Also working its way through the legislature, although with a lower profile is a bill that would allow “historic horse racing” in the state’s 14 charitable gaming venues. So far the bill has encountered almost no opposition—until now.
“Historic horse racing” is a machine that looks very much like a slot machine, but which allows the player to bet on horse races of the past. All of the identifying material that would allow the player to know which horse won the race is stripped, but the statistics that inform a wager are retained.
Charitable gaming venues, such as the River Casino and Sports Bar, must pay 35 percent of their gross profits to a particular charity. Their betting has a $10 maximum. The Granite State’s charities are very dependent on these games and many have asked for a chance to make more money through historic horse racing as the day approaches when the Encore Boston Harbor opens next month.
The bill has quietly advanced in the Senate and passed on a voice vote. It was passed to the House Ways and Means Committee, which scheduled a vote this week. The full House could vote as early as June.
Opposition has begun to coalesce, however. This is happening just as the casino bill that derived the most attention, that of Senator Lou D’Allesandro, went down in flames. This was the senator’s annual effort to pass a casino bill. And it drew the most attention. With it out of the way, that leaves the historic racing bill to draw fire.
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Susan Almy, told the Union Leader, “I don’t know how the vote is going to go on Tuesday. Two subcommittees did not reach any kind of decisions because no one really understands these machines. A couple of us saw a model in a hotel room and it became apparent to us that these are very close to a slot machine.”
Rick Newman, a lobbyist for the charitable casinos, disputes that description. “They are slow, and don’t work off a random number generator,” he said. “They don’t attract everyone who would play slots. What they do is give us an electronic game option that we don’t have and the charities need to compete with the Oxford Casino in Maine and Encore, starting next month.”
Newman noted that the machines show the actual race taking place. “They give you all the stats for the horses, and unlike slot machines, they are set to pay off a certain amount,” said Newman. “If you choose the right horse, you win, and you can win 1,000 times in a row, unlike a slot machine, which pays off at a certain percentage.”
The race is randomly chosen from a data base of almost 100,000 races. It is marketed as a “skill game” because of the handicapping feature that allows players to look at the statistics for all the horses before the race. Most players skip that part, however.
Opponents of gaming call the machines a “back door” to legalizing slot machines in the state. Supporters say it will bring an additional $8 million in state taxes and $4 million for charity.
Opponents are receiving assistance from an unusual quarter: Oxford Casino in Maine. Its owners see a threat by a more viable charitable gaming operation in New Hampshire.
