Until a few years ago, the phrase “shuffle up and deal” was not included in the popular vernacular.

That phrase, like the game accompanying it, has grown into a worldwide phenomenon. The game of poker has been around for years, but the game of Texas Hold-‘Em has taken the world by storm. It has also helped bring the gaming industry into the spotlight.

Missouri has had legalized gambling on riverboat casinos since its approval in 1993. The first casino opened in 1994 and though some have changed ownership or simply closed down, currently there are 11 casinos in operation. The casinos are no longer moving down the river; they changed formats to being fully docked. A portion of the casino must, however, reside on the water in order to be in accord with the 1993 legislation.

According to the American Gaming Association’s 2006 Survey of Casino Entertainment, both St. Louis and Kansas City are in the top 20 casino markets in the nation. St. Louis ranks 7th, bringing in $959.6 million in revenues, while Kansas City is 12th, bringing in $718.56 million in revenues.

There are several views about the gaming industry.

“Naturally, there are some people opposed to it,” said Kansas Rep. Doug Gatewood (R-Columbus). “I’m not a proponent of gambling myself, but I can see the advantages.”

One of those advantages is the amount of revenue which is generated from the daily business of the casinos.

“For every admission onto the casino floor, there is a $2 boarding fee which the casino pays to the state,” said Richard Klemp, vice-president of government operations for Penn National Gaming, which owns the Argosy Casino in Kansas City. “Twenty percent of casino revenue is paid to the state as a tax, with 18 percent going to the state and 2 percent remaining in the community where the casino is located.”

Gatewood agrees with Klemp about the financial plusses.

“The benefit of having a casino in Kansas is the addition of $200-$250 million into the general fund,” Gatewood said.

Another benefit to the gaming industry is the amount of revenue provided to education. The Missouri Gaming Association (MGA) reported in the 2003 fiscal year a total of $235 million being contributed to the state’s education fund. The 2004 fiscal year provided $252 million and the 2005 fiscal year garnished $271 million for education in the state of Missouri.

Gatewood has been spearheading a legislative measure to provide Cherokee County with the opportunity to decide whether they would welcome a destination-based casino outside Galena.

“The revenues generated from a casino would benefit education because 52 percent of the general fund would go to funding K-12 education, and 15 percent would go to regents institutions,” he said.

There is also another side to the gaming industry. Addiction and problem gambling have caused heartache for many.

“One disadvantage everyone talks about is problem gaming,” Gatewood said. “