The RECORD

By Marc Cooper

Can you win? Honestly, not for long. The one-armed bandit is one cold-hearted programmed machine. Still, you can dream.

The more you play slot machines, the more you will lose. It's common wisdom, but still it bears repeating.

I wasn't three minutes into one of the slot tournaments that can be found throughout this city when I swear that the woman competing next to me had broken out in a sweat. Furiously pounding the "Spin Reels" button, hunched over the screen and chanting, "Come on, big numbers! Big numbers!"

I was doing pretty much the same, except I was embarrassed enough to keep my praying silent.

So let's get right to the point about America's favorite gambling devices. Slots should be played only for fun and entertainment and absolutely never with any expectation of winning. Anyone who tells you he has a system to beat the slots is on tilt. There are no systems. There is no such thing as a hot or cold machine. And there isn't a single machine among the 800,000 in the U.S. that is "due" to pay out in the next five minutes or even the next five days. And when one does erupt, it might do it again two minutes later. Or maybe not for two more years.

Which makes the notion of a slot machine tournament absurd but clearly illustrative. To stand in front of modified slot machines that accept no money and for a full 20 minutes furiously pound that spin button and hope that at the finish bell one has racked up the greatest number of jackpot credits takes no skill, no decisions, no strategy. Just heavy shoulder-and-wrist action.

The steely, unforgiving heart at the center of each machine is a micro-processor called an RNG, a "random number generator." It's precisely programmed to determine how much of the gross intake the machine will return to the players and what the frequency of those payoffs will be. Even while the machine isn't in play, it's coldly clicking through an astonishing 200 million numerical combinations per second. The instant you pull the handle or push the button on the machine, your fate is sealed.

Forget about luck or even about loose gears in the reels. The mechanical reels or video readouts on the machine are but visual presentations of the internal computer's predetermined outcome of the spin.

So the only real choice is how you most prefer to lose your money.

At the swank Mandalay Bay, I found a variety of machines that fell roughly into two categories.

There were tickle-and-trickle penny machines, including the Munsters, Rakin' It In, Free Spin Mania, Shake Your Booty and Reel 'Em In. I chose a traditional three-reel spinner, the classic Double Diamond, 25 cents a pull, up to three coins at a time and with meaty jackpots of $2,000 or more. Twenty-five bucks and about 15 minutes later, I had hit exactly zip.

There are two basic categories of slots: machines that pay off more or less frequently. And remember: A payoff doesn't mean coming out ahead. "Winning" often means less than your total bet.

Low-hit frequency machines the classic one-arm bandits with three reels and a single payout line are the ones that deliver the biggest jackpots, sometimes "life-changing" amounts from thousands to millions of dollars if they are tied into a large, mounting "progressive" pool of other machines.

By contrast, I wheeled over to the Orleans casino. Like most lower-end "locals" joints, the Orleans has slots on which the payback tends to run a tad higher than in the Strip's mega-tourist traps.

I swallowed all pride and went right for the bottom end, taking a seat at what must be the biggest slot machine in the world. The multiplayer circular 1-cent Wheel of Fortune contraption sits in the middle of the casino floor like a just-landed UFO.

Seating nine players around its 12-foot diameter, it towers about 10 feet in the air. At its center is a mammoth wheel of fortune. I took seat No. 5. I could have played it for a mere penny but wouldn't have qualified for the $1,813,415.65 jackpot. The retired schoolteacher next to me explained that I could play at $4 a spin, but 80 cents would qualify me for any big handout.

Then she cut her tutorial short when she saw three images of Pat Sajak and Vanna White align, and the wheel began to spin in front of us, eventually stopping on 700. I was impressed until I found that it was 700 credits, only $7. I shelled out 20 bucks. Then another 20. And a few minutes later, 10 more. When I was down to my last $1.70 of credits, I hit the wheel like the teacher. It kicked back $50. A gigantic win, I thought, having lost a total of less than $20. Clearly my life hadn't changed.

The higher-frequency payout machines, like Vanna's, tickle and trickle. With complicated video screens, sometimes dozens of pay lines, armies full of animated bunnies and carrots, dancing doughnuts and jumping fish, they joyously announce you're a "winner" on an alarmingly frequent basis. And although they're presented as ridiculously cheap penny slots, to get full payoffs, you have to play 200, 300, sometimes 450 credits per spin. That's between $2 and $4.50 (though you can play up to $12 a pull). And if you pull 600 times an hour which is the estimated amount of play that these machines can process that means you're cycling through as much as $2,700 per hour.

