Bring It Home

Bring It On Home
An Overview of Gaming Behavior in New England

Results of the 4th Biennial New England Gaming Behavior Survey
March, 2013
Prepared by
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH
CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis is a multidisciplinary research unit that
promotes economic, social, and political development by providing research and technical assistance to client
organizations. The Center for Policy Analysis offers custom designed research and technical analysis in the areas of
economic development, public management, program evaluation and polling research for government agencies, non-
profit organizations, private businesses, and educational institutions. The Center for Policy Analysis strives to erode the
walls between research and teaching by training students in the techniques of applied social science and by conducting
university and community based educational programs. The Center for Policy Analysis does not pursue a
predetermined research agenda, but is a flexible research organization responding on a timely basis to the problems and
issues identified by client agencies.
Clyde W. Barrow, Ph.D., Political Science

Director
EXECUTIVE BOARD
David Borges, M.P.A., Public Administration Colleen Dawicki, M.P.P., Public Policy
Associate Director/Senior Research Associate Project Manager/Senior Research Associate
Chad Maguire, J.D., Law Joao Paraskeva, Ph.D., Education

Senior Research Associate Senior Research Associate
EXECUTIVE STAFF
David Borges, M.P.A., Public Administration Colleen Dawicki, M.P.P., Public Policy
Associate Director/Senior Research Associate Project Manager/Senior Research Associate
Jason Hill, UMass Dartmouth MPP Candidate,

Urban Initiative Graduate Research Assistant
Robert Golder, UMass Dartmouth MPP Candidate,

Urban Initiative Graduate Research Assistant
Nancy Trudel
Assistant to the Director
Correspondence and inquiries should be addressed to: Center for Policy Analysis, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747-2300 (telephone: 508-990-9660; fax: 508-
999-8374).
Copyright  Center for Policy Analysis. All rights reserved.

Cover Design: Lauren Butler.
Website URL: http://www.umassd.edu/seppce/centers/cfpa/
The information and analysis in this report does not represent an official statement or view of the University of
Massachusetts.
Polling and Program Evaluation Series No.108

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................... i

1.00 PROPENSITY TO GAMBLE: RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN SOME FORM
OF GAMBLING IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS ...................................................................................................................... - 1 -
1.10 Propensity to Participate in Different Forms of Gambling by State ..................................................................... - 1 -
1.20 Propensity to Participate in Different Forms of Gambling: Historical Trends ...................................................... - 2 -
2.00 CONNECTICUT: FOXWOODS RESORT CASINO AND MOHEGAN SUN CASINO............................................................... - 3 -
2.10 Visitation Data ...................................................................................................................................................... - 3 -
2.20 Demographic Profile of Visitors to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun ....................................................................... - 8 -
2.30 Percentage Who Spent Money on Gambling and Non-Gambling Activities ...................................................... - 12 -
2.40 Visits to Casinos Outside of the New England ...................................................................................................... - 8 -
2.50 Games Played at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun ................................................................................................. - 14 -
3.00 RHODE ISLAND: TWIN RIVER CASINO AND NEWPORT GRAND SLOTS ........................................................................ - 19 -
3.10 Visitation Data .................................................................................................................................................... - 19 -
3.20 Demographic Profile of Visitors to Twin River and Newport Grand................................................................... - 24 -
3.30 Percentage Who Spent Money on Gambling and Non-Gambling Activities ...................................................... - 26 -
4.00 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE RESORT CASINO MARKET AND THE CONVENIENCE GAMBLING (SLOT
PARLOR/RACINO) MARKET ......................................................................................................................................... - 27 -
4.10 Importance of Amenities .................................................................................................................................... - 27 -
4.20 Importance of Drive Time................................................................................................................................... - 28 -
5.00 MAINE: HOLLYWOOD CASINO AND OXFORD CASINO ................................................................................................ - 29 -
5.10 Visitation Data .................................................................................................................................................... - 29 -
5.20 Travel Time ........................................................................................................................................................ - 31 -
5.30 Cross-Visitation .................................................................................................................................................. - 32 -
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................. - 33 -
APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................................................................... - 36 -
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ....................................................................................................... - 48 -
[This page left blank intentionally]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview of the Gaming Behavior Survey
Given the comparatively recent expansion of casino gambling in the United States, gambling studies is a
1
relatively new field of social scientific inquiry. Consequently, policymakers, the general public, and even many
scholars are often unfamiliar with the complexities and nuances of gaming-related issues and, most particularly the
differences between destination resort casinos and convenience gambling facilities. There is often a tendency to
view “gambling” as one large undifferentiated market with uni-dimensional behavior patterns and demographics
that can be extrapolated from one market niche to another or from one political jurisdiction to another without
qualification. More specifically, casinos, racinos, and lotteries are often viewed as generic (fiscal and economic)
equivalents by public policymakers, regardless of whether they are land-based resorts, riverboat, dockside, or
racetrack casinos. In fact, differences within the casino market have significant implications for public policy,
especially for state fiscal, economic development, and social policies.
The New England Gaming Research Project was launched by the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth with the February 2004 release of its first annual New England Casino Gaming Update
(NEGU). The Gaming Research Project’s purpose is to provide policymakers, the general public, and the media with
independent and objective research on the economic and fiscal impacts of gaming in the New England region,
including information on the gaming behavior of New England residents.
The New England Gaming Behavior Survey is conducted every two years to complement and expand upon the
information reported in the annual NEGU report by informing on-going debates about expanded gambling in New
st
England and to provide a region-wide base of knowledge about gaming behavior in New England. The 1 New
England Gaming Behavior Survey (2006) polled more than 2,400 respondents in the states of Massachusetts and
nd
Rhode Island, which at the time were debating various proposals for expanded gambling. The 2 New England
Gaming Behavior Survey (2008) interviewed 2,806 residents in four of the six New England states. The 2008 survey
was expanded to include Maine and New Hampshire because a slot parlor opened in Maine in late 2005, while
previous studies by the Center for Policy Analysis found that New Hampshire is a significant feeder market for
Connecticut’s two Native American casinos. On the other hand, Vermont has not entertained any proposals for
expanded gambling and previous studies have not found it to be a significant feeder market to any of the region’s
established gaming destinations.
rd
In early 2009, the Center for Policy Analysis conducted its 3 New England Gaming Behavior survey, which
sampled 3,970 residents in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. Connecticut
was added to the survey because the state is a unique gaming market that combines features of both destination
and convenience gambling and therefore warrants a separate analysis.
th
Bring It On Home: An Overview of the New England Gaming Market is the 4 public release of findings from
the New England Gaming Behavior Survey. The study builds on data from previous Gaming Behavior Surveys to
refine the analysis of the casino and racino markets in New England, including:
 How many people gamble, where do they gamble, and what types of gambling interest them?

2
Do different people gamble at destination casinos as opposed to racinos?
 What is the demographic background of casino and racino patrons?
1
The leading academic journals in this field are the Journal of Gambling Studies and the Gaming Law Review and Economics.
However, scholarly research on various aspects of gambling are now published in journals of economics, economic
development, sociology, political science, psychology, travel and tourism, and public health.
2
Racinos are slot parlors located at pari-mutuel facilities, such as greyhound racing parks, horse racing tracks, or jai alai
frontons.
Center for Policy Analysis i

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
 How often does the average patron visit a destination casino or racino?
 What types of games do they play when they visit?
 On what items do patrons spend their money when they visit New England’s casinos and racinos?
 How far will patrons drive to visit a casino or racino and are there differences between those who visit a
destination casino or racino?
The 4th New England Gaming Behavior Survey was conducted from January 3, 2012 through January 22, 2013
using a questionnaire developed by the Center for Policy Analysis (see Appendix B). The survey uses an overlapping
3
dual frame design that includes both landlines and cellphones. The survey generated a total of 3,035 respondents
distributed among the five New England states included in the survey (see Table 1).
Table 1
Sample Size by State
# % Total
State Respondents Sample
Total 3,035 100.0%

Connecticut 601 19.8%
Maine 416 13.7%
Massachusetts 801 26.4%
New Hampshire 415 13.7%
Rhode Island 802 26.4%
Summary of Results
Propensity to Gamble
Overall, 52% of residents in the five states surveyed participated in some form of legal gambling in the last
twelve months. Casino gambling is the third most frequent form of gambling among the five states’ residents with
Connecticut (27%) reporting the highest propensity to casino gamble, followed by Rhode Island (26%),
Massachusetts (22%), Maine (21%), and New Hampshire (16%). The propensity to casino gamble fell by 7
percentage points from 2006 to 2012 despite the addition of new or expanded casino gambling venues in Rhode
Island, Maine, and Queens, New York. The one exception for this annual decline is Maine, where the propensity to
gamble has more than doubled from 9% (2006) to 21% (2012).
The casino industry as a whole continues to implement strategies aimed at expanding non-gaming amenities
and relying less on gambling dollars. This trend is reflected in the New England gaming market, where a declining
percentage of visitors to Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, Twin River, and to a lesser extent Newport Grand report they
gambled at these facilities in the last 12 months. Among the five states surveyed:
 25% of visitors to Mohegan Sun and 18% of visitors to Foxwoods did not gamble in 2012.
 From 2006 to 2012, the percentage of visitors who gambled at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun declined by
17 percentage points at both facilities, while the percentage who spent on food and beverages at each
facility increased by 21 percentage points. Spending on other items such as shows, dancing, and concerts
also trended upward over this period.
 16% of visitors to Twin River and 7% of visitors to Newport Grand did not gamble in 2012. The percentage
of visitors to Twin River who gambled declined by 11 percentage points from 2006 to 2012, although the
percentage who gambled at Newport Grand increased by 2 percentage points over this period.
3
A more detailed explanation of the Survey’s methodology can be found in Appendix A.
Center for Policy Analysis ii

Differentiation Between the Resort Casino Market and the Convenience Gambling (Slot Parlor/Racino) Market
The availability of table games, numerous non-gambling amenities, the physical attractiveness of the facilities,
and the general atmosphere of the facilities continue to differentiate New England’s resort casino market from the
convenience gambling market. Among residents of the five states surveyed:
 78% of visitors to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in the last 12 months did not visit Twin River or Newport
Grand, despite the closer proximity of these facilities for most residents. This ratio has remained nearly
unchanged since the Gaming Behavior Survey first measured this differentiation in 2006.
 Conversely, 65% of visitors to Twin River or Newport Grand in the last 12 months also visited Foxwoods or
Mohegan Sun, even though these facilities are often a farther drive.
Indeed, casino gamblers will travel farther to access the table games, non-gambling amenities, and to
experience the general atmosphere of a resort casino than a convenience gambling facility. Conversely, racino/slot
parlor gamblers are attracted primarily by convenience, that is, the distance they must drive to reach a facility.
Among the five states surveyed:
 74% of visitors to Foxwoods traveled more than an hour to reach the casino, while 27 percent traveled
more than 90 minutes. Similarly, 69% of visitors to Mohegan Sun traveled more than an hour to reach the
casino, while 24 percent traveled more than 90 minutes.
 Conversely, 89% of visitors to the convenience gaming facility of Twin River traveled an hour or less to
reach the racino and 68 percent traveled 30 minutes or less. Ninety percent (90%) of visitors to Newport
Grand traveled an hour or less to reach the racino and 27% traveled 30 minutes or less.
Connecticut: Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun Casino
Connecticut’s two Indian casinos continue to be negatively affected by a weak consumer economy and
4
increased competition; from 2006 to 2012, slot win declined by 29.4% at Foxwoods and 28.9% at Mohegan Sun.
th
Twin River in Lincoln, Rhode Island, which underwent a major expansion in 2007 and is the 5 largest slots facility
in the country, appears to be siphoning off some of Foxwoods’ customers, particularly those from Rhode Island
th
and Massachusetts. Additionally, Resorts World in Queens, New York, which opened in 2011 and is the nation’s 4
largest slots facility, is attracting customers from New York who would normally visit Mohegan Sun. Among the five
states surveyed:
 17% of residents visited Foxwoods at least once during the previous 12 months, which is a decline from
5
22% in 2008. The percentage of residents who visited Foxwoods also declined in each of the five states
surveyed, most notably residents from New Hampshire (-9 percentage points), Rhode Island (-7
percentage points), and Massachusetts (-5 percentage points). Again, while some of the decline is
attributable to the struggling economy, residents of these three states are also substituting trips to
facilities closer to home such as Twin River and Oxford Casino.
 14% of residents from the five states surveyed visited Mohegan Sun at least once during the previous 12
months, which is a decline from 19% who visited in 2008. The percentage of Connecticut residents visiting
Mohegan Sun declined by 9 percentage points from 2008 to 2012, despite living most proximate to the
facility.
4
The Tribes’ compacts with the state of Connecticut do not require them to report table game revenues.
5
Residents 21 years of age and older.
Center for Policy Analysis iii

