Weird Science

How to play Weird Science

Bally’s has been granted two years’ worth of extensions for the permanent project. State law allows for two-year temporary licences, but the Illinois Gaming Board approved an extension to three years in 2023. That pushed the deadline to this September, but Bally’s ultimately received another year’s worth of extensions through language included in the state’s omnibus revenue bill that was passed in June.

If the latest extension had not been granted, Bally’s would have had to close its temporary casino at Medinah Temple until the permanent venue was completed. That would have resulted in multiple months with no revenue in the market, but Kim told iGB at the East Coast Gaming Congress in April that a closure of the temporary site was “not the end of the world”.

Meanwhile, Bally’s is forging ahead with an even bigger project to the east, its $4 billion Bally’s Bronx resort in New York City. The company was one of three NYC licence winners last year, alongside Resorts World New York City and Hard Rock’s Metropolitan Park.

About Weird Science

“Even though we are seeing legalization of sports wagering, it is still a violation of NCAA rules. I do think people and member institutions really need to make sure that their student athletes are aware, so that they don’t walk themselves into any kind of issues,” she said.

In the full interview, Stevenson explains the NCAA’s approach to integrity and elaborates further on the concerns the organisation has towards U.S. sports betting. And if you haven’t yet, watch all of our videos as they go up by subscribing to the CalvinAyre.com YouTube channel.

The post Naima Stevenson Starks talks NCAA stance on sports betting appeared first on CalvinAyre.com.

How to play Weird Science

They must also evaluate their current technical safeguards to ensure alignment with regulator expectations and certification standards.

Safeguarding has reappeared as a focal point for the regulator. In July of this year, ANJ imposed a €500,000 ($572,797) fine on an unnamed online betting operator, referred to as Company X, for not adequately identifying and supporting customers exhibiting signs of problematic gambling. 

The fine followed an investigation that found Company X had failed to correctly identify 29 high-risk players at an appropriate risk level. Six players were missed entirely and 23 were misclassified at a lower risk tier.