Bally’s Chairman Proposes Live Dealer-Only iGaming Legalization

As state legislatures across the U.S. struggle to pass online casino bills, Bally’s Chairman Soo Kim is suggesting a fresh strategy to break the deadlock: a focused, incremental approach that begins with legalizing only live dealer table games. This method, he believes, could pave the way for full-scale online casino legalization in states like New York and Illinois, where opposition to iGaming has remained strong.

Kim’s proposal centers on the idea of introducing live dealer games—the type of online casino game where real dealers conduct games such as blackjack, roulette, and baccarat, live-streamed to players from dedicated studios or even land-based casinos. While live dealer gaming has been a key selling point for online casinos looking to legalize, Kim argues that focusing solely on live dealer games could avoid the contentious debates surrounding online slots, which have been a sticking point for lawmakers and interest groups.

A Step Toward Consensus?

In states like New York, Maryland, and Illinois, the push for online casinos has encountered significant resistance. Critics, including casino workers’ unions and land-based casino operators, argue that iGaming could cannibalize traditional casino revenue and jobs. In Maryland, for example, labor unions warned that full iGaming, particularly online slots, could lead to job losses in brick-and-mortar casinos, undermining local economies.

However, Kim’s live dealer-only approach could sidestep some of these concerns. “Live dealer doesn’t compete against video gaming terminals (VGTs) or the lottery,” Kim explained. “And it’s less offensive to casinos because they can get a piece of it.” By focusing exclusively on live dealer table games, lawmakers could focus on the potential for job creation—a key factor in legislative decisions. Unlike online slots, live dealer games require real people to operate, which means jobs for dealers, technicians, and other staff involved in the production and broadcasting of the games.

In states like Rhode Island, where live dealer games are already part of the legal framework, Kim has seen firsthand how regulators have embraced the concept. “In Rhode Island, the regulators felt really good about live dealer. They liked that we’re still employing people in the state and it had fewer constitutional questions,” he said. By presenting live dealers as a job-producing, socially acceptable form of online gaming, Kim believes state lawmakers might be more willing to approve legislation.

Live dealer games are already available in seven states—Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia—where full-scale iGaming is legal. Providers like Evolution Gaming and Playtech lead the charge, offering a wide range of table games to operators. Live dealers have been a central component of the iGaming experience in these states, adding a personal, interactive touch that replicates the ambiance of a land-based casino.

Kim’s idea draws on Bally’s successful model in Rhode Island, where online casino games are limited to live dealer table games. The state has seen strong regulatory support for this narrow focus, with lawmakers perceiving live dealer gaming as a more palatable alternative to the broader iGaming landscape. Kim argues that this model could work in larger, more contentious states like New York or Illinois, where opposition to full online casino gaming is entrenched.

Charmaine Hogan, Head of Regulatory Affairs at Playtech, believes a live dealer-only approach could be a key stepping stone toward full iGaming legalization. “Live dealer casino is a pivotal element of the iGaming industry,” Hogan said. “Introducing live dealer casino can serve as a crucial initial step towards establishing a fully regulated iGaming market.” Hogan added that such an approach could bring the industry closer to ensuring robust player protection measures while satisfying lawmakers with a relatively low-risk proposition.

A Hard Sell for Revenue-Driven States

Despite the potential for a smoother legislative path, live dealer-only legalization may still face hurdles in states driven by the promise of high iGaming revenues, particularly from online slots. According to Howard Glaser, global head of government affairs for Light & Wonder, the vast majority of iGaming revenue comes from online slots, with some states reporting as much as 80% of iGaming revenue derived from this category. Glaser cautions that live dealer gaming alone might not generate enough revenue to meet the expectations of state legislators, who are looking for substantial tax revenue from online gambling.

“Even in states where live dealer is robust, 80% of revenue is still from slots,” Glaser noted. “State legislation ultimately will be driven by revenue.” While Kim’s approach may be less confrontational, it may not satisfy lawmakers who are expecting big returns from full online casino regulation.

Glaser also argues that breaking down gaming legislation into smaller parts could complicate the process. “Baking half a loaf takes just as long as baking a full loaf,” he said. A piecemeal approach may not garner the full support of all stakeholders in the gaming industry, which typically requires a more comprehensive, coordinated effort for successful legislation.

Still, Glaser acknowledged that a live dealer-only model could work in certain states. “Different states require different approaches,” he said. “Any step forward would be helpful at this point.”

Illinois and New York: Can Live Dealers Break the Deadlock?

One state where Kim’s strategy could gain traction is Illinois, where the state’s Video Gaming Terminal (VGT) market has generated significant revenue, but where full online casino legalization has faced opposition from VGT operators. With $800 million in annual revenue from VGTs, these small businesses and operators have voiced concerns that online casinos, particularly slots, would cut into their profits.

However, live dealer table games do not directly compete with VGTs, which could make the model more appealing to Illinois lawmakers. Rep. Edgar Gonzalez, a prominent voice in Illinois’ push for iGaming, suggested that legalizing live dealer games like blackjack and poker could be an easier sell to legislators than opening the door to slots. “Table games, I think, are easier to sell to legislators than slots,” Gonzalez said. He added that unionized live dealers could help garner labor support, which has historically been a significant factor in Illinois’ gaming legislation.

New York could also be a key battleground for live dealer legalization. Although Senator Joe Addabbo has tried to push for iGaming legislation that includes live dealers and job protection measures for workers, the state’s Hotel and Gaming Trades Council (HTC) has been opposed to the broader iGaming proposal. Kim believes that presenting live dealers as a standalone proposition might overcome this opposition. “Live dealers could work in New York,” Kim said. “Rhode Island is all union. That’s how I know that it works.”

However, Addabbo himself remains cautious, noting that while he is open to any path forward, the union’s opposition presents a significant hurdle.

Why not just live dealers? I actually think live dealer can be an interesting solution in a lot of places.

Conclusion

Kim’s live dealer-only approach offers an intriguing pathway for states looking to regulate online casino gaming in a way that minimizes opposition and job concerns. By focusing on live dealer table games—rather than full iGaming that includes slots—lawmakers may find a middle ground that satisfies both the economic goals of legalization and the political challenges of appeasing vested interests.

While the approach may not solve all the challenges facing iGaming legislation, it provides a potential starting point that could spark the incremental adoption of online casinos in states like New York and Illinois. As Kim aptly put it, “Sports betting was the fastest expansion of gaming in American history because it didn’t catch a lot of resistance. I think watching a webcam of a blackjack dealer, people are going to be like, ‘Yeah, I’m all right with that.’”