As a rule, it's also generally better to play higher- rather than lower-denomination machines. Casino Player magazine, which tracks slot payoffs, calculates that the return on the average $1 machine in Vegas is 96% to 98%, whereas 25-cent machines are programmed between 93% and 95%, and the high-hit-frequency penny grubbers come in closer to 90%.

To put those percentages into context: Playing a lowly 25-cent machine with a 90% payback, a player's estimated loss will be $12 an hour. Bump that play up to $3 a spin, and you're calculated to lose $144 every hour. Now you know why fish are such a common image on these machines.

I made it back to Main Street Station just in time for my 4 p.m. slot tournament playoff. I was up against 15 determined competitors. As soon as the timer went off, I smashed away at that spin button so hard I could feel the impact in my bones. My shame had evaporated; I wanted to crush my opponents.

I finished fourth. First prize was $180. Second place got $90. Third place gets $50. I got a small shoeshine kit. Once again, a winner.

From the April 11, 2007 edition of the Los Angeles Times.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is reproduced for non-profit educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

By Steve Whiting, esq.

The following guest column ran in a December edition of the Portland Press Herald. It is authored by No Slots for Maine board member Steve Whiting.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a profusion of stories and editorials, appearing in both the press and the broadcast media, on the occasion of the first anniversary of the opening of Hollywood Slots in Bangor. Many of these stories have repeated the gambling interests' claims that the Hollywood Slots operation has made more money and spurred less crime than expected. Digging a little deeper shows otherwise.

First look at expected revenues. In April 2004, six months before the Bangor facility opened, it was projected by the developers that the total amount of money bet would reach $825 million per year, and that 90% of bets would be returned as winnings to the bettors. Thus the net gambling revenue (meaning the net losses by gamblers) that was expected by the developers prior to the operation of the facility was 10% of $825 million, or $82.5 million per year. That figure is fully consistent with betting behavior in other parts of the country.

The projected revenue of $82.5 million per year works out to $6.9 million per month. In the first twelve months, the net revenue of Hollywood Slots has risen to around $3.45 million per month, exactly half of the $6.9 million projected. Thus the first year's revenue experience at Bangor does not even come close to "beating expectations."

Similarly, the early crime data also comes as no surprise to those who follow this subject. Economists Earl Grinols and David Mustard, for example, have conducted an impressive study of the impact of casino construction on crime rates on a county-by-county basis throughout the country. They report there is no major impact on crime in the first year or two of operation.

However, after that initial quiet period, the situation deteriorates badly, with a steady rise observed, especially in property-related crimes. They found the rate of robberies in an average casino county rises from 100 robberies in a given time period before the opening of a casino up to 236 robberies in a corresponding time period five years after opening.

There are two main reasons for this delayed impact. First, the bettors themselves change with time. Psychologist Robert Breen has found that personality changes associated with the onset of gambling addiction take a year or more to fully develop. Secondly, most gamblers have access to a certain amount of wealth, such as retirement savings or the equity in their home. It would take even a truly dedicated gambler some time to lose, let's say, $150,000 at his favorite slot machine. It is only after an addicted gambler exhausts his own financial resources that he is likely to turn to crime to support his habit.

Over the next year or so of racino operation, full-blown gambling addiction will manifest itself in many of the racino's clients. Studies referenced on the No Slots for ME! web site have found that gambling addiction typically accounts for 40% of casino income. This means, for one thing, that we can expect to see further increases in monthly revenues, probably to a number very close to the $6.9 million projection.

But revenue gains coming from rising rates of addiction is a losing proposition for the people of Maine. Economists Grinols and Mustard have found that the financial cost of casino gambling to society just about matches, dollar for dollar, gambling revenues. Most of these costs originate in the out-of-control behavior of addicted gamblers, and the financial burden that this behavior places on their families, their employers, the police, the courts, and the penal system.

The first year's experience at Hollywood Slots does show us something, after all. What we have learned is that Mainers are just as vulnerable to the treacherous allure of slot machines as people in other parts of the county. All Mainers, including those who don't gamble, will get the bill for the large social costs that this vulnerability implies.

Catholic Diocese spokesman Marc Mutty told Maine Public Broadcasting that homosexuals are "incidental" to a bill that is the top priority of Maine's most radical homosexual rights group. " Equality Maine " spokesperson, Betsy Smith , told the Kennebec Journal that an expansion of "domestic partner" rights is needed because Maine still forbids "same sex marriage."

