Mr.Connolly, your assumptions are incorrect so your calculations are wrong.

In a Texas Hold-em tournament of this type, the House rake is not 47%. Players would never accept this. Even in a low stakes game at Rockingham, the house rake is no more than 18%. In fact, in this tournament, the top 6 players took home $3.8 million in prizes, and 46 other playesr alsowon money.

The casino got $300 per player, or $172,500. The state would get 40% of this according to the bill, or $68,200. Any all of the state's financial woes would be solved.

A few other niggling points you might wish to consider:
- The bill in question doesn't allow any poker of any sort in any casino, so it is kind of a moot point.
- You could never get 575 high rollers to come to Berlin for any reason.

A response to Mr. Emm:

"Mr.Connolly, your assumptions are incorrect so your calculations are wrong." And what assumptions are these? As a part of the passage of this legislation the State of New Hampshire could charge whatever it wants I don't think 47% is unreasonable. The state recently capped pay day lending at 36%. Its all just money.

"In a Texas Hold-em tournament of this type, the House rake is not 47%. Players would never accept this. Even in a low stakes game at Rockingham, the house rake is no more than 18%. In fact, in this tournament, the top 6 players took home $3.8 million in prizes, and 46 other playesr also won money."

Texas Holdem is creating an economy on its own. I was reading an article recently, about 20 and 30 somethings turning this game into a career. Whether at a casino or on-line. New Hampshire is missing out on a huge opportunity to enhance tourism and acquire needed revenue.

"The casino got $300 per player, or $172,500. The state would get 40% of this according to the bill, or $68,200. Any all of the state's financial woes would be solved."

I think your assumptions are incorrect.Please look at the American Gaming Association (AGA) website to see how casinos build taxbase and economic development. Compare the economy in Biloxi, Mississippi before and after the casinos were built.

"A few other niggling points you might wish to consider:
- The bill in question doesn't allow any poker of any sort in any casino, so it is kind of a moot point.
- You could never get 575 high rollers to come to Berlin for any reason."

This legislation does not need to allow table games in a casino. Its legal already as long as the procceds go to charity and a few other rules including hourly betting limits.

Your statement is unsupportable 575 high rollers would go to Berlin, especially from places like Boston, Montreal, Portland, Maine and Burlington, Vermont. The same high rollers that currently travel to places like Foxwoods, Tunica, Mississippi and Bettendorf, Iowa. I'm told the Seneca indians are building a new casino in Hollywood (South) Florida I'm sure this will change the economy there. Lastly, if casino gambling can't be profitable in a rural area like Berlin why is one of the world's richest men building a casino in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Niggling points to consider.

Mr. Connolly:

With all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. In Texas hold-em, there is no "rake". The winners get a portion of the total buy-ins. Typically this is 75%, but at higher stake games its 80-95%. The house, or casino, gets what's left, 25% or in a high-stakes game, 5-20%. In a very, very high stakes game like the one you cite, the house retains 3%. If this were a casino, the state would get 40% of this amount, or 1.2% of the total buy-in. If it were a charity event, the state gets nothing as we do not tax charity gaming, the theory being that the charity should get the money, not the state, hence the name "charity gaming".

Do you have any idea if there are sufficient hotel rooms in Berlin to accomodate 575 people, plus the TV folks and others who would flock to see a World Series of Poker?

As for building a tax base, you need to distinguish between desination casinos- Las Vegas, Foxwoods, Atlantic City, Biloxi- and convenience casinos- everywhere else. Destination casinos create economic development because they import players and their money from other areas. Convenience casinos don't attract people from other areas and simply redistribute money in an area. Building a glorified slot machine parlor in northern NH is not going to attract high rollers from anywhere. It will just take $100 million a year out of the pockets of local people, send half to Concord and half to whoever builds the casino. That could be Mr. Adelson, for all I know.

"With all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. In Texas hold-em, there is no "rake". The winners get a portion of the total buy-ins. Typically this is 75%, but at higher stake games its 80-95%. The house, or casino, gets what's left, 25% or in a high-stakes game, 5-20%. In a very, very high stakes game like the one you cite, the house retains 3%. If this were a casino, the state would get 40% of this amount, or 1.2% of the total buy-in. If it were a charity event, the state gets nothing as we do not tax charity gaming, the theory being that the charity should get the money, not the state, hence the name "charity gaming"."

You don't have to respect anything Mr. Emm.

Let me restate some points. But before I state this, like I said you don't have to respect anything Mr. Emm. I'm glad to be living in a state with such intelligent people and policymakers like you care that about the issues. I care about economic value, taxbase and jobs. I'm clearly in the misinformed minority!

"With all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. In Texas hold-em, there is no "rake". The winners get a portion of the total buy-ins. Typically this is 75%, but at higher stake games its 80-95%. The house, or casino, gets what's left, 25% or in a high-stakes game, 5-20%. In a very, very high stakes game like the one you cite, the house retains 3%. If this were a casino, the state would get 40% of this amount, or 1.2% of the total buy-in. If it were a charity event, the state gets nothing as we do not tax charity gaming, the theory being that the charity should get the money, not the state, hence the name "charity gaming"."

The reason I brought up the idea of charity gaming was so that a casino in Berlin, if built could in fact have table games as part of its experience or what it offers to players. Perhaps after a period of time further legislation could be added to in fact legalize table games.

"Do you have any idea if there are sufficient hotel rooms in Berlin to accomodate 575 people, plus the TV folks and others who would flock to see a World Series of Poker?"

There are not currently sufficient hotel rooms in Berlin. Have you ever been to Tunica, Mississippi? Guess what was there before the casinos? nothing. I'm confident there would be hotel construction on the Berlin skyline if this legislation were to be passed. And wouldn't this be a great sight! The promise of the future. Wow!

As for building a tax base, you need to distinguish between desination casinos- Las Vegas, Foxwoods, Atlantic City, Biloxi- and convenience casinos- everywhere else. Destination casinos create economic development because they import players and their money from other areas. Convenience casinos don't attract people from other areas and simply redistribute money in an area. Building a glorified slot machine parlor in northern NH is not going to attract high rollers from anywhere. It will just take $100 million a year out of the pockets of local people, send half to Concord and half to whoever builds the casino. That could be Mr. Adelson, for all I know.

Why should I distinguish Mr. Emm? Where are the numbers in support of your position? How can you prove any of this? Within the past year I've been to every gaming destination on the East Coast. Each place has the same story to tell: jobs, economic development and taxbase. And most certainly a better quality of life than the alternative which is nothing. Numbers, Mr. Emm. With all due respect.