« Making Movies in Pittsburgh | Main | Our Mayor Versus Their Mayor: Kids These Days »


Jonathan Potts

You hope not, but I think you know the effect will be pretty much the same. People have a limited amount of discretionary income, and if they spend it on one thing, like gambling on horses, they can't spend it on another, like gambling on slot machines. The example also suggests that the number of gamblers is finite, and adding a new type of gambling may do nothing to increase revenues.


The Baltimore Sun article did not mention economic impact of anything else other than horse racing handle. No mention was made to the fact that slot machines or not, attendance at horse tracks has dropped. You can not say that slots have helped to decrease attendance. As you mentioned, slots increase purses, which brings more horses, and should bring more people. Even if the people don't show up, the increased purses and horses have a ridiculously large economic impact. In Maryland it is over $1 Billion a year. I'll get off my soapbox now!

By the way.....Great blog!

Jonathan Potts

OK, I read the article further and it seems that the profits from slots may exceed the pre-slots profits from racing. But that's why I would have preferred to see slots confined to race tracks, where gambling is just competing with more gambling, not with restaurants, theaters, galleries, etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.