Despite the declines, Connecticut’s casinos continue to attract a significant number of visitors from the five
6
states surveyed, although the number of visitors continues to fall:
 In 2012, approximately 1.7 million residents from the five states surveyed visited Foxwoods and
approximately 1.6 million residents visited Mohegan Sun. However, the estimated number of visitors to
Foxwoods declined by 22% from 2008 to 2012, while the number of visitors to Mohegan Sun also declined
by 22% over this period. The number of visitors over the past 2 years (2010 to 2012) declined by 10% at
Foxwoods and 7% at Mohegan Sun.
 Significantly, Massachusetts residents account for two-thirds (66%) of the decline in the number of
visitors to Foxwoods from 2008 to 2012 and 28% of the decline in visitors at Mohegan Sun. In fact, the
decline in the number of Massachusetts residents visiting Foxwoods from 2008 to 2012 is greater than the
decline in the number of visitors from the other four states combined. While some of the decline is due to
the general decrease in the propensity to gamble, much of the decline is due to casino gamblers from
Massachusetts shifting trips to Twin River (see below).
Rhode Island: Twin River Casino and Newport Grand Slots
Twin River and Newport Grand are both convenience gaming facilities that do not offer table games or
have hotels, spas, or other amenities typical of a resort casino. However, Twin River underwent a major expansion
th
in 2007 and is now the 5 largest gaming facility in the United States in terms of slot positions, with 4,751 video
lottery terminals (VLTs). The Twin River expansion also added several new restaurants, a bar and lounge, a comedy
7
club, a 2,000-seat entertainment arena, and virtual table games.
Newport Grand is more modest slot facility with approximately 1,100 VLTs housed in a former jai-alai
fronton. Because Twin River and Newport Grand are convenience gambling facilities, they draw few visitors from
outside of the New England area. For example, CFPA’s 2012 Patron Origin Analysis estimates that only 1.0% of
visitors to Twin River and 2.3% of visitors to Newport Grand are from outside the five states surveyed.
Twin River and Newport Grand have been on different trajectories since 2006; net terminal income at
Twin River increased by 45.2% from 2006 to 2012, while it declined by 35.0% at Newport Grand.
 In 2012, approximately 580,000 New Englanders from the five states surveyed visited Twin River and
8
approximately 115,000 visited Newport Grand. The number of visitors to Twin River increased by 24%
from 2008 to 2012, while the number of visitors to Newport Grand declined by 0.4% over this period.
 Twin River and Newport Grand primarily draw their customers from Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Twenty percent (20%) of Rhode Islanders visited Twin River in the last 12 months, while 8% of
Massachusetts residents visited the facility. Five percent (5%) of Rhode Islanders visited Newport Grand in
the last 12 months, while 1% of Massachusetts residents visited the facility.
 Much of the attendance growth at Twin River since its expansion in 2007 is fueled by Massachusetts
residents, a state that posted a 154% increase in visitors from 2006 to 2012 or 233,918 additional unique
visitors. In fact, from 2008 to 2012 the total number of visitors from Massachusetts increased by 149,519,
while the number of visitors from the other four states combined actually declined by 38,058. Thus, one
might argue that the success of Twin River, despite being located in Rhode Island, is more dependent on
Bay State residents than Ocean Staters.
6
Throughout this report, “visitors” refers to the number of unique visitors in the 12 month period, whereas “visits” measures
the total number of times that visitors patronized the facility, that is, the number of unique visitors multiplied the average
number of times visited.
7
Twin River is now licensed to offer table games, which are planned to be up and running by the summer of 2013.
8
Center for Policy Analysis iv

 Similarly, Newport Grand received the greatest number of visitors from Massachusetts in 2012 (66,794),
followed by Rhode Island (39,809), and Connecticut (8,274). Since 2006, the number of Massachusetts
visitors to Newport Grand increased by 41%, while the number of visitors from Rhode Island actually
declined by 3%.
Maine: Hollywood Casino and Oxford Casino
Hollywood Casino Bangor opened in 2005 and includes approximately 925 slots, 16 table games, and a hotel.
The facility was originally a racino, but a $131 expansion completed in 2008 added the hotel and additional gaming
space. Table games were authorized in 2011 and the facility’s first table games were installed in March, 2012.
Oxford Casino in Oxford, Maine opened in June, 2012. The facility originally housed about 500 slot machines
and 12 table games but has already expanded its gaming floor to include approximately 800 slot machines, 22
table games, and additional office, warehouse, and parking space.
Maine’s gaming facilities are more isolated and are located in smaller population centers in comparison to
New England’s other gaming facilities; thus the Maine gaming market consists primarily of in-state and New
Hampshire residents. The facilities also strive to attract out-of-state tourists, including visitors from Canada.
Among the five states surveyed:
 About two percent (1.9%) of residents visited Hollywood Casino in the last 12 months, an increase of 0.8
9
percentage points from 2008. Just over one percent (1.3%) of residents visited Oxford Casino.
 11.5% of Maine’s adult residents visited Hollywood Casino at least once in the last 12 months, an increase
from 8.8% in 2008 but a decline from 19.3% in 2010. The decline is primarily a result of competition from
Oxford Casino, with 8.4% of Maine residents reporting visiting Oxford Casino despite it only being open
for about 7 months in 2012.
 It is estimated that nearly 160,000 visitors made at least one trip to Hollywood Casino in the last 12
months, an increase of 55% from 2008 but a decline of 23% from 2010. Seventy-two percent (72%) of
Hollywood Casino’s visitors in 2012 from the five states surveyed were Maine residents (114,879 visitors),
followed by Massachusetts (28,940 visitors), New Hampshire (9,707 visitors), Connecticut (5,209 visitors),
and Rhode Island (771 visitors).
 It is estimated that nearly 164,000 visitors made at least one trip to Oxford Casino in the last 12 months.
Among the five states surveyed, 51% of the visitors to Hollywood Casino were Maine residents (83,912
visitors), followed by New Hampshire (74,740 visitors), and Connecticut (5,209 visitors).
 There is some cross-visitation between Hollywood Casino and Oxford Casino; among visitors to Hollywood
Casino from the five states surveyed, 17% also visited Oxford Casino in the past 12 months. Among Oxford
Casino visitors, 26% also visited Hollywood Casino.
9
Center for Policy Analysis v

[This page left blank intentionally]
Center for Policy Analysis vi

Bring It On Home: An Overview of the New England Gaming Market – Draft 2
4th Biennial New England Gaming Behavior Survey
1.00 PROPENSITY TO GAMBLE: RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN SOME FORM OF GAMBLING IN
THE LAST 12 MONTHS
1.10 PROPENSITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF GAMBLING BY STATE
Fifty-two percent (52%) of residents in the five states surveyed participated in some form of legal gambling in
the last 12 months. The most frequent form of gambling is the lottery, including both lotto tickets (39%) and
scratch tickets (36%), followed by casino gambling (23%). Smaller percentages of residents played keno (7%), poker
(6%), bingo (5%), dog or horse racing (3%), sports betting (3%), and the Internet (2%) (see Table 2).
Massachusetts residents report the highest propensity to gamble (58% gambled legally in the last 12 months),
followed by residents of New Hampshire and Rhode Island (51%), Connecticut (50%) and Maine (43%) (see Table
2). Massachusetts’ lead in gambling propensity is primarily due to the high percentage of Bay State residents who
10
play the lotto and scratch tickets.
Casino gambling is the third most frequent form of gambling among the five states’ residents with Connecticut
(27%) reporting the highest propensity to casino gamble, followed by Rhode Island (26%), Massachusetts (22%),
Maine (21%), and New Hampshire (16%) (see Table 2). This pattern is consistent with research that indicates a
higher propensity to casino gamble the closer residents are to a gaming facility.
Table 2
Type of Game Played in the Last Twelve Months
All Resp. CT ME MA NH RI
Any type 52% 50% 43% 58% 51% 51%

Lotto (e.g. Megabucks) 39% 36% 27% 45% 40% 41%
Scratch tickets 36% 32% 30% 46% 37% 32%
Casino 23% 27% 21% 22% 16% 26%
Keno 7% 2% 3% 11% 2% 9%
Poker 6% 5% 6% 6% 8% 4%
Bingo 5% 3% 4% 5% 2% 7%
Dog/horse race 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4%
Sports betting 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3%
Internet 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%
10
Massachusetts continues to have one of the most successful lotteries in the nation.
Center for Policy Analysis -1-

1.20 PROPENSITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF GAMBLING: HISTORICAL TRENDS
The overall propensity to gamble on any type of game declined by from 59% in 2006 to 52% in 2012 (see
Figure 1). The propensity to gamble by each type of game also declined during this period, particularly for casino
gambling, despite the addition of casino gambling venues throughout New England (e.g. Twin River’s expansion in
11
2007, the opening of Hollywood Casino in 2005, and the opening Oxford Casino in 2012).
Some of the decline in gambling propensity can be attributed to the addition of Connecticut to the survey
sample in 2008, a state which has lower levels of gambling in comparison to residents in Massachusetts and Rhode
Island, although the overall propensity to gamble has continued to trend downward since that time. Another
factor continues to be the economy, particularly in Rhode Island, which has one of the highest unemployment
rates in the nation.
Figure 1
Type of Game Played in the Last 12 Months: 2006 to 2012
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Any type Lotto (e.g. Scratch Casino Keno Poker Bingo Dog/horse Sports Internet
Megabucks) tickets race betting
2006 2008 2010 2012
11
Poker and sports betting were added to the survey in 2010.

2.00 CONNECTICUT: FOXWOODS RESORT CASINO AND MOHEGAN SUN CASINO
Foxwoods Resort Casino is operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut and Mohegan Sun
Casino is operated by the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut. Both casinos operate under the provisions of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, including procedures and regulations approved or adopted by the United States
Department of the Interior and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC 2008a).
Foxwoods is currently the single largest gaming facility in the United States in terms of total gaming positions
and gaming space. Mohegan Sun is the second largest gaming facility in the United States in terms of total gaming
positions, but in the 2008 calendar year Mohegan Sun surpassed Foxwoods in gross gaming revenue, after
surpassing it in total revenues (gaming & non-gaming) for the first time in 2007.
12
2.10 VISITATION DATA
2.11 Visitation Patterns by State
Twenty-two percent (22%) of residents in the five states surveyed report having visited Foxwoods or Mohegan
Sun at least once during the previous 12 months, a decline from 26% in 2006 (see Figure 2). Not surprisingly, due
to their proximity, Connecticut residents report the highest percentage of visitations to Foxwoods or Mohegan
Sun, with 35% having visited one or both of these facilities in the last 12 months, although this percentage has
been declining since the regional gaming market peaked in 2006 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Visited Foxwoods Resort Casino or
Mohegan Sun in the Last 12 Months: 2006 to 2012
50%
44%
40% 38%
35% 35% 35%
30% 32%
29%
30% 26% 26% 26%
25% 24%
22% 23%
19%
20% 16%
10% 12%
10%
10% 7% 7% 7%
NA
0%
All Respondents Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island
2006 2008 2010 2012
12

2.12 Historical Visitation Patterns by Facility
Seventeen percent (17%) of residents in the five states surveyed visited Foxwoods at least once during the
previous 12 months, which is a steady decline from the survey’s baseline year. The percentage of residents who
visited Foxwoods also declined in each of the five states, most notably residents from New Hampshire (-9%) and
Rhode Island (-7%), who are clearly shifting many of their casino visits to Oxford Casino or Twin River respectively
(see Table 3).
Fourteen percent (14%) of residents in the five states surveyed visited Mohegan Sun at least once during the
previous 12 months, which is a decline of 5 percentage points since 2008. Massachusetts is the only state to have
posted an attendance increase at Mohegan Sun since its baseline year (+2%). Conversely, the percentage of
Connecticut residents visiting Mohegan Sun declined by 9 percentage points since 2008, despite being most
proximate to the facility (see Table 3).
Table 3
Percent Visited Foxwoods Resort Casino or Mohegan Sun: 2006 to 2012
% Visited Foxwoods Resort Casino % Visited Mohegan Sun
% Change % Change
2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12 2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12
All Respondents 23% 22% 20% 17% *-5% 13% 19% 17% 14% *-5%
Connecticut NA 27% 20% 22% *-5% NA 38% 35% 29% *-9%
Maine 8% 5% 7% 5% -3% 5% 4% 5% 4% -1%
Massachusetts 22% 24% 21% 17% -5% 13% 18% 13% 15% 2%
New Hampshire 17% 10% 10% 8% -9% 7% 11% 7% 3% -4%
Rhode Island 30% 29% 28% 23% -7% 17% 17% 17% 12% -5%
* Percent change 2008-2012 because Connecticut residents were not included in the
2006 survey.
Data includes visitors age 21 years of age and older.

