Senators Opened Debate on Casino in Massachusetts

State senators opened debate yesterday on a bill to license three casinos in Massachusetts, exposing deep divisions over the economic benefits and social costs of gambling.

Over three hours of debate, senators voiced divergent opinions about the plan, and the fissures did not fall along simple ideological lines. The back-and-forth underscored how difficult it could be for the House, Senate, and governor to come to agreement as the end of this year’s legislative session nears.

Marc R. Pacheco, a Taunton Democrat, supports casinos, but railed against the bill because it would not license slot machines at the state’s two horse and two former dog tracks, one of which, Raynham Park, is in his district.

Pacheco argued that without slots at the tracks or an extension of the tracks’ right to simulcast races, hundreds of track workers will lose their jobs.

“I can’t believe it, that we would have a piece of legislation that would actually eliminate existing jobs,’’ he said. “What happens to those families? What happens to those people?’’

Robert A. O’Leary, Democrat of Barnstable, said his own position on the bill was “a bit convoluted.’’ He said that he opposes casinos but that he believes that if they are going to be licensed, one of the licenses should go to a Native American tribe, such as the Mashpee Wampanoag, whom he represents.

Debate on the bill, which stopped when the Senate Republican leader, Richard R. Tisei, abruptly postponed further deliberation, is set to continue today.

If the Senate approves a plan to expand gambling, it will have to be reconciled with a bill that passed the House in April, which authorizes two casinos and slots at the tracks. Governor Deval Patrick, who supports casinos but not slots at the tracks, has said he hopes to sign a bill before the legislative session ends July 31.

Several senators said yesterday that they oppose casinos outright, contending that casinos will destroy small businesses and arts organizations and disproportionately harm low-income residents who can ill afford to lose the money.

“We should not be balancing our state’s books on the backs of the poor,’’ said Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Jamaican Plain Democrat, reiterating her argument that casinos are a “tax on the poor.’’

Supporters argued that allowing casinos in Massachusetts will generate thousands of jobs and retain hundreds of millions of dollars Bay State gamblers now spend on casinos in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. Supporters also contended that the $12.5 million the bill sets aside for gambling addiction programs will more than offset the negative social costs of gambling.

“When you look at the whole of the bill, think about job creation and think about the revenues we’re going to get from it,’’ said Steven C. Panagiotakos, the Ways and Means Committee chairman and Lowell Democrat who helped write the legislation. “There will be adverse effects, but we are consciously providing remedies or resources to deal with those adverse effects.’’

Jennifer L. Flanagan, a Leominster Democrat who supports casinos, said it makes no sense to oppose casinos out of concern about compulsive gambling.

“If you’re an addict, whether you’re a gambling addict or a shopping addict . . . you seek out that action,’’ she said. “And that’s what’s going to happen.’’ Why not, she asked, close down bars to prevent drinking or fast-food restaurants to prevent over-eating?

Senators did not take any votes or consider any of the 164 amendments that have been offered. Some would direct the state’s casino revenue to various causes, such as property tax relief, preservation of historic buildings, and the study of gambling by a research institute. Others would ban smoking in casinos; the current bill would allow it, despite a state ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, and other workplaces.

Senate President Therese Murray, who supports casinos, expressed confidence that the bill will pass this week.

“I think we’re in good shape,’’ she told reporters.

Check out for more news on online casino gaming.

Play Red Dog Casino Betting

Red Dog, also known as Acey-Deucey or Between the Sheets, is easy to play. Two cards are drawn. You can wager on whether the third card drawn will rank between the first two cards. The tighter the spread between the first two cards the higher the payout if the third card drawn ranks between the first two cards.

At the beginning of each game you are required to place an initial bet, known as an ante. This amount appears on the betting circle on the table top.

1. Select a chip value of either $1, $5, $10, $25, or $100.
2. Click the betting circle until the number of chips displayed equals the amount you wish to bet.
3. To reduce your bet amount, right-click the betting circle to remove chips. Your bet will be reduced by the amount of the currently selected chip.
4. Click Deal. Two cards are dealt face up.
5. Click Raise or Don't Raise.

* Choose Raise if you believe the next card dealt will rank between the two face-up cards. When you choose Raise, an amount equal to your ante will be wagered and the game is played out.

* Choose Don't Raise if you have a hand that you do not believe the next card dealt will rank between the two face-up cards. When you choose Don't Raise, the game is played out based on your original wager.

For more tips and tricks check out casino red dog betting.