Macau Casino Revenues Down for Third Straight Month

Macau casinos’ gaming revenues were down for the third consecutive month in August. (Image:

Macau casino revenues may well not be as dazzling as years ago, but the Chinese enclave is in no risk of losing its position because the world’s largest gambling hub. Every day in terms of pure revenues, Las Vegas and other cities simply can’t compete with the tremendous amounts of money that are thrown around at Macau’s baccarat tables. But with regards to what seemed like the endless growth for the area, it appears that the party may be over.

For the 3rd straight month, Macau’s gaming revenues fell for a year-over-year basis. For August, the drop ended up being 6.1 percent when put next to 2013, a tumble blamed on a continued campaign against corruption that has hurt the movement of money from mainland China.

Natural Figures Still Good, But Growth Has Stopped

That drop defintely won’t be making the gambling enterprises in Macau cry poor anytime quickly, however. They still earned 28.9 billion patacas ($3.6 billion) the thirty days. But analysts had predicted only a 2 per cent decrease in gambling profits, making the size of the decrease something of a surprise at significantly more than three times that number.

The casino market in Macau has traditionally relied heavily on VIP gamblers who might spend hundreds of thousands or even an incredible number of bucks in a solitary check out. That market is feeling the strain of an anti-corruption campaign from Chinese President Xi Jinping, along with cooperative efforts from Macau to limit the ability for Chinese gamblers to illegally get cash from the mainland to the region.

‘China’s anti-corruption campaign is apparently maintaining some high-rollers away from Macau, and that’s unlikely to change much in the fourth quarter,’ said Standard Chartered Bank analyst Philip Turk.

Mass Market Not Yet Replacing VIPs

That implies that casinos in Macau are just starting to switch their focus towards growing a mass market audience. There are certainly signs that more gamblers that are casual showing up at the casinos and to consult with other attractions at Macau’s resorts, but it hasn’t been enough to constitute with the fall off in visits from whales. You can find also indications that financial factors could be part of what is dragging down Macau’s growth. New home prices have fallen recently throughout China, which could be having effects that are ripple gaming and other industries.

These issues come as workers continue to stage protests at a few Macau casinos. Workers for most of this major casino operators are asking for improved wages, with some dealers who work at SJM gambling enterprises calling in sick on Saturday as part of an action that is planned.

While Macau may be seeing a fall in its gambling take, that doesn’t seem to be signaling a broader problem for casinos worldwide. In reality, in some accepted places, Macau’s loss may be viewed as an opportunity. Nowhere is this truer than in Las Vegas. Analysts state that the federal government crackdown in China has delivered many VIP gamblers whom previously visited Macau to Las Vegas alternatively. In July, Las Vegas Strip casinos saw a year-over-year income enhance of 4.8 percent, a number that has been big fueled by increased baccarat spending.

‘Five consecutive months of strong baccarat play [in Las Vegas] reaffirm our view of an inverse correlation between upside trends in Las Vegas play that is high-end the relative weakness in Macau,’ stated Union Gaming Group analyst Robert Shore.

Packer Sydney Casino License Docs Kept Secret from Public

Some documents related to James Packer’s proposed Sydney casino were marked secret by the NSW government. (Image:

The James Packer Sydney casino certainly received lots of scrutiny, both from the newest Southern Wales government and the Australian public. With so attention that is much towards the development of the VIP project and the encompassing complex in Barangaroo, one might assume that the whole process ended up being made since transparent as you can to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

But it works out that this deal has some secrets that neither Crown Resorts nor the has the right to know.

According to a report from the Sydney Morning Herald, key documents associated to the awarding of Packer’s permit for the Sydney casino were stamped secret by the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority, the gambling regulator in NSW. Many among these documents connect with agreements signed by Crown Resorts and entities that are related the NSW government and the state video gaming authority.

Agreements About Casino Operations

Of particular interest had been eight agreements regarding casino operations that had been to be executed if the casino license was given, which ultimately happened on July 8. The names of this agreements plus the events included in them have been released in seven of those papers. However, the eighth has been totally censored, including all ongoing parties involved and also the name of the contract it self.

According to a representative for the gaming authority, provisions about secrecy suggest that the agency is not permitted to divulge information unless it is related to the Casino Control Act, is within the public interest, and will not cause commercial harm, a standard the information into the agreement in question apparently does not rise to.