13
2.13 Number of Annual Unique Visitors by State
In 2012, approximately 1.7 million residents from the five states surveyed visited Foxwoods and approximately
1.6 million residents visited Mohegan Sun (see Table 4). The number of visitors to Foxwoods declined by 22% from
14
2008 to 2012, while the number of visitors to Mohegan Sun also declined by 22% over this period. The number of
visitors over the past 2 years (2010 to 2012) declined by 10% at Foxwoods and 7% at Mohegan Sun, partly due to a
general decline in the propensity to gamble, but also due to significant inroads on their customer base by Twin
River and Oxford Casino.
Foxwoods received the greatest number of visitors from Massachusetts in 2012 (815,155), followed by
Connecticut (580,799), Rhode Island (175,125), New Hampshire (77,652), and Maine (52,944). Mohegan Sun
received the greatest number of visitors from Connecticut (750,090), followed by Massachusetts (723,511), Rhode
Island (94,120), Maine (35,962), and New Hampshire (33,002) (see Table 4).
The number of visitors to Foxwoods declined for each state from their respective baseline year - 15%
Connecticut, 34% Maine, 17% Massachusetts, 50% New Hampshire, and 24% Rhode Island – although the number
of visitors from Connecticut increased slightly over the past 2 years (see Table 4). Most significantly, Massachusetts
residents account for two-thirds (66%) of the decline in the number of visitors to Foxwoods from 2008 to 2012 and
28% of the decline in visitors to Mohegan Sun. In fact, the decline in the number of Massachusetts residents
visiting Foxwoods from 2008 to 2012 is greater than the decline in the number of visitors from the other four
states combined.
Declines in the number of visitors is likely a result of two factors; a still struggling economy coupled with the
addition/expansion of casino gambling venues located more conveniently to each state’s residents, for example,
Twin River for Massachusetts and Rhode Island residents, and Hollywood and Oxford Casinos for Maine
15
residents.
Table 4
Number of Visitors to Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun by State: 2006 to 2012
Foxwoods Resort Casino Mohegan Sun
% Change % Change
2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12 2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12
All Respondents 1,442,433 2,182,772 1,881,956 1,701,675 *-22% 807,091 2,085,218 1,758,029 1,636,685 *-22%
Connecticut NA 682,336 506,166 580,799 *-15% NA 960,325 871,310 750,090 *-22%
Maine 80,074 49,134 64,762 52,944 -34% 43,413 39,307 46,118 35,962 -17%
Massachusetts 976,579 1,133,564 1,008,734 815,155 -17% 567,779 850,173 637,596 723,511 27%
New Hampshire 154,862 95,667 90,774 77,652 -50% 66,767 105,233 70,708 33,002 -51%
Rhode Island 230,917 222,072 211,521 175,125 -24% 129,131 130,180 132,297 94,120 -27%
* Percent change 2008-2012 because Connecticut residents were not included in the 2006 survey.
13
This data measures the number of unique visitors regardless of the number of times they visited throughout the 12 month
period.
14
Comparisons to 2006 data are not presented for respondents overall because Connecticut residents were not included in the
2006 survey.
15
It is generally agreed upon that as a result of their locations, Mohegan Sun attracts more customers from the western
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey in comparison to Foxwoods, while Foxwoods draws a higher number of patrons from
eastern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. This is consistent with results from CFPA’s previous Gaming Behavior
Surveys and its annual Patron Origin Analysis.

16
2.14 Number of Visits Per Year to Foxwoods Resort Casino & Mohegan Sun by State
Residents from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island made approximately
5.9 million visits to Foxwoods and 6.5 million visits to Mohegan Sun Casino in 2012 (see Table 5). Visits to
Foxwoods declined by 30% from 2008 to 2012, while the number of visits to Mohegan Sun Casino declined by 11%
17
over this period.
Massachusetts residents continue to be Foxwoods’ primary feeder market, with its residents making over 3
million visits in 2012 (3,009,146). This is followed by Connecticut (2,213,307 visits), Rhode Island (631,904), New
Hampshire (138,904), and Maine (88,390). At Mohegan Sun, Connecticut residents made the most visits among the
five states surveyed (4,271,835 visits), followed by Massachusetts (2,018,450 visits), Rhode Island (291,641 visits),
Maine (72,543 visits), and New Hampshire (57,797 visits) (see Table 5).
Each facility experienced both a percentage and absolute decline in visits from residents of each state. At
Foxwoods, the number of visits from each state declined from their respective baseline year - 37% Connecticut
(2008 to 2012), 46% Maine, 37% Massachusetts, 61% New Hampshire, and 49% Rhode Island – although visitations
by Connecticut residents increased over the past 2 years. A similar decline for each state occurred at Mohegan
Sun - 3% Connecticut (2008 to 2012), 32% Maine, 2% Massachusetts, 48% New Hampshire, and 37% Rhode Island
(see Table 5).
In absolute numbers, from 2008 to 2012 Foxwoods experienced the largest decline in visitations from
Connecticut residents (-1,314,370 visits), followed by Massachusetts (-731,614 visits), Rhode Island (-303,107
visits), and New Hampshire (-18,946 visits), while visitations increased by 21,076 for Maine residents. In fact,
Connecticut accounted for more than half the decline in the number of visits to Foxwoods over this period (53%).
Visits to Mohegan Sun from 2008 to 2012 declined most significantly among Massachusetts residents
(-277,016 visits), followed by New Hampshire (-156,879 visits), Connecticut (-145,658 visits), and Rhode Island
(93,691 visits), while Mai ne posted a modest gain (+8,865 visits).
Table 5
Number of Visits to Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun by State: 2006 to 2012
% Change % Change
2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12 2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12
All Respondents 6,566,692 8,428,522 6,456,981 5,923,192 *-30% 2,744,286 7,376,646 7,462,266 6,533,154 *-11%
Connecticut NA 3,527,677 1,720,964 2,213,307 *-37% NA 4,417,493 4,896,764 4,271,835 *-3%
Maine 164,952 67,314 214,362 88,390 -46% 106,363 63,678 112,068 72,543 -32%
Massachusetts 4,804,770 3,740,760 3,137,163 3,009,146 -37% 2,066,714 2,295,466 1,931,916 2,018,450 -2%
New Hampshire 354,635 157,850 178,824 138,904 -61% 111,501 214,676 127,274 57,797 -48%
Rhode Island 1,242,336 934,921 1,205,668 631,904 -49% 459,708 385,332 394,244 291,641 -37%
* Percent change 2008-2012 because Connecticut residents were not included in the 2006 survey.
16
This data measures the total number of visits to these facilities, as opposed to the previous section that measured the
number of unique visitors.
17
Comparisons to 2006 data are not included for respondents overall because Connecticut residents were not included in the
2006 survey.

While the drop in visitations at both facilities is partly explained by a decline in the number of unique visitors
(see Table 4), the overall decline at Foxwoods is also a factor of patrons visiting less frequently; annual average
visits to Foxwoods among the five states is at its lowest level since 2006 (3.5 visits/year), while the average number
of visits has remained relatively stable at Mohegan Sun (see Table 6).
Table 6
Average Annual Number of Visits: 2006 to 2012
2006 2008 2010 2012 2006 2008 2010 2012

*All Respondents 4.9 3.9 4.1 3.5 3.5 4.1 4.0 4.0
*Connecticut NA 5.2 3.4 3.8 NA 4.6 5.6 5.7
Maine 2.1 1.4 3.3 1.7 2.5 1.6 2.4 2.0
Massachusetts 4.9 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.6 2.7 3.0 2.8
New Hampshire 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.8
Rhode Island 5.4 4.2 5.7 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.1
2.15 Frequency of Visitation to Foxwoods Resort Casino & Mohegan Sun by State
Most individuals among the five states surveyed visit Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun once or twice per year; 70%
of those who reported visiting Foxwoods in the last 12 months made only 1 trip (47%) or 2 trips (23%). Similarly,
69% of those who visited Mohegan Sun in the last 12 months made 1 trip (43%) or 2 trips (26%) (Table 7).
Table 7
Number of Trips Per Year to Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun, 2012
Foxwoods Mohegan Sun
1 Trip 2 Trips 3 Trips 4 Trips 5+ Trips 1 Trip 2 Trips 3 Trips 4 Trips 5+ Trips
All Respondents 47% 23% 9% 5% 16% 43% 26% 7% 5% 19%

Connecticut 51% 17% 3% 7% 23% 30% 26% 10% 6% 28%
Maine 68% 5% 24% 0% 3% 58% 19% 12% 0% 12%
Massachusetts 43% 30% 10% 3% 14% 49% 28% 3% 7% 13%
New Hampshire 56% 19% 23% 0% 3% 44% 40% 13% 3% 0%
Rhode Island 42% 25% 9% 7% 18% 56% 23% 5% 0% 16%

2.20 VISITS TO CASINOS OUTSIDE OF NEW ENGLAND
A small percentage of residents in the five states surveyed visited casinos in other jurisdictions within the last
12 months, including Atlantic City (2%), Las Vegas (4%), and other areas (3%) such as the Caribbean, Canada,
Puerto Rico, Europe, or a cruise ship (see Table 8).
Table 8
Percent Visited Casinos Outside of
New England Last 12 Months
Atlantic Other
City Las Vegas Areas
All Respondents 2% 4% 3%
Connecticut 3% 3% 3%
Maine 1% 2% 2%
Massachusetts 2% 5% 3%
New Hampshire 2% 4% 2%
Rhode Island 2% 3% 3%
18
2.30 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF VISITORS TO FOXWOODS AND MOHEGAN SUN
Respondents from each of the five states surveyed were asked to indicate their sex, age, educational
attainment, and annual family income. This analysis provides insight into the types of customers who visited
19
Connecticut’s casinos from these states in the last 12 months.
2.31 Sex
 There is a fifty-fifty split in the percentage of men and women who visited Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in
the last 12 months (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
Percent Visited Foxwoods Resort Casino or
Mohegan Sun in the Last Twelve Months by Sex, 2012
All Respondents 50% 50%
Connecticut 50% 50%
Maine 52% 48%
Massachusetts 53% 47%
New Hampshire 62% 38%
Rhode Island 43% 57%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Male Female
18
19
Note: Small number of respondents for Maine and New Hampshire. Conclusions should be made with caution for these states.

