sports and the lottery — not at
commercial casinos, where patrons must be 21 or older to place a bet. (Shaffer, H.J., Hall, M.N., and Vander Bilt, J.
“ Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: a meta-analysis.” Boston: Presidents and Fellows of
Harvard College. 1997. Shaffer, H.J., Hall, M.N., and Vander Bilt, J. “ Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United
States and Canada: A research synthesis.” American Journal of Public Health, 89, pp. 1369-1376. 1999.)
This finding was echoed in research conducted for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission:
• “ Youths 16 and 17 years old gamble less than adults and differently from adults, primarily betting on
private and unlicensed games — especially betting on card games and sports and buying instant lottery
tickets.” (National Opinion Research Center. Gambling Behavior and Impact Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study
Commission. p. ix. April 1, 1999.)
• “ Casino gambling (especially slot machines) was the second most common form of adult gambling, with
one-quarter of all adults participating in the past year. The adolescents [16-17 year olds] were notably
absent from casino play, with barely 1 percent reporting any casino wagers. This presumably reflects
well on the enforcement efforts (particularly against fake IDs) of casino operators, among other factors.”
(National Opinion Research Center. Gambling Behavior and Impact Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. p. 63.
April 1, 1999.)
• The prevalence of disordered gambling is consistently higher among youth than adults; however, this
prevalence rate has remained stable over the past 30 years. According to the most recent update of the
Harvard Medical School meta-analysis of the prevalence of gambling disorders in the U.S. and Canada,
approximately 5 percent of adolescents will experience serious problems with gambling. (Shaffer, H.J., LaBrie,
R., LaPlante D., Nelson, S.E. and Stanton, M. “ The road less travelled: Moving from distribution to determinants in the study of gambling
epidemiology.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(8), pp. 159-171. 2004.)
• Adults with gambling problems often start gambling at an early age. A 2002 study published in
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors found that “ young adult gambling behavior is connected to earlier
adolescent gambling, and that some of the risk factors associated with adolescent gambling are similar
to those known to be linked with general adolescent delinquency.” (Winters, K.C., Stinchfield, R.D., Botzet, A.,
Anderson, N. “ A Prospective Study of Youth Gambling Behaviors” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, Vol 16(1), pp. 3-9. 2002.)
* Class I, Class II and Class III are legal terms in the context of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), but as defined here are
informal descriptions of the types of gaming that exist at Indian gaming establishments.
Sources: American Gaming Association; The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Christiansen
Capital Advisors; Dunstan, Roger. Gambling in California. Jan. 1997; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA); National Gambling
Impact Study Commission Final Report; National Indian Gaming Commission; Nevada Gaming Control Board Regulation 29.
* There is no official state association in Michigan, but Robert Russell, consultant with Regulatory
Management Counselors, is an excellent contact to answer questions about the commercial casino
industry in Michigan.
Third-Party Experts
The following list offers a representative group of third-party experts divided into their specialty areas. For more
specialty areas and experts, visit www.americangaming.org/Industry/resources/contact_expert_index.cfm.
