Just one question: If both a Boston and Springfield casino are built, which one will do better over the long run?
This question doesn't have a good answer, because the "long run" is an ambiguous length of time. I predict that a Springfield operation will do better on relative terms because the break-even point is lower. Performance of a Boston casino will get swallowed up by the general economy of the city. Springfield can maintain lower standards for architecture and service. They will also have better bargaining leverage with the city because of their monopoly power.