2.32 Age Cohort
The average age of visitors to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun from the five states surveyed are nearly identical;
46.5 years of age for Foxwoods and 46.6 years of age for Mohegan Sun. In addition:
 The percentage of visitors in each age group is fairly evenly distributed, with 28% of the visitors to
Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun Casino age 21 to 34, 29% age 35 to 49, 26% age 50 to 64, and
16% age 65 and older (see Figure 4).
 This result (and those supported by previous Gaming Behavior Surveys) dispels the argument among
some that Foxwoods’ and Mohegan Sun’s primary customers are seniors, when in fact Foxwoods and
Mohegan attract the lowest percentage of their customers from the 65 and older age group.
 The age ranges for the individual states are generally evenly distributed, although conclusions should be
made with caution for Maine and New Hampshire due to the low number of respondents. Again, it is
worth noting that residents age 65 and older from each state represent the casinos’ smallest customer
base.
Figure 4
Mohegan Sun in the Last Twelve Months by Age Group, 2012
All Respondents 28% 29% 26% 16%
Connecticut 26% 30% 30% 15%
Maine 19% 19% 43% 19%
Massachusetts 27% 31% 24% 17%
New Hampshire 30% 24% 33% 12%
Rhode Island 32% 30% 22% 16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
21 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 65 65+

2.33 Education
Visitors to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun from the five states surveyed possess a comparatively high level of
educational attainment:
 37% of visitors to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in the last 12 months held a bachelor’s degree or higher,
while 33% had some college experience or an Associate’s degree/technical certification, 28% had a high
school diploma, and only 3% had no high school diploma (see Figure 5).
 This result (and those supported by previous Gaming Behavior Surveys) dispels the argument among
some that Foxwoods’ and Mohegan Sun’s primary customers possess low levels of education, when in
fact, only 3% who visited either facility had less than a high school diploma. Conversely, more than a third
(37%) possess at least a Bachelor’s degree.
 The educational attainment levels for each state are also fairly evenly distributed, although conclusions
should be made with caution for Maine and New Hampshire due to the low number of respondents.
Figure 5
Mohegan Sun in the Last Twelve Months by Education, 2012
Connecticut 3% 22% 31% 43%
Maine 3% 28% 35% 35%
New Hampshire 0% 22% 51% 27%
Rhode Island 3% 35% 31% 32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Less than High School High School Only Some College/Associate's Bachelor's and Higher
Center for Policy Analysis - 10 -

2.34 Annual Family Income
Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have a comparatively affluent customer base with nearly half reporting annual
family incomes above $75,000:
 26% of visitors to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in the last 12 months had annual family incomes of less than
$45K, while 29% had incomes between $45K and $75K, 17% had incomes between $75K and $100K, 17%
had incomes between $100K and $50K, and 11% had incomes of $150K and higher (see Figure 6).
 When these results are combined into two income categories, 55% of visitors have annual family incomes
below $75K, while 45% have incomes above $75K (see Figure 7).
 Income distribution among the five states surveyed is also fairly evenly dispersed, although conclusions
should be made with caution for Maine and New Hampshire due to the low number of respondents.
Figure 6
Visited Foxwoods Resort Casino or Mohegan Sun
In the Last Twelve Months by Annual Family Income, 2012
All Respondents 26% 29% 17% 17% 11%
Connecticut 23% 28% 15% 22% 13%
Maine 26% 37% 19% 19% 0%
Massachusetts 25% 26% 24% 14% 10%
New Hampshire 7% 33% 30% 23% 7%
Rhode Island 34% 30% 11% 12% 13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
< $45K $45K to $75K $75K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K +
Figure 7
Visited Foxwoods Resort Casino or Mohegan Sun
In the Last Twelve Months by Annual Family Income, 2012
Connecticut 51% 50%
Maine 63% 37%
New Hampshire 40% 60%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
<$75K $75K+

2.40 PERCENTAGE WHO SPENT MONEY ON GAMBLING AND NON-GAMBLING ACTIVITIES
Respondents from the five states surveyed who reported they visited Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in the last 12
months were asked: “On your last visit to Foxwoods Resort Casino/Mohegan Sun did you spend money on any of
the following items? Food, hotel or lodging, retail purchases, other entertainment, gambling, spa, and golf –
yes/no.”
 Most visitors to Foxwoods (82%) and Mohegan Sun Casino (75%) gambled, although 18% of visitors to
Foxwoods and 25% of visitors to Mohegan Sun did not gamble (see Table 9). Nearly all visitors spent
money on food and beverages when they visited the casinos (92%), while smaller percentages spent
money on lodging, retail, other types of entertainment such as shows, dancing, and concerts, spa services,
20
and golf (see Table 9).
Table 9
Percent Patrons Spending By Category, 2012
Foxwoods Resort Casino
% Food % Lodging % Retail % Other % Gambling Spa Golf
All Respondents 92% 34% 30% 42% 82% 9% 4%

Connecticut 94% 29% 26% 47% 73% 8% 5%
Maine 95% 55% 43% 28% 94% 8% 0%
Massachusetts 91% 43% 34% 42% 91% 14% 5%
New Hampshire 92% 32% 16% 24% 87% 6% 9%
Rhode Island 90% 29% 31% 42% 79% 8% 4%
Mohegan Sun
% Food % Lodging % Retail % Other % Gambling Spa Golf
All Respondents 92% 24% 32% 47% 75% 6% NA

Connecticut 92% 22% 36% 51% 70% 4% NA
Maine 88% 23% 28% 29% 92% 16% NA
Massachusetts 92% 32% 28% 44% 82% 10% NA
New Hampshire 95% 39% 28% 29% 95% 15% NA
Rhode Island 90% 16% 28% 50% 68% 4% NA
Note: Small N for Maine and New Hampshire. Conclusions should be made with caution.
20
Mohegan Sun owns a golf course located about 15 miles from the casino. The course was closed for re-design and upgrades
in 2011 and reopened in spring of 2012.

The percentage of visitors from the five states surveyed who gambled at either Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun has
declined steadily since 2006 as each facility moves to increase visitor spending on non-gaming amenities. The most
salient result of this strategy is the declining percentage of visitors who gamble versus the rising percentage who
spend on food and beverages; from 2006 to 2012, spending on gambling declined at both Foxwoods and Mohegan
Sun by 17%, while spending on food and beverages at each facility increased by 21%. Spending on other items such
as shows, dancing, and concerts also trended upward (see Figure 8 and Figure 9).
Figure 8
Historical Spending By Category: Foxwoods Resort Casino
120%
% Spending Money By Category
100%
Gambling
80%
Food
60%
Retail
40% Lodging
20% Other
0%
2006 2008 2010 2012
Figure 9
Historical Spending By Category: Mohegan Sun Casino
100%
% Spending Money By Category
80%
Gambling
60%
Food
40% Retail
Lodging
20% Other
0%
2006 2008 2010 2012

2.50 GAMES PLAYED AT FOXWOODS AND MOHEGAN SUN
Respondents from the five states surveyed were asked which games they played when the visit Foxwoods and
21
Mohegan Sun in the past 12 months and which they play most often. Most visitors played slot machines at both
Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun (83%), while 38% of Foxwoods visitors and 39% of Mohegan Sun visitors played table
22
games. Smaller percentages played other games (see Figure 10).
Figure 10
Type of Played at Foxwoods Resort Casino or Mohegan Sun, 2012
100%
Foxwoods
83% 83%
Mohegan Sun
80%
60%
40% 38% 39%
20%
12%
6%
4% 2% 2.0% 2.0% 3% 1% 3%
NA
0%
Slots Table games Bingo Poker Racebook Keno Other
2.51 Primary Game Played
In terms of the game they primarily play, 64% of Foxwoods visitors and 70% of Mohegan Sun visitors from the
five states surveyed primarily play slots, while 24% of Foxwoods and 27% of Mohegan Sun visitors play table games
(see Figure 11).
Figure 11
Type of Game Primarily Played at Foxwoods Resort Casino or Mohegan Sun, 2012
80%
70% Foxwoods
64%
Mohegan Sun
60%
40%
27%
24%
20%
6%
3% NA
0% 0.8% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 0% 0%
0%
Slots Table games Bingo Poker Play all equally Racebook Keno
21
As noted earlier, 18% of Foxwoods visitors and 26% of Mohegan Sun visitors did not gamble in the last 12 months. These
respondents are not included in the data.
22
As of fall 2012, Mohegan Sun no longer offers Keno.

2.52 Primary Game Primarily Played by Demographic Background
The following data presents the percentage of visitors in the five states surveyed who primarily play slots or
table games at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun by their sex, age cohort, education, and income. Data is presented by
the percentage within each demographic group (the first table for each variable) and by the percentage within the
type of game played (the second table in each section).
Sex
A higher percentage of women (87%) report they primarily play slot machines at Foxwoods and
23
Mohegan Sun in comparison to men (58%). Conversely, a higher percentage of men (42%) report they
primarily play table in comparison to women (13%) (see Table 10).
Table 10
Game Primarily Played by Sex
Table
Slots Games Total

Male 58% 42% 100%
Female 87% 13% 100%
Among visitors who primarily play slots, 61% are female and 39% are male. Conversely, among table
games players, 75% are male and 25% are female (see Table 11).
Table 11
Type of Game Played By Sex
Table
Slots Games
Male 39% 75%

Female 61% 25%
Total 100% 100%
23
The percentages presented in this section are based on players who primarily play slots or table games and do not include
keno players, bingo players, etc. due to the small sample size for those games. Therefore, these percentages in these tables do
not equal the totals in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Age Cohort
The older the age cohort, the larger the percentage who report they primarily play slot machines at
Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun; age 21 to 34 = 59%, age 35 to 50 = 71%, age 50 to 64 = 79%, age 65 and
older = 88%. Conversely, table games are more popular among younger age cohorts; age 21 to 34 = 41%,
age 35 to 50 = 30%, age 50 to 64 = 21%, age 65 and older = 12% (see Table 12).
Table 12
Game Primarily Played by Age Cohort
Table
Slots Games Total

21 to 34 59% 41% 100%
35 to 50 71% 30% 100%
50 to 64 79% 21% 100%
65+ 88% 12% 100%
Among visitors who primarily play slots, 23% are age 21 to 34, 27% are age 35 to 50, 30% are age 50
to 64, and 21% are 65 years of age and older. Forty-two percent (42%) of table games players are under
the age of 35 and 72% are under the age of 50 (see Table 13).
Table 13
Type of Game Played
By Age Cohort
Table
Slots Games
21 to 34 23% 42%
35 to 50 27% 30%
50 to 64 30% 21%
65+ 21% 7%
Total 100% 100%

Education
The percentage of visitors who primarily play slot machines is somewhat evenly distributed among
education levels, although those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (69%) are least likely to play slot
machines. Conversely, this group is most likely to play table games (see Table 14).
Table 14
Game Primarily Played by Education
Table
Slots Games Total

< High School 75% 25% 100%
High School Only 75% 25% 100%
Some College/Assoc. 77% 23% 100%
Bachelor's + 69% 32% 100%
Among visitors who primarily play slots, 3% have less than a high school diploma, 29% have a high
school diploma only, 34% have some college/Associate’s degree, and 34% have a Bachelor’s or higher.
Table games are primarily played by respondents with higher levels of education; 43% of table games
players have a Bachelor’s or higher, compared to only 30% who have a high school diploma or lower (see
Table 15).
Table 15
Type of Game Played By Education
Table
Slots Games
< High School 3% 3%

High School Only 29% 27%
Some College/Assoc. 34% 28%
Bachelor's + 34% 43%
Total 100% 100%

Annual Family Income
Visitors from all income levels report they primarily play slot machines, although those with lower
incomes are more likely to play slots than those with higher incomes. Conversely, respondents with higher
income levels are more likely to play table games (see Table 16).
Table 16
Game Primarily Played by Annual Family Income
Table
Slots Games Total

< $45K 76% 24% 100%
$45K to $75K 78% 22% 100%
$75K to $100K 68% 32% 100%
$100K to $150K 71% 29% 100%
$150K + 65% 35% 100%
Among visitors who primarily play slots, 26% have annual average income below $45K, 34% between
$45K and $75K, 17% between $75K and $100K, 14% between $100K and $150K, and 9% over $150K.
Among table games players, 23% have annual average income below $45K, 26% between $45K and $75K,
22% between $75K and $100K, 16% between $100K and $150K, and 13% over $150K (see Table 17).
Table 17
Type of Game Played
By Annual Family Income
Table
Slots Games
< $45K 26% 23%

$45K to $75K 34% 26%
$75K to $100K 17% 22%
$100K to $150K 14% 16%
$150K + 9% 13%
Total 100% 100%