BUSINESS/FINANCE/REVENUE
Eugene Martin Christiansen Bill Lerner
CEO Managing Director, Senior Gaming Analyst
Christiansen Capital Advisors, LLC Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
t. 212-779-9797 t. 702-796-9400
cca-ny@verizon.net bill.lerner@db.com
Consultant and financial adviser to leisure industries and Expert on financial analysis of the casino industry
governments; maintains the Gross Annual Wager of the United
States, standard gambling statistical database Andrew Zarnett
Gaming and Lodging Analyst
Marc Falcone Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Senior Analyst t. 212-250-7995
Goldman, Sachs & Co. andrew.zarnett@db.com
t. 212-902-3798 Expert on financial analysis of the casino industry
marc.falcone@gs.com
Expert on financial analysis of the casino industry
Steven E. Kent
Managing Director
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
t. 212-902-6752
steven.kent@gs.com
Expert on financial analysis of the casino industry
CRIME
Jay S. Albanese, Ph.D. David O. Stewart
Professor Counsel
School of Government and Public Affairs Ropes & Gray LLP
Virginia Commonwealth University t. 202-508-4610
t. 804-827-0844 david.stewart@ropesgray.com
Expert on money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act
justiceworks@yahoo.com
regulations; has advised investors, casino companies, trade
Criminologist with expertise in white-collar crime, street crime,
associations and offshore operators
organized crime and ethics
EXPANSION
William R. Eadington, Ph.D. Michael J. Pollock
Director, Institute for the Study of Gambling and Managing Director
Commercial Gaming Spectrum Gaming Group
University of Nevada, Reno t. 609-272-0900
t. 775-784-6887 pollock@spectrumgaming.com
eadington@prodigy.net Expert in market feasibility studies, economic impact reports,
Expert on the economics of casinos, regulation, legalization, casino services, restructurings and distressed properties/
benefits and costs of legal casinos; problem gambling and acquisition services; oversees all economic studies performed
public policy by Spectrum Gaming Group, including broad-scale impact
studies for country, state and local governments, and feasibility
Mark W. Nichols, Ph.D. studies for private-sector clients
Associate Professor of Economics
University of Nevada, Reno Steve Rittvo
t. 775-784-6936 Principal
mnichols@unr.edu The Innovation Group
Research includes comparative analysis of gaming regulation t. 970-927-1400
across various jurisdictions, the competitive consequences of srittvo@theinnovationgroup.com
expanding casino gaming and lottery for jurisdictions where Expert on market and feasibility studies for the gaming
casino gaming presently exists, casino gambling and crime, industry
and the analysis of casino gaming as a tool for economic
development
INTERNET GAMBLING
Anthony N. Cabot, J.D. Sue Schneider
Partner Founder
Lewis and Roca LLP Lawyers Interactive Gaming News
t. 702-949-8280 t. 314-409-8922
acabot@LRLaw.com sue.schneider@clariongaming.com
Expert on gaming and Internet gaming law and author of Columnist on interactive gambling, former chairman of the
several books on international and domestic gaming law Interactive Gaming Council, a frequent speaker at gaming
conferences; testified before the U.S. House of
Simon Holliday Representatives and the National Gambling Impact Study
Director Commission on Internet and interactive gambling
H2 Gambling Capital
t. +44 1457 870234 Sebastian Sinclair
simon.holliday@h2gc.com President
Expert regarding the global online gambling industry and Christiansen Capital Advisors, LLC
leader in sizing and forecasting the value and volume of all t. 207-688-4500
land-based and online global gambling markets stsinc@gwi.net
Performs studies of the economics, management, operations,
Joseph M. Kelly, J.D. taxation, and regulation of leisure and entertainment
Professor, Business Law businesses in more than 30 states, provinces, and foreign
countries, with particular focus on gaming and wagering
SUNY College, Buffalo
t. 716-878-4136
David O. Stewart
kellyjm@buffalostate.edu
Expert on the legal aspects of Native American gaming, Counsel
European gaming and Internet gambling Ropes & Gray LLP
t. 202-508-4610
I. Nelson Rose, J.D. david.stewart@ropesgray.com
Professor of Law & Attorney Has advised clients, including investors, land-based casino
companies, trade associations and offshore operators, on
t. 818-788-8509
Internet gaming issues since 1995
rose@sprintmail.com
Expert on gambling law; consultant to
governments and industry
LAW
Anthony N. Cabot, J.D. Joseph M. Kelly, J.D.