The bill, LD 375, "An act to Amend the Family Medical Leave Laws" is before the Labor Committee. A public hearing was held on Wednesday afternoon, February 28. Only one citizen submitted testimony in opposition to the bill. James Cyr, a social worker, did not make the drive to Augusta from his home in Caribou to personally testify before the committee. He was interviewed by Christian Civic League of Maine Executive Director, Mike Heath.

Many groups testified in support of the expansion of domestic partnership benefits. While the press reported that the Diocese favors the law, no written testimony from the Chancery was provided to the League by the clerk of the committee. The League did not attend the hearing.

"These dog and pony shows are no-win situations for the League," said the Executive Director, Michael S. Heath. "Going to the Maine Legislature is casting pearls before swine for us, especially on sexual morality issues. It is astounding, but true. I'm praying for some kind of awakening out there among the people. If they don't start expressing outrage then the battle is lost. I am very sad for future generations of Mainers."

Heath believes the only hope for Maine to turn back the so-called "gay" agenda is for members of the public to contact institution leaders and politicians. That is why the League has created the online Citizen Action Center . Click on the link to take action on this bill.

Joining the Roman Catholic Church in support of the bill was the Maine Chamber of Commerce .

The bill expands on a law enacted a few years ago that created a " domestic partnership registry ." The number of people signing up for the registry is declining each year. The high point was the first year of 2004. Approximately 200 "partners" registered last year.

The purpose of the registry is to make it possible for couples to receive the societal and legal benefits of marriage, without the solemn commitment traditionally associated with the institution.

The Corporate Resource Council (CRC) issued a white paper in 2002 entitled, " Do Domestic Partner Benefits Make Good Business Sense." The Maine Chamber of Commerce, a group that is supposed to represent the best interests of businesses and corporations in Maine supports "domestic partnership" benefits notwithstanding the assertions of the Corporate Resource Council. The CRC reports:

*
Few employees actually want, need, or -- when given opportunity -- choose benefits for their live-in partners;
*
Few employers appear to have provided domestic partner benefits simply because of employee needs;
*
Studies have shown that employers receive a benefit from a corporate culture that values stable marriages, primarily because employees in lasting marriage are generally more dependable and motivated;
*
Treating cohabitation as equal to marriage negatively affects corporate culture;
*
No state or federal law requires that employers treat cohabitation as equal to marriage

The CRC website quotes Aristotle, "Injustice arises when equals are treated unequally, and when unequals are treated equally." The CRC asks, "Are domestic partnerships just as good as marriage, in the sense of providing the same benefits to adults, children and society? The scientific evidence to date strongly indicates the answer is, no."

The Bible speaks clearly about family. The beginning of the Bible says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Early twentieth century Christian apologist C.S. Lewis adds, "The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union."

While the Catholic Church in Maine favors this expansion of homosexual-based rights, James Cyr from Caribou, does not. Cyr wrote a strong letter to the Labor Committee in which he wrote, "LD 375 is a sham; plain and simple."

Cyr indicated the bill is part of a strategy of "incrementalism" used by homosexual activists to advance their political agenda. He holds legislators who are pretending that isn't the case in low regard. He writes, "It's not a very well-kept secret, after all." Cyr is a Licensed Master Social Worker who lives in Caribou.

The most earnest packet of testimony submitted to the committee was submitted in a green folder. Green has been the color of the "gay" rights movement since 1998 when they campaigned against marriage and family during the people's veto.

The packet contains seventeen pages of testimony brought together by the group that wants school children exposed to "transgendering." They call themselves "Equality Maine." They want sodomy to be treated the same as marriage.

All of the testimony in favor of the bill is detached from reality and rooted in a socialistic and post modern -- perhaps even Marxist/communist -- sensibility. The common good of the community, and especially children, is ignored in favor of individual pleasure and "rights."

The groups and politicians testifying in favor of the bill were:

*
Equality Maine
*
Bureau of Labor Standards, Maine Department of Labor
*
Representative Hannah Pingree
*
Maine Municipal Association
*
Legal Services for the Elderly, Inc.
*
Maine Civil Liberties Union
*
Time Warner Cable
*
Maine Womens Lobby

All of these groups should be contacted by citizens who care about the future of Maine.

Post your comments on this article.

The anti-gambling group called Casinos NO! has weighed in on the Governor's race. In an email dated October 25th Dennis Bailey wrote, "On the issue of expanding casino gambling in Maine ... John Baldacci is the only candidate who will continue to resist the temptation to bring more casino gambling to Maine."