3.00 RHODE ISLAND: TWIN RIVER CASINO AND NEWPORT GRAND SLOTS
Twin River is located in Lincoln, Rhode Island off Route 146, approximately 10 minutes north of Providence.
The former Lincoln Greyhound Park underwent a $220 million expansion in 2007, rebranded itself Twin River, and
brought the facility’s total gaming space to 300,000 square feet. Twin River is now the fifth largest gaming facility
in the United States in terms of slot positions, with 4,751 video lottery terminals (VLTs). The Twin River expansion
also added several new restaurants, a bar and lounge, a comedy club, a 2,000-seat entertainment arena, and
virtual table games.
Table games were authorized by a statewide and local vote in November 2012 and are expected to be
operational by July 2013. Twin River successfully slowed down the flow of gamblers from Rhode Island and
Massachusetts to Connecticut’s casinos, but it remains primarily a convenience gambling facility that attracts local
gamblers from Rhode Island, southeastern Massachusetts, and central Massachusetts. Twin River no longer offers
live greyhound racing although it continues to offer simulcast racing.
Newport Grand Slots is located in Newport, Rhode Island. The facility no longer offers live jai-alai, but
simulcasts jai-alai games along with thoroughbred, harness, and greyhound racing. Newport Grand contains
approximately 1,100 video lottery terminals, a restaurant, a buffet, and an event center. Although table games
were approved by Rhode Island voters in November 2013, the vote did not muster the required majority of
Newport residents and therefore the facility will remain a slots-only facility for the foreseeable future.
24
Eight percent (8%) of residents in the five states surveyed report having visited Twin River or Newport Grand
at least once during the previous 12 months. Rhode Islanders report the highest percentage of visitation, with 21%
of Ocean Staters having visited one or both of these facilities in the last 12 months, followed by Massachusetts
(8%), New Hampshire (0.8%), Connecticut (0.5%), and Maine (0.5%) (see Figure 12).
Overall, the percentage who visited Twin River or Newport Grand remained relatively consistent from 2006 to
2012, with 8% of respondents from both years reporting they visited one or both of the facilities. On a statewide
level, the percentage of Massachusetts residents who gambled at either facility doubled from 2006 to 2012 (from
4% to 8%), while the percentage of Rhode Islanders who visited increased by 4 percentage points over this period
(see Figure 12).
Figure 12
Visited Twin River Casino and/or Newport
Grand Slots in the Last 12 Months: 2006 to 2012
30%
23%
25%
21% 21%
20%
17%
15%
10%
9%
10% 8% 8% 7% 8%
5%
5% 4%
2%
2%
0.5%
0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1% 1% 0.8%
NA 0.2%
0%
All Respondents Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island
2006 2008 2010 2012
24
Respondents age 18 and older.

3.12 Historical Visitation Patterns by Facility
Eight percent (8%) of residents in the five states surveyed visited Twin River at least once during the previous
12 months, the same percentage as in 2008. Two percent (2%) of residents visited Newport Grand in the last 12
25
months, which also remained unchanged over this period (see Table 18).
Twin River and Newport Grand primarily draw their customers from Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Twenty
percent (20%) of Rhode Islanders visited Twin River in the last 12 months, a 6 percentage point increase from
2006, while 8% of Massachusetts residents visited the facility, an increase of 5 percentage points from 2006. Only
small percentages of residents visited Twin River from other states (see Table 18).
Newport Grand draws a much smaller number of visitors in comparison to Twin River due to its smaller size,
fewer number of gaming machines, and its relatively isolated location on Aquidneck Island. Five percent (5%) of
Rhode Islanders visited Newport Grand in the last 12 months, the same percentage as in 2006, while only small
percentages of residents visited Newport Grand from other states (see Table 18).
Table 18
Percent Visited Twin River Casino or Newport Grand Slots By State: 2006 to 2012
% Visited Twin River Casino % Visited Newport Grand Slots
% Change % Change
2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12 2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12
All Respondents 7% 8% 8% 8% *-1% 2% 2% 2% 2% *0%
Connecticut NA 2% 1% 0.8% *-1.2% NA 1% 1% 0.3% *-0.7%
Maine 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% -0.2%
Massachusetts 3% 5% 7% 8% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
New Hampshire 0.5% 1% 1% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Rhode Island 14% 21% 22% 20% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0%
* Percent change 2008-2012 because Connecticut was not included in the 2006 survey.
25
2006 survey.

26
In 2012, approximately 580,000 New Englanders from the five states surveyed visited Twin River and
27
approximately 115,000 visited Newport Grand. The number of visitors to Twin River increased by 24% from 2008
28
to 2012, while the number of visitors to Newport Grand decreased by 0.4% (see Table 19).
Twin River received the greatest number of visitors from Massachusetts in 2012 (385,348), followed by Rhode
Island (161,726), Connecticut (22,065), New Hampshire (8,250), and Maine (5,274). Newport Grand received its
greatest number of visitors from Massachusetts (66,794), followed by Rhode Island (39,809) and Connecticut
29
(8,274) (see Table 19). Similarly, Newport Grand received the greatest number of visitors from Massachusetts in
2012 (66,794), followed by Rhode Island (39,809), and Connecticut (8,274). Since 2006, the number of
Massachusetts visitors to Newport Grand increased by 41%, while the number of visitors from Rhode Island
declined by 3% (see Table 19).
Much of the attendance growth at Twin River since its expansion in 2007 is fueled by Massachusetts residents,
a state which posted a 154% increase in the number visitors from 2006 to 2012, or 233,918 additional unique
visitors. In fact, from 2008 to 2012 the total number of visitors from Massachusetts increased by 149,519, while
the number of visitors from the other four states combined actually declined by 38,058. Thus, one might argue that
the success of Twin River, despite being located in Rhode Island, is more dependent on Bay State residents than
Ocean Staters.
Table 19
Number of Visitors to Twin River and Newport Grand Slots by State: 2006 to 2012
Twin River Casino Newport Grand Slots
% Change % Change
2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12 2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12
All Respondents 268,963 471,202 579,874 582,662 *24% 90,330 115,302 107,877 114,877 *0.4%
Connecticut NA 42,932 37,413 22,065 *-49% NA 16,100 16,034 8,274 *-49%
Maine 2,015 2,075 4,147 5,274 162% 2,015 - 1,037 - 0%
Massachusetts 151,430 235,829 354,288 385,348 154% 47,322 55,194 45,551 66,794 41%
New Hampshire 4,363 14,241 6,103 8,250 89% - 2,034 4,069 - 0%
Rhode Island 111,155 176,124 177,923 161,726 45% 40,933 41,974 41,186 39,809 -3%
Data includes visitors 18 years of age and older.
26
This data measures the number of unique visitors to these facilities regardless of the actual number of time they visit.
27
28
2006 survey.
29
Because Twin River and Newport Grand are convenience gambling facilities without hotels, table games, and other amenities
characteristic of a destination resort casino, the facilities draw few visitors from outside of the New England area. For example,
CFPA’s 2012 Patron Origin Analysis estimates that only 1.0% of visitors to Twin River and 2.3% of visitors to Newport Grand are
from outside the five states surveyed.

3.14 Number of Visits Per Year to Twin River and Newport Grand by State30
Residents from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island made approximately
3.1 million visits to Twin River and 371,436 visits to Newport Grand in 2012. Visits to Twin River increased by 65%
31
from 2008 to 2012, while visits to Newport Grand declined by 52% over this period (see Table 20). Massachusetts
residents continue to be Twin River’s primary customer, with its residents making over 2 million visits in 2012
(2,123,961). This is followed by Rhode Island (886,905 visits), Connecticut (88,637 visits), New Hampshire (22,766
visits), and Maine (10,547 visits). At Newport Grand, Rhode Island residents made the most visits among the five
states surveyed (204,313), followed by Massachusetts (158,849), and Connecticut (8,274 visits) (see Table 20).
Twin River experienced both a percentage and absolute increase in visitations from residents in each state
from their respective baseline year - 29% Connecticut (2008 to 2012), 423% Maine, 261% Massachusetts, 422%
New Hampshire, and 2% Rhode Island – although visitations by Rhode Island residents declined over the past two
years. Thus, despite its Rhode Island location, visits by that state’s residents continue to represent a declining
share of overall visits to Twin River.
At Newport Grand, Massachusetts residents posted the only percentage increase in visits from 2006 (18%),
although the number of visits from Bay Staters has declined steadily since 2008 (-58%). The number of visits from
Rhode Islanders declined by 37% from 2006 to 2012 and declined by more than 19% since 2010 (see Table 20). The
decline in visits over this period is primarily a result of Rhode Islanders visiting Newport Grand less often during the
12 month period.
In absolute terms, from 2008 to 2012 Twin River experienced the largest increase in visitations from
Massachusetts residents (+1,510,804 visits), followed by Connecticut (+19,946 visits), New Hampshire (+8,525
visits), and Maine (+8,472 visits), while visitations by Rhode Islanders declined by 310,741. Visits to Newport Grand
from 2008 to 2012 declined most significantly among Massachusetts residents (-221,990 visits), followed by Rhode
Island (-110,489), and Connecticut (-60,954 visits).
Table 20
Number of Visits to Twin River Casino and Newport Grand Slots by State: 2006 to 2012
% Change % Change
2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12 2006 2008 2010 2012 06-12
*All Respondents 1,467,763 1,895,810 3,192,808 3,132,816 *65% 462,852 766,904 474,617 371,436 *-52%
*Connecticut NA 68,691 139,177 88,637 *29% NA 69,228 32,229 8,274 *-88%
Maine 2,015 2,075 6,635 10,547 423% 4,030 - - - -100%
Massachusetts 588,414 613,157 1,852,924 2,123,961 261% 134,079 380,839 185,849 158,849 18%
New Hampshire 4,363 14,241 7,324 22,766 422% - 2,034 4,069 - 0%
Rhode Island 872,971 1,197,646 1,186,748 886,905 2% 324,743 314,802 252,470 204,313 -37%
Data includes visitors 18 years of age and older.
30
This data measures the total number of visits to these facilities, as opposed to the previous section that measures the
number of unique visitors.
31
Comparisons to 2006 data are not included for respondents overall because Connecticut residents were not included in the
2006 survey.

3.15 Number of Trips Per Year to Twin River and Newport Grand by State
Thirty-five percent (35%) of residents in the five states surveyed who visited Twin River in the last 12 months
visited only one time, while 71% visited four times or less (see Table 21). A larger percentage (30%) of Twin River
patrons report visiting the racino five or more times per year in comparison to visitors to Connecticut’s resort
casinos (Twin River=30%, Foxwoods=16%, Mohegan Sun=19%) primarily because Twin River is a convenience
gambling facility that draws its customers from a shorter drive time. Twin River is also proximate to major
population centers, whereas Connecticut’s resort casinos are located in less populated suburban areas.
Sixty percent (60%) of the individuals who reported visiting Newport Grand Slots in the last 12 months visited
only one time, while 19% visited five times of more (Table 21).
Table 21
Number of Trips Per Year to Twin River Casino and Newport Grand Slots By State
1 Time 2 Times 3 Times 4 Times 5+ Times 1 Time 2 Times 3 Times 4 Times 5+ Times
All Respondents 35% 21% 9% 6% 30% 60% 14% 4% 3% 19%

Connecticut 87% 0% 0% 0% 13% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Maine 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Massachusetts 34% 32% 3% 3% 28% 60% 12% 5% 0% 23%
New Hampshire 0% 54% 32% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Rhode Island 35% 16% 11% 8% 31% 58% 15% 4% 4% 18%
Note: Small number of respondents for Newport Grand Slots by state. Conclusions should be made with caution.