Partner Professor, Business
Lewis and Roca LLP Lawyers SUNY College, Buffalo
t. 702-949-8280 t. 716-878-4136
acabot@LRLaw.com kellyjm@buffalostate.com
Expert on gaming and Internet gaming law and author of Expert on the legal aspects of Native American gaming,
several books on international and domestic gaming law European gaming and Internet gambling
REGULATION
William R. Eadington, Ph.D. Dan Heneghan
Director, Institute for the Study of Gambling and Public Information Officer
Commercial Gaming New Jersey Casino Control Commission
University of Nevada, Reno t. 609-441-3799
t. 775-784-6887 dheneghan@ccc.state.nj.us
Expert on Atlantic City gaming revenues and tax collections,
eadington@prodigy.net
economic impact of gaming in New Jersey, responsible
Expert on the economics of casinos, regulation, legalization,
gaming initiatives in the state
benefits and costs of legal casinos; problem gambling and
public policy
Kevin Mullally
Robert D. Faiss, J.D. General Counsel and Director of Government
Chair, Gaming and Regulatory Law Department Relations
Lionel Sawyer & Collins Gaming Laboratories International
t. 702-383-8839 t. 702-236-9508
rfaiss@lionelsawyer.com k.mullally@gaminglabs.com
Has been involved in all aspects of gaming law representation Former executive director of the Missouri Gaming Commission
since 1973; works primarily in areas of licensing, taxation, with expertise on a variety of issues related to the regulation of
adoption and interpretation of regulations and legislation, the gaming industry, as well as slot machine testing, licensing
and federal issues, such as cash transaction reporting and and certification
the move to abolish wagering at Nevada sports books on
collegiate sports contests Robert Russell
Senior Gaming Analyst
Frederic E. Gushin Regulatory Management Counselors, P.C.
Managing Director t. 517-507-3858
Spectrum Gaming Group russell@rmclegal.com
t. 609-818-0628 Assists casino suppliers, operators and financial institutions
gushin@spectrumgaming.com with license, compliance and business planning issues.
Former assistant director and assistant attorney general for
the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and expert Frank Streshley
in gaming regulatory services; compliance related issues; Senior Research Analyst
investigations and due diligence (financial and integrity); Nevada Gaming Commission and State Gaming
legal support service; restructurings and distressed Control Board
properties/acquisition services t. 775-684-7782
fstreshley@gcb.nv.gov
Expert on Nevada gaming revenues and tax collections
TOURISM
Larry Barnett Marshall Murdaugh
Executive Director Principal
Harrison County (Miss.) Development Commission Marshall Murdaugh Marketing
t. 228-896-5020 t. 901-336-9170
lbarnett@mscoast.org mmurdaughmktg@aol.com
Expert on recreation/leisure industry development along the Former executive director of convention and visitors' bureaus
Gulf Coast; gaming impact economic analysis in Atlantic City, N.J., New York City and Memphis, Tenn.
Currently serves as international strategic consultant with focus
Webster Franklin on gaming's impact on tourism and hospitality industries
President and CEO
Tunica (Miss.) Convention & Visitors Bureau Rossi Ralenkotter
t. 888-488-6422 President and CEO
wfranklin@tunicamiss.com Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority
Expert on the growth of the gaming industry in Tunica, Miss., t. 702-892-0711
and in the state of Mississippi rralenkotter@lvcva.com
Directs and administers the national and international
Don Holecek, Ph.D. marketing, advertising, convention, tourism, public relations
Professor Emeritus and research programs for the LVCVA
Tourism Center, Michigan State University
t. 517-432-0289 Jeffrey Vasser
dholecek@msu.edu President
Economics and marketing expert with specialization in survey Atlantic City Convention & Visitors Authority
research design and administration and has worked on a wide t. 609-449-7166
range of travel and tourism research topics ranging from global jvasser@accva.com
to local Directs and administers the activities of the ACCVA; expert on
the impact of gaming in New Jersey.
Nicole Learson
Director of Marketing
Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention
& Visitors Bureau
t. 228-896-6699 ext. 211
nicolel@gulfcoast.org
Expert on casino destination marketing on
the Mississippi Gulf Coast