Bailey, former press secretary to Angus King and owner of the public relations firm Savvy Inc., said that State Senator Chandler Woodcock will not stand in the way of more racinos provided there is local support. In a television debate this week Woodcock opposed the idea of casino cars on trains. He said the passenger rail proposal shouldn't depend on a "roll of the dice."

The gambling issue heated up in Maine early in this decade with dueling ballot proposals. A proposal put forward by Maine Indian tribes was shot down while the idea for a more limited "racino" put forward by racetracks and agricultural fairs managed to squeak by the voters.

The League stood virtually alone in 1994 and stopped a casino from being established by Indian tribes in the Washington County town of Calais. The League was joined by Angus King in 2003 in resisting both the racino and casino ballot questions. The League was a public member on Governor King's gambling commission in 1996 that recommended no gambling expansion for Maine.

The Indian tribes sued the people of Maine in the 1980s arguing that George Washington intended for them to own 2/3rds of the land in Maine. They demanded either the land or financial compensation. They were given 68 million dollars. A condition of the deal was their agreement to forgo the right to open and operate gambling casinos.

Some Mainer's are suggesting that they should pay the money back with interest if they open a casino or racino in Maine. The tribes have been working through political and legal channels for many years to gain the gambling franchise. Their most recent effort is a referendum that will put slot machines in Washington County, if it is successful.

A few days ago, we received an email here in the League office. It was from a married couple, evangelical Christians who lead a small congregation in rural Maine. It read in part, "I am here to preach the gospel and not to get involved in politics. I truly do not believe that slot machines are good for Maine ... but I still have to say I cannot do what you asked of me."

And what exactly was it that was asked of this sincere, committed Christian couple? Were they asked to move mountains, extract water from stone, or feed five thousand men with five loaves of bread and two fish? No, no miracles were asked of them. Instead, they were asked to help stop slot machine gambling in our state.

They were asked to volunteer and assist the No Slots for ME! signature collection effort to get the issue on the ballot for 2007. It was a simple proposition: donate of your time and talents, and we may be able to stop the vice of slot machine gambling in our state, period. And yet, these good people refused. Why?

Well, their stated reason was that they "could" not help. There is no law stating that they legally could not help. There is no mention in their email of any physical infirmity that would prevent them from helping. Neither is the Scripture a moral barrier. In fact, the Bible is clear that Christians should not only reject evil themselves, but also warn others to depart from it.

What they actually meant is that they would" not help. Not that they "could" not, but that they "would" not.

That distinction is important. Our sinful human nature causes us to rationalize our actions. We think to ourselves "it's not that I do not want to help out, but that I cannot help out. If I could help, I certainly would, but I cannot for (blank) reason." That justification makes us feel better about not doing what we can to make our state a better place to live. It quiets our God-given conscience a bit. It makes us feel less guilty about not doing what we actually can do to help a just and worthy cause.

It is our comfortable Christianity. We Americans are blessed to live at this time and in this place. We have such incredible luxuries and wealth, and we often take for granted all that we have. We are largely selfish and greedy. We covet not only treasure, but also the time and talents our Lord has provided us.

Christians who tithe and do charitable works want even more time to ourselves and to our families. And so we say we do not have the time, or the ability, to do what needs to be done. We're far too comfortable in our Christianity.

Even some of us hard-working Mainers do not want to get our hands dirty by becoming involved in civic affairs. Better to let others collect the signatures to stop vice and promote virtue. They'll provide moral support (sign the petition and vote their traditional Christian values), but will not volunteer. If they did, their congregation might label them an "activist." And besides, they say, they're too busy to be able to help.

Our comfortable Christianity is killing Maine. We currently have abortion mills and gambling dens in our great state, and are well on the way to legalizing homosexual marriage. This is NOT the way life should be.

We are commanded not only to evangelize, but also to give of our treasure, time, and talents to the Lord. The support, or lack of support, of the Maine Christian community will decide whether or not we have an opportunity to vote on slot machine gambling next year. Some have already committed to help this effort succeed, but many have not. Many more volunteers are needed to be successful.

If you actually cannot give of your time and effort in this worthy, moral, Christian effort, then your generous financial donation would be greatly appreciated. More information can be found at the No Slots for ME! and Christian Civic League of Maine websites.

We need to break out of our comfortable Christianity. We must realize that the essence of being a follower of Christ is to "get our hands dirty" and to become involved. There are few greater testimonies than this.

God has given us a conscience for this very reason. We should listen to it, and act.