32
3.20 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF VISITORS TO TWIN RIVER AND NEWPORT GRAND
Respondents from each of the five states surveyed were asked to indicate their sex, age, educational
attainment, and annual family income. This analysis provides insight into the types of customers who visited Rhode
Island’s racinos in the last 12 months. Data is presented on the statewide level only for Massachusetts and Rhode
Island due to the small number of respondents for the other states surveyed.
3.21 Sex
Fifty-four percent (54%) of visitors to Twin River and Newport Grand from the five states surveyed are women
and 46% are men. These facilities attract a higher percentage of women from both Massachusetts (52% women –
48% men) and Rhode Island (56% women – 44% men) (see Figure 13).
Figure 13
Visited Twin River Casino or
Newport Grand Slots in the Last Twelve Months by Sex
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Male Female
3.22 Age Cohort
The largest percentages of visitors to Twin River and Newport Grand from the five states surveyed are in the
younger age cohorts; 28% 18 to 34 years of age, 29% 35 to 49 years of age, 23% 50 to 65 years of age, and 20%
over the age of 65 (see Figure 14).
Figure 14
Visited Twin River Casino or Newport Grand
Slots in the Last Twelve Months by Age Cohort
Rhode Island 27% 31% 24% 17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
18 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65+
32

3.23 Education
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of visitors to Twin River and Newport Grand in the last 12 months have moderate
levels of education – a high school diploma (34%) or some college/Associate’s degree (37%). Twenty-six percent
(26%) have a Bachelor’s degree or higher, while only 3% have less than a high school diploma (see Figure 15).
Figure 15
Visited Twin River Casino or Newport Grand
Slots in the Last Twelve Months by Education
Rhode Island 3% 33% 40% 25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Less than High School High School Only Some College/Associate's Bachelor's and Higher
3.24 Twin River/Newport Grand Visitors by Annual Family Income, 2012
Just over one third (34%) of visitors to Twin River or Newport Grand in the last 12 months have annual family
incomes below $45K, while 30% have incomes between $45K and $75K, 19% have incomes between $100K and
$150K, and 7% have incomes of $150K or greater (see Figure 16).
Figure 16
Visited Twin River Casino or Newport Grand Slots
in the Last Twelve Months by Family Income
All Respondents 34% 30% 19% 11% 7%
Massachusetts 15% 36% 26% 13% 9%
Rhode Island 43% 27% 15% 9% 7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

< $45K $45K to $75K $75K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K +

3.30 PERCENTAGE WHO SPENT MONEY ON GAMBLING AND NON-GAMBLING ACTIVITIES
Respondents from the five states surveyed who reported they visited Twin River or Newport Grand in the last
12 months were asked: “On your last visit to Twin River/Newport Grand did you spend money on any of the
following items? Food, hotel or lodging, retail purchases, other entertainment, and gambling – yes/no.”
Most visitors to Twin River (84%) and Newport Grand (93%) in the last 12 months gambled, although 16% of
those who visited Twin River and 7% of those who visited Newport Grand did not gamble (see Table 22). The
percentage of visitors to Twin River who gambled decreased from 95% in 2006 to 84% in 2012, which is a reflection
of the facility’s expanding non-gaming offerings such as shows, concerts, and restaurants. Conversely, the
percentage of visitors to Newport Grand Slots who gambled increased from 90% in 2006 to 93% in 2012 (see Table
33
22).
A large percentage of Twin River’s visitors spent money on food (81%), but very few spent money on lodging
34
(3%) and retail (7%) during their visits to the racino, although 30% spent money on other entertainment when
they visited. At Newport Grand, 84% spent money on food, while 0% spend on lodging, 15% spent on retail, and
26% spent on other items when they visited (see Table 22).
Table 22
Percent Patrons Who Spent Money By Category
Food Lodging Retail Other Gambling Food Lodging Retail Other Gambling
All Respondents 81% 3% 7% 30% 84% 84% 0% 15% 26% 93%

Massachusetts 83% 5% 8% 12% 87% 90% 0% 0% 8% 100%
Rhode Island 80% 2% 7% 37% 83% 85% 0% 18% 31% 92%
33
Data not presented for Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire due to the small numbers of respondents.
34
Neither Twin River or Newport Grand have an on-site hotel.

4.00 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE RESORT CASINO MARKET AND THE CONVENIENCE GAMBLING (SLOT
PARLOR/RACINO) MARKET
4.10 IMPORTANCE OF AMENITIES
The availability of table games, numerous non-gambling amenities, the physical attractiveness of the
facilities, and the general atmosphere of the facilities continue to differentiate New England’s resort casino market
from the convenience gambling market. For example:
 78% of visitors to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun from the five states surveyed did not visit Twin River or
Newport Grand in the last 12 months despite the closer proximity of these facilities to respondents’
homes in most cases (see Table 23). This ratio has essentially not changed since the Gaming Behavior
Survey first measured this differentiation in 2006.
Table 23
Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun Patrons Who

Visited Twin River or Newport Grand
2006 2008 2010 2012
Visited Twin River or Newport 23% 24% 23% 22%

Did Not Visit Twin River or Newport 77% 76% 77% 78%
 Conversely, 65% of respondents from the five states surveyed who visited Twin River or Newport Grand in
the last 12 months also visited Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, even though these facilities are often a farther
drive than the racinos (see Table 24).
Table 24
Twin River/Newport Grand Patrons

Who Visited Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun
2006 2008 2010 2012
Visited Foxwoods or Mohegan 72% 73% 65% 65%

Did Not Visit Foxwoods or Mohegan 28% 27% 35% 35%

4.20 IMPORTANCE OF DRIVE TIME
Casino gamblers will travel farther to access the amenities of a resort, while racino/slot parlor gamblers are
attracted primarily by convenience, that is, the distance they must drive to reach a facility.
In the case of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun:
 74% of visitors to Foxwoods from the five states surveyed traveled more than an hour to reach the casino,
while 27% traveled more than 90 minutes (see Figure 17). Sixty-nine percent (69%) of visitors to Mohegan
Sun from the five states surveyed traveled more than an hour to reach the casino, while 24% traveled
more than 90 minutes (see Figure 18).
In the case of Twin River and Newport Grand:
 89% of visitors to Twin River from the five states surveyed traveled an hour or less to reach the racino and
68% traveled 30 minutes or less. Only 11% traveled more than an hour (see Figure 19). Ninety percent
(90%) of visitors to Newport Grand from the five states surveyed traveled an hour or less to reach the
racino and 27% traveled 30 minutes or less. Only 10% traveled more than an hour to reach the facility
(see Figure 20).
Figure 17 Figure 18
Foxwoods Visitor Travel Time Mohegan Sun Visitor Travel Time
2%
12% 9% 7%
24%
1 to 30 minutes 1 to 30 minutes
15%
15% 31 to 60 minutes 24% 31 to 60 minutes
61 to 90 minutes
61 to 90 minutes
91 to 120 minutes
91 to 120 minutes
> 2 hours
> 2 hours
47% 46%
Figure 19 Figure 20
Twin River Visitor Travel Time Newport Grand Visitor Travel Time
1% 0%
3% 3%
7%
7%
27%
22%
> 2 hours > 2 hours
68%
64%

5.00 MAINE: HOLLYWOOD CASINO AND OXFORD CASINO
Hollywood Casino Bangor, which is owned and operated by Penn National Gaming, Inc., operates a full-fledged
35
casino with approximately 925 slots and 16 table games. Penn National originally planned to construct a $90
million slots facility on its 8-acre site, but due to higher than expected demand in its temporary Main Street facility
that opened in 2005, the company announced plans for a $131 million upscale racino that would include a hotel
and additional dining outlets. The construction of the facility was started in the summer of 2007 and was opened
as Hollywood Slots in July of 2008. In November, 2011 the residents of Penobscot County voted to authorize table
games at the facility and in March, 2012 the renamed Hollywood Casino Bangor opened its first table games.
In a statewide referendum in November, 2010 Maine’s voters narrowly approved a $160 million resort casino
for Oxford, Maine, which became the state’s second Class III gaming venue when it opened in June, 2012. The
facility originally housed about 500 slot machines and 12 table games but has already expanded its gaming floor to
include approximately 800 slot machines, 22 table games, and additional office, warehouse, and parking space.
36
Maine’s gaming facilities are more isolated and exist within smaller population centers in comparison to New
England’s other gaming facilities, thus the Maine gaming market consists primarily of in-state and New Hampshire
residents. The facilities also strive to attract out-of-state tourists, including Canadian visitors.
About two percent (1.9%) of residents in the five states surveyed visited Hollywood Casino in the last 12
months, an increase of 0.8 percentage points from 2008. Just over one percent (1.3%) visited Oxford Casino (see
Table 25). Over eleven percent (11.5%) of Maine’s adult residents visited Hollywood Casino at least once in the last
12 months, an increase from 8.8% in 2008 but a decline from 19.3% in 2010. The decline is primarily a result of
competition from Oxford Casino, with 8.4% of Maine residents visiting Oxford Casino despite it only being open for
37
about 7 months in 2012.
A much smaller percentage of residents from other states visited Hollywood Casino; 0.2% Connecticut, 0.6%
Massachusetts, 0.8% New Hampshire, and 0.2% Rhode Island. Similarly, only small percentages of residents from
other states visited Oxford Casino; 0.2% Connecticut, 0.0% Massachusetts, 0.8% New Hampshire, and 0.2% Rhode
Island (see Table 25).
Table 25
Percent Visited Hollywood Casino & Oxford Casino By State
Oxford
Hollywood Casino Casino
% Change
2008 2010 2012 08-12 2012
All Respondents 1.1% 2.1% 1.9% 0.8% 1.3%
Connecticut 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
Maine 8.8% 19.3% 11.5% 2.7% 8.4%
Massachusetts 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0%
New Hampshire 0.5% 1.3% 1.0% 0.5% 7.7%
Rhode Island 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
35
The state gaming license allows both Hollywood Casino and Oxford Casino to operate up to 1,500 slot machines.
36
Respondents 21 years of age and older.
37
One advantage Oxford Casino has over Hollywood Casino is that is located closer to the state’s largest population centers and
to New Hampshire.

38
It is estimated that nearly 160,000 visitors made at least one trip to Hollywood Casino in the last 12 months,
an increase of 55% from 2008 but a decline of 23% from 2010. Seventy-two percent (72%) of the visitors to
Hollywood Casino in 2012 were Maine residents (114,879 visitors), followed by Massachusetts (28,940 visitors),
39
New Hampshire (9,707 visitors), Connecticut (5,209 visitors), and Rhode Island (771 visitors) (see Table 26).
Nearly 164,000 visitors made at least one trip to Oxford Casino in the last 12 months. Among the five states
surveyed, 51% of the visitors to Hollywood Casino were Maine residents (83,912 visitors), followed by New
Hampshire (74,740 visitors), and Connecticut (5,209 visitors).
Table 26
Number of Visitors to Hollywood Casino and Oxford Casino By State
Oxford
Hollywood Casino Casino
% Change
2008 2010 2012 08-12 2012
All Respondents 103,232 207,141 159,506 55% 163,861
Connecticut 2,527 - 5,209 106% 5,209
Maine 86,476 189,093 114,879 33% 83,912
Massachusetts 9,446 4,203 28,940 206% -
New Hampshire 4,783 12,250 9,707 103% 74,740
Rhode Island - 1,594 771 NA -
38
This data measures the number of unique visitors to these facilities regardless of the actual number of time they visit. Data
that measures the total number of visits is not included because of the small number of respondents.
39
An analysis of the total number of visits is not included due to the small sample size for both Hollywood Casino and Oxford
Casino.

5.20 TRAVEL TIME
A quarter (25%) of the visitors to Hollywood Casino from the five states surveyed traveled 60 minutes or less
to reach the facility and 14% traveled 30 minutes or less. Three-in-four (75%) traveled more than an hour to visit
the facility (see Figure 21). Twenty-two percent (22%) of visitors to Oxford Casino from the five states surveyed
traveled 60 minutes or less to reach the racino and 13% traveled 30 minutes or less. Seventy-eight percent (78%)
of visitors traveled more than an hour (see Figure 22).
Figure 21 Figure 22
Hollywood Casino Visitor Travel Time Oxford Casino Visitor Travel Time
14% 13%
1 to 30 minutes 33% 1 to 30 minutes

9%
11% 31 to 60 minutes 31 to 60 minutes
46% 61 to 90 minutes 61 to 90 minutes
> 2 hours
16% > 2 hours
15%
14%
29%

5.30 CROSS-VISITATION
There is some cross-vitiation between Hollywood Casino and Oxford Casino. Among visitors to Hollywood
Casino from the five states surveyed, 17% also visited Oxford Casino in the past 12 months (see Table 27). Among
40
Oxford Casino visitors, 26% also visited Hollywood Casino (see Table 27).
Table 27
Hollywood Visitors Who Have
Visited Oxford Casino In Last 12 Months
Percent
Visited Oxford 17%

Did Not Visit Oxford 83%
Table 28
Oxford Visitors Who Have Visited

Hollywood Slots In Last 12 Months
Percent
Visited Hollwood Casino 26%

Did Not Visit Hollywood Casino 74%
40
Importantly, Oxford Casino was only open for about 7 months in 2012.

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
Overview
The 4th New England Gaming Behavior Survey was conducted from January 3, 2012 through January 22, 2013
using a questionnaire developed by research staff at the Center for Policy Analysis (see Appendix B). CFPA utilized
an overlapping dual-frame survey design; separate landline and cell phone projects that are subsequently
combined into one data file.
The survey generated a total of 3,035 respondents distributed among the five New England states included in
the survey (see Table 29). Within each state, 70% of respondents were interviewed on landlines and 30% were
interviewed via cellphone. The average interview length was 3.7 minutes for the landline survey and 3.9 minutes
for the cell phone survey. The overall response rate for the survey is 15.6% (AAPOR#4).
Table 29
Sample Size & Margin of Error
# % Total
State Respondents Sample MoE
Total 3,035 100.0% +/- 1.78%

Connecticut 601 19.8% +/- 4.00%
Maine 416 13.7% +/- 4.80%
Massachusetts 801 26.4% +/- 3.46%
New Hampshire 415 13.7% +/- 4.81%
Rhode Island 802 26.4% +/- 3.46%
Conducting the Interviews
The Center for Policy Analysis uses Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing, or CATI, to conduct telephone
surveys. Specifically, the Center for Policy Analysis uses WinCATI software from Sawtooth Technologies, which is
one of the most widely used CATI systems in the world.
Interviews were conducted between 3:00 pm and 8:00 pm on weekdays, 10:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturday,
and 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm on Sunday. Households are also called at least once during the morning or early
afternoon hours. This range of hours provides the interviewers with an opportunity to contact hard to reach
respondents, a procedure crucial to producing high quality survey data. Return calls are scheduled at the
convenience of the respondents.
Each telephone number was dialed a minimum of five times, unless the number called received a final status
(e.g. complete, refusal, business, etc.). The interviewer allowed each number ring up to eight times before hanging
up and no messages were left on answering machines. Surveys were conducted in Spanish or Portuguese when
appropriate. The Center’s senior staff continually monitored the progress of interview outcomes to prevent
problem cases that could interfere with the integrity of survey procedures. Twenty test interviews were conducted
with both the landline and telephone samples before full implementation of the survey began.

Sample
Both the landline and cell phone samples are drawn from random-digit dial (RDD) samples. The Center for
Policy Analysis uses the Genesys Sampling System from Marketing Systems Group to generate the RDD sample,
which is one of the survey research industry’s preferred sampling companies (see http://www.m-s-
g.com/web/genesys/index.aspx). The system uses a list of all possible telephone numbers in the United States to
randomly generate a telephone sample for a designated geographic area. The RDD sample ensures an equal and
known probability of selection for every residential telephone number in the sample frame.
Respondent Selection
The survey was administered to persons age 18 and older who lived in the study area. The landline survey
used the “most recent birthday” method of selecting a respondent in each household; the interviewer requests the
adult who had the last birthday and if this is the person on the phone the interview begins. If not, the telephone is
handed off to the person with the latest birthday, unless that person is not available. A callback is then scheduled.
For cell phones, it is assumed that the adult reached is the owner of that cell phone and no screen is used.
Weighting
Weights are adjustments that are made to ensure that the data is representative of the actual population of
the study area. Weighting also accounts for the probability of being selected into the sample. The dual-frame RDD
survey uses two types of weights: a design weight (or pre-weight) and a post-stratification weight. The design
weight takes into account the number of adults in a household and the number of landline telephone numbers at
which adults in the household can be reached in order to equalize the chances of an individual in the study area
being selected.
Further, since separate samples of people with landlines and cell phones are used, a multiplicity adjustment is
needed to account for the overlap in the two samples because some households have both landlines and cells
phones. Design-weights computed for the dual frame approach use the mixing parameter λ, where λ is equal to
the proportion of frame overlap. Frame overlap for the Gaming Behavior Survey is 70% landline and 30% cell,
therefore λ is set at 0.7 and 0.3:
41
Landline design-weight = #Adults/#Landlines x λ dual
Cell Phone design-weight dual Frame = 1 x (1-λ) dual
A postratification weight is then applied to adjust for non-response. In this sample, females and older
respondents are over-represented. Weighting the data allocates more weight to groups that are under-
represented (e.g. younger males), while providing less weight to groups that are over-represented (e.g. older
females). The postratification weights applied are based on sex and age data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2010
STF1 file). The age categories are 18-29, 30-49, 50-64, 65 and older.
41
The exponent dual is set to 0 when the frames do not overlap and 1 when they do.

Who funds the New England Gaming Research Project?
The New England Gaming Research Project is funded entirely by the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, including all research expenses and the salaries and wages of all individuals participating in the
research project.
About the Center for Policy Analysis
The Center for Policy Analysis is a multidisciplinary research unit of the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth. Its mission is to promote economic, social, and political development by providing research and
technical assistance to client organizations. The Center for Policy Analysis offers custom designed research and
technical analysis in the areas of economic development, public management, program evaluation and public
opinion research for government agencies, non-profit organizations, private businesses, and educational
institutions. The Center for Policy Analysis has completed more than 300 research projects for various groups and
agencies since 1992.
For more information about the Center for Policy Analysis and its work, go to http://www.umassd.edu/
seppce/centers/cfpa/.

APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
<INTRO>
Hi, my name is _________ and I’m calling from UMass Dartmouth. How are you today? We are conducting
an important survey on casino gaming in New England. The survey should take about five minutes to complete and
your opinions are very important. Let me assure you that all your responses are completely confidential - we do
not have any information about you other than your telephone number.
[INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT SAYS THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY OR
SEEMS READY TO END THE INTERVIEW, READ:
“Your opinions on this issue are very important, even if you do not gamble, and we’d like to give you an
opportunity to make your opinions heard. Are you sure you do not have just a few minutes to complete
the survey?”]
1. Can I confirm that you are a resident of <STATE>? <state>
1 Resident of state
2 Not a resident [INTERVIEWER READ: “SORRY, BUT WE ARE ONLY INTERVIEWING <STATE> RESIDENTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.”] (SKP END)
99 Refused (SKP END)
ASK CELL PHONE SAMPLE:
Cell1. First, to confirm, have I reached you on your cell phone? <cell1>
1 Cell Phone
2 Land line [INTERVIEWER READ: “SORRY, BUT WE ARE ONLY INTERVIEWING INDIVIDUALS ON CELL
PHONES.”] (SKP END)
99 Refused [INTERVIEWER READ: “SORRY, BUT WE ARE ONLY INTERVIEWING INDIVIDUALS ON CELL
PHONES.”] (SKP END)
Cell2. Are you currently driving a car of doing any activity that requires your full attention? <cell2>
1 Yes [INTERVIEWER READ: “CAN I CALL BACK AT A LATER TIME?”] MAKE APPOINTMENT
2 No
99 Refused [INTERVIEWER READ: “CAN I CALL BACK AT A LATER TIME?”] MAKE APPOINTMENT
Cell3. And are you 18 years old or older? <cell3>
1 Yes (SKP Q6)

2 No [INTERVIEWER READ: “THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BUT WE ARE ONLY INTERVIWEING ADULTS 18
YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER.”] (SKP END)
99 Refusal [INTERVIEWER READ: “THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BUT WE ARE ONLY INTERVIWEING ADULTS
18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER.”] (SKP END)

ASK LANDLINE SAMPLE:
Q2. And since we need to ensure that every resident has an equal chance of participating, may I please speak
with the adult living in your household aged 18 or older—including yourself—who had the most recent
birthday? I don't mean who is the youngest, but rather, who had the most recent birthday. <bday>
1 Current Respondent (SKP Q6)

2 Someone else: Ask to speak to that person (DISPLAY INTRO THEN SKP Q4)
3 Person with most recent birthday not available [SCHEDULE CALLBACK]
4 Don’t know all birthdays, only some (CONTINUE Q3)
5 Don’t know any birthdays other than own (SKP Q6)
6 No person 18 or over available [SCHEDULE CALLBACK]
Q3. Of the ones that you do know, who had the most recent birthday? <bday2>
1 Current informant (SKP Q6)

2 Someone else: Ask to speak to that person (DISPLAY INTRO THEN SKP Q4)
3 Person with most recent birthday not available (SCHEDULE CALLBACK)
Q4. Do you have a few minutes to complete the survey? <complete>
1 Yes (SKP Q6)

2 No
Q5. Your opinions on this issue are very important, even if you do not gamble, and we’d like to give you an
opportunity to make your opinions heard. Are you sure you do not have just a few minutes to complete
the survey? <hello2>
1 Yes, will participate

2 No, will not participate [SKP END]
ASK ALL
Q6. Can you please tell me your zip code? ___________ <zip>
[INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT REFUSES TO PROVIDE ZIP CODE, PLEASE READ:
“We are asking for your zip code so that we can determine if there are any differences between
the opinions of respondents based on where they live. Keep in mind that all responses are
strictly confidential and that we do not have any information about you other than your
telephone number. Are you sure that you do not want to provide your zip code?”]
99999=Refused

Q7. Have you participated in any form of legal gambling in the last 12 months such as casinos, the lottery, a
racetrack or bingo? <gambling>
1 Yes
2 No (SKP Q9)
9 Refused
Q8. Please tell me if you have participated in any of the following legal forms of gambling in the last 12
months. How about:
(Randomize)
1 Yes 2 No 8 DK 9 RF
Q8A. Scratch Tickets <scratch> Ο Ο Ο Ο

Q8B. Other Lottery games such as Megabucks
or Powerball <lottery> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q8C. Keno <keno> Ο Ο Ο Ο

Q8D. Casino gambling <casino> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q8E. Wagering on a dog or horse race <dog> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q8F. Bingo <bingo> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q8G. Wagering over the Internet, including Ο Ο Ο Ο
poker, lottery tickets, and blackjack
<internet>
Q8H. Poker at a casino or a card room <poker> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q8I. Sports betting <sports> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q9. During the last 12 months, how many times did you visit Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut?
<foxvisit>
[INTERVIEWER: PLEASE TYPE IN “0” IF RESPONDENT HAS NOT VISITED FOXWOODS. 999 = REFUSED]
(IF Q9=0 OR Q9=999 SKP Q12)

Q10. (IF Q9>0 AND <999 ASK)

When you visit Foxwoods, do you usually spend money on any of the following items? How about:
(Randomize)
Q10A. Food and beverages <foxfood> Ο Ο Ο Ο

Q10B. Hotel or lodging <foxhotel>
Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q10C. Retail purchases <foxretl> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q10D. Other entertainment such as shows, Ο Ο Ο Ο
dancing, concerts <foxenter>
Q10E. Gambling <foxgambl> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q10F. Golf <golf> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q10G. Spa services <spa> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q11A. (IF Q10E>1 SKP Q12)
What games do you play when you gamble at Foxwoods? How about: <play_fox>
[INTERVIEWER: PLEASE READ CHOICES AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
1 Slots <fox_slots>
2 Table games, not including the poker room <fox_table>
3 Bingo <fox_bingo>
4 Poker in the poker room <fox_room>
5 Keno <fox_keno>
6 Racebook <fox_race>
7 Other game <fox_otr>
88 Don’t know (SKP Q12)
99 Refused (SKP Q12)

Q11B. (IF # RESPONSES TO Q11A >1 ASK)
Of the games you do play, what do you play most often, or do you play them all equally? <play_fox2>
1 Slots
2 Table games, not including the poker room
3 Bingo
4 Poker in the poker room
5 Keno
6 Racebook
7 Other game
8 Play them equally
88 Don’t know
99 Refused
Q12. During the last 12 months, how many times did you visit Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut? _____
<mohvisit>
[INTERVIEWER: PLEASE TYPE IN “0” IF RESPONDENT HAS NOT VISITED MOHEGAN SUN. 999 = REFUSED]
(IF Q12=0 OR Q12=999 SKP Q15)
Q13. (IF Q12>0 AND <999 ASK)

When you visit Mohegan Sun, do you usually spend money on any of the following items? How about:
(Randomize)
13A. Food and beverages <mohfood> Ο Ο Ο Ο

13B. Hotel or lodging <mohhotel>
Ο Ο Ο Ο
13C. Retail purchases <mohretl> Ο Ο Ο Ο
13D. Other entertainment such as shows, Ο Ο Ο Ο
dancing, concerts <mohenter>
13E. Gambling <mohgambl> Ο Ο Ο Ο
13F. Spa services <mohspa> Ο Ο Ο Ο

Q14A. (IF Q13E>1 SKP Q15)
What games do you play when you gamble at Mohegan Sun? How about: <play_moh>
[INTERVIEWER: PLEASE READ CHOICES AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
1 Slots <fox_slots>
2 Table games, not including the poker room <fox_table>
3 Bingo <fox_bingo>
4 Poker in the poker room <fox_room>
5 Racebook <fox_race>
6 Other game <fox_otr>
88 Don’t know (SKP Q15)
99 Refused (SKP Q15)
Q14B. (IF # RESPONSES TO Q14A >1 ASK)

Of the games you do play, what do you play most often, or do you play them all equally? <playmoh2>
1 Slots
2 Table games, not including the poker room
3 Poker in the poker room
4 Racebook
5 Other
6 Play them equally
88 Don’t know
99 Refused
Q15. During the last 12 months, how many times did you visit Twin River Casino in Lincoln, Rhode Island?
_____ [trvisit]
[INTERVIEWER: PLEASE TYPE IN “0” IF RESPONDENT HAS NOT VISITED TWIN RIVER. 999 = REFUSED]
(IF Q15=0 OR Q15=999 SKP Q17)

Q16. When you visit Twin River, do you usually spend money on any of the following items? How about:
[Randomize]
16A. Food and beverages <trfood> Ο Ο Ο Ο

16B. Hotel or lodging <trhotel>
Ο Ο Ο Ο
16C. Retail purchases <trretl> Ο Ο Ο Ο
16D. Other entertainment such as shows, Ο Ο Ο Ο
dancing, concerts <trenter>
16E. Gambling <trgambl> Ο Ο Ο Ο
Q17. During the last 12 months, how many times did you visit Newport Grand Slots in Newport, Rhode Island?
_____ <newvisit>
[INTERVIEWER: PLEASE TYPE IN “0” IF RESPONDENT HAS NOT VISITED NEWPORT GRAND SLOTS.
999=REFUSED].
(IF Q17=0 OR Q17=999 SKP Q19)
Q18. When you visit Newport Grand Slots, do you usually spend money on any of the following items? How
about:
[Randomize]
18A. Food and beverages <newfood> Ο Ο Ο Ο

18B. Hotel or lodging <newhotel>
Ο Ο Ο Ο
18C. Retail purchases <newretl> Ο Ο Ο Ο
18D. Other entertainment such as live music Ο Ο Ο Ο
and dancing <newenter>
18E. Gambling <newgambl> Ο Ο Ο Ο

Q19. Now I’d like to ask if you have visited casinos in other areas of the country and abroad. During the last 12
months, how many times have you visited:
[INTERVIEWER: PLEASE TYPE IN “0” IF RESPONDENT HAS NOT VISITED. 999=REFUSED].
# Visits
Q19A. Hollywood Casino in Bangor, Maine <hollywood> ___

Q19B. Oxford Resort Casino in Oxford, Maine <oxford>
___
Q19C. A casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey <ac> ___
Q19D. A casino in Las Vegas, Nevada <lv> ___
Q19E. A casino in any other place in the U.S. or abroad <othrplace> ___
Q20. (IF Q19E> 0 ASK)
What other place did you visit a casino? ___________________ <othrplace2>
1 On a cruise
2 Puerto Rico
3 Other (please describe) __________________ [INTERVIEWER: MAY INCLUDE MORE THAN ONE
RESPONSE].
88 Don’t Remember
99 Refused
Q21. (IF STATE=3 ASK)
Overall, do you think Hollywood Casino has been good for Bangor’s economy? <hs_econ>
1 Yes
2 No
88 Don’t know
99 Refused
Overall, do you think Oxford Casino has been good for Oxford County’s economy? <ox_econ>
1 Yes
2 No
88 Don’t know
99 Refused

Who should determine whether Maine has more casinos - its citizens in the statewide referendum
process or the Maine legislature? <decide>
1 Citizens
2 Legislature
3 Other (Vol.)
88 Don’t know
99 Refused
Do you feel the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is taking too little time, too much time, or just about
the right amount of time to license casinos in Massachusetts? <commission>
1 Too little time

2 Too much time
3 Just about the right amount of time
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Do you support or oppose the legalization of casino gambling in the state of New Hampshire, or are you
undecided? <nh_support>
[INTERVIEWER: CODE “DON’T KNOW” AND “NOT SURE” AS UNDECIDED.]
1 Support
2 Oppose
3 Undecided
99 Refused

If casinos are legalized, what do you feel are the optimal number of casinos for New Hampshire?
<number>
[INTERVIEWER: READ CHOICES]
1 One casino
2 Two casinos
3 Three casinos
4 Four casinos
5 Five or more casinos
6 Zero casinos (Vol.)
88 Don’t know
99 Refused
Q27. (IF STATE >1 AND <5 ASK)
Have you visited a New Hampshire poker room in the last 12 months? <room>
1 Yes
2 No
88 Don’t know
99 Refused
Q28. OK, we are just about finished. I would just like to ask a few questions about yourself. This will help us to
understand the types of people we are talking to.
Do you mind telling me your age? _________ <age>
Q29. INTERVIEWER: RECORD SEX <sex>
1 Male
2 Female
Q30. What is the last grade of school that you completed? <grade>
1 Less than high school

2 High school diploma
3 Some college
4 Associate’s Degree or Technical Certification
5 Bachelor’s Degree
6 Graduate degree or higher
88 Don’t know
99 Refused

Q31. Can you please tell me what your family income for the past year is? This information is important so that
we can draw comparisons between respondents. Let me again assure you that all your responses are
confidential. <income>
1 Less than $25,000

2 $25,000 to $45,000
3 $45,000 to $75,000
4 $75,000 to $100,000
5 $100,000 to $$150,000
5 $150,000 or more
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Q32. (IF STATE=4 ASK) Which political party do you identify with most strongly? <party>

1 Democrat
2 Republican
3 Independent
4 Other (Please indicate) ________________________
5 No party
88 Don’t Know
99 Refused
ASK ALL:
HH1 How many people, including yourself, live in your household?
[INTERVIEWER: HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO THINK OF THIS HOUSEHOLD AS THEIR
PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE TEMPORARILY AWAY ON BUSINESS,
VACATION, IN A HOSPITAL, OR AWAY AT SCHOOL. THIS INCLUDES INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND ADULTS.]
Enter Number (Range 1-50) _________
HH2 How many of these are children under the age of 18?
Enter number (Range 0-50) __________

ASK LANDLINE SAMPLE:
LL1. Now thinking about your telephone use … Do you have a working cell phone? <wkng_cell>
1 Yes
2 No
9 Don’t know/Refused (VOL)
LL2 (ASK IF NO CELL PHONE AND MULTI-PERSON HOUSEHOLD (LL1=2, 9 AND HH1>1)
Does anyone in your household have a working cell phone? <anyone>
1 Yes, someone in household has cell phone

2 No
9 Don't know/Refused (VOL)
LL3 Thinking about only land-line telephones…not counting business lines, extension phones, or cell phones –
on how many different landline telephone NUMBERS can your household be reached? <numbers>
0 No land-line
1 One
2 Two
3 Three
4 Four
5 Five
6 Six
7 Seven or more
8 DK
9 NA/RF
ASK CELL PHONE SAMPLE:
Cell4 Now thinking about your telephone use … Is there at least one telephone INSIDE your home that is
currently working and is not a cell phone? <landline>
1 Yes
2 No
9 Don’t know/Refused (VOL)
Thank you. Those are all the questions I have. Have a good day/night.

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS (WEIGHTED)
Total CT ME MA NH RI
Sex Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Male 1,440 47 286 48 199 48 377 47 202 49 376 47
Female 1,595 53 315 52 217 52 424 53 213 51 426 53
Total 3,035 100 601 100 416 100 801 100 415 100 802 100
Age Cohort
18-34 817 28 159 27 104 25 230 30 109 27 214 28
35-49 817 28 166 28 105 26 212 27 112 28 223 29
50-64 753 25 148 25 111 27 193 25 112 28 189 24
65+ 575 19 116 20 89 22 141 18 74 18 154 20
Total 2,962 100 589 100 409 100 776 100 407 100 780 100
Family Income
<$45K 819 36 126 30 137 41 214 35 110 33 232 40
$45-$75K 557 24 87 21 99 30 143 23 102 30 127 22
$75K-$100K 392 17 63 15 56 17 118 19 62 19 93 16
$100K-$150K 309 14 85 20 32 10 85 14 38 11 69 12
$150K+ 211 9 62 15 11 3 56 9 22 7 59 10
Total 2,288 100 423 100 335 100 616 100 334 100 580 100
Education
<High School 129 4 22 4 17 4 41 5 4 1 44 6
HS Diploma Only 796 27 125 21 136 33 196 25 123 30 216 27
Some Coll./Associate's 899 30 167 28 131 32 228 29 135 33 237 30
Bachelor's or Higher 1,184 39 279 47 128 31 330 42 151 37 296 37
Total 3,008 100 593 100 412 100 795 100 413 100 793 100
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.


Bring It Home

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bring It Home

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bring It On Home

An Overview of Gaming Behavior in New England

Clyde W. Barrow, Ph.D., Political Science

Chad Maguire, J.D., Law Joao Paraskeva, Ph.D., Education

Jason Hill, UMass Dartmouth MPP Candidate,

Robert Golder, UMass Dartmouth MPP Candidate,

Copyright  Center for Policy Analysis. All rights reserved.

Website URL: http://www.umassd.edu/seppce/centers/cfpa/

Polling and Program Evaluation Series No.108

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................... i

Overview of the Gaming Behavior Survey

Center for Policy Analysis i

Total 3,035 100.0%

Center for Policy Analysis ii

Connecticut: Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun Casino

Center for Policy Analysis iii

Rhode Island: Twin River Casino and Newport Grand Slots

Center for Policy Analysis iv

Maine: Hollywood Casino and Oxford Casino

Center for Policy Analysis v

Center for Policy Analysis vi

1.10 PROPENSITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF GAMBLING BY STATE

Type of Game Played in the Last Twelve Months

Any type 52% 50% 43% 58% 51% 51%

Center for Policy Analysis -1-

1.20 PROPENSITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF GAMBLING: HISTORICAL TRENDS

Center for Policy Analysis -2-

2.00 CONNECTICUT: FOXWOODS RESORT CASINO AND MOHEGAN SUN CASINO

2.11 Visitation Patterns by State

2006 2008 2010 2012

Center for Policy Analysis -3-

2.12 Historical Visitation Patterns by Facility

% Visited Foxwoods Resort Casino % Visited Mohegan Sun

Center for Policy Analysis -4-

Foxwoods Resort Casino Mohegan Sun

Center for Policy Analysis -5-

Foxwoods Resort Casino Mohegan Sun

Center for Policy Analysis -6-

Foxwoods Resort Casino Mohegan Sun

2006 2008 2010 2012 2006 2008 2010 2012

Foxwoods Mohegan Sun

All Respondents 47% 23% 9% 5% 16% 43% 26% 7% 5% 19%

Center for Policy Analysis -7-

2.20 VISITS TO CASINOS OUTSIDE OF NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut 50% 50%

Maine 52% 48%

Massachusetts 53% 47%

New Hampshire 62% 38%

Rhode Island 43% 57%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Center for Policy Analysis -8-

2.32 Age Cohort

All Respondents 28% 29% 26% 16%

Connecticut 26% 30% 30% 15%

Maine 19% 19% 43% 19%

Massachusetts 27% 31% 24% 17%

New Hampshire 30% 24% 33% 12%

Rhode Island 32% 30% 22% 16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Center for Policy Analysis -9-

All Respondents 3% 28% 33% 37%

Connecticut 3% 22% 31% 43%

Maine 3% 28% 35% 35%

Massachusetts 4% 27% 32% 37%