Re: Debate regarding bigger games at canterbury
[ QUOTE ]
why is there even a debate? Its not going to happen, its mandated by law and no politician in their right mind would increase the legal highest bet limit because then they would be considered soft on saving families.
MN got what they wanted, a new source of tax revenue from the card club. No need to increase the source of tax revenue a small amount in exchange for higher limits.
[/ QUOTE ]
the debate was more so based around the player pool, and whether a game could be sustained, not the debate about whether it would happen.
and just for the record i have a theory that if canterbury really wanted to get a bigger limit game they probably could. virtually everything that they have gone to teh state requesting (barring the racino, but we know why that gets shot down) has been approved (extra tables for tourneys, nl tourneys, etc) its more that there is no need for it, and not worth putting any effort into for canterbury itself.
|