‘The information redacted in the VIP Gaming Management Agreement document would, in the view of the authority, not promote the items of this relevant work and be commercially harmful to the licensee or related entities if released,’ the representative stated. ‘It was the authority’s view the public fascination with its disclosure did not outweigh that possible harm.’

Greens Want A consider Redacted Information

While that may end up being real, not everyone in Australia is ready to take the authority’s words on face value. Greens MP John Kaye said that their party intends to subpoena the papers in the NSW Parliament week that is next. a process is in spot by which the house that is upper of legislature can demand to understand redacted portions of commercially sensitive documents.

The papers would be released to then MPs, though they is forbidden to go public with that information. Nonetheless, if they believe the public should be able to see what they’ve seen, it has an arbitration process to ascertain set up information can remain secret.

‘Should this be completely innocent, then your government should be happy to permit upper home MPs to understand documents,’ Kaye said. ‘If you don’t, then it’s clear that they are running address for James Packer and Crown.’

Premier Mike Baird claims that details of all contracts signed by the government would be released to people in due time.

‘There’s no secrets,’ Baird stated. ‘I know the Greens like to talk about conspiracy and secrets but there is however none, because much as they look.’

The Barangaroo casino is schedule to start in 2019, and will cater exclusively to VIP patrons november.

Betfair Ads Banned By UK Advertising Watchdog

Betfair’s table tennis-playing Octopus; the ASA ruled that the TV campaign had been perhaps not contradictory, but banned two ‘misleading’ online ads.

Some Betfair ads have come under scrutiny from the UK’s Advertising guidelines Authority (ASA). The issue was over two ads that are online the watchdog said were misleading to clients. The ASA received complaints of a total of three adverts, all providing ‘money back specials,’ two of which it upheld.

The offending that is first promised cash back if England lost a group stage match at the World Cup.

‘WORLD CUP ALL MARKETS ALL CUSTOMERS MONEY BACK IF ENGLAND LOSE IN a GROUP STAGE MATCH IN BRAZIL,’ it proclaimed. But, while the promotion implied that it was supplying a money that is full, in fact, customers merely received a totally free bet for the same value of their original stake. Below the ad, terms and conditions stated that ‘selections in a few markets’ had been excluded from the offer, despite the use of the phrase ‘all markets.’

Meanwhile, the second ad revealed a picture associated with the Uk tennis player Andy Murray with the promise of money right back on a new customer’s bet if Murray won Wimbledon. Again, Betfair was simply offering a free bet token compared to the cash refund that is implied.

Misleading Language

The ASA ruled that both ads utilized language that had been misleading.

‘We considered that customers viewing the claims would believe that if England lost, or Murray won, they’d receive their original stake back in money, to be spent as they wished,’ it said. ‘We understood, nonetheless, that they would in fact be given a free bet token of the same value as their original stake (up up to a set limit). As that was perhaps not made instantly clear and customers could click the link to take the offer up believing they would receive their initial stake in cash should England lose, we considered that the claims had been misleading.’

In its defense, Betfair said that the ‘money back’ promotion is a tactic widely used by the sportsbetting industry, and cited similar offers run by their rivals. The business additionally advertised that the terms and conditions fully explained the characteristics associated with the offer. However, it did concede that the most prominent slogans unsuccessful in order to make the real nature for the offer clearly enough for customers, and it promised to rectify this in future promotions. Betfair also admitted that the phrase ‘full refund’ was a mistake that will now be dropped from all ads.

The ASA praised Betfair’s willingness to amend their ads, but warned the company that it must avoid similar errors moving forward and banned it from using them in their current form.

TV Spot Campaign Approved

The watchdog had been more accepting of Betfair’s TV campaign, however, which received one complaint. The TV spot, which featured a dining table tennis-playing Octopus, promised ‘money back as a free bet’ if England lose, which the complainant argued was a statement that is contradictory.

The ASA disagreed, stating: ‘Whilst we acknowledged that consumers would not get their initial stake back in cash, but instead as conditional credit, we considered that because the on-screen text and voice-over demonstrably claimed ‘Money right back being a free bet’, viewers would understand the offer and appreciate that when their bet met the stated conditions, they will be awarded their initial stake by means of a totally free bet. Because we considered most watchers would understand the nature of the offer, and would not expect to receive their initial stake back in cash, we concluded that the advertisement was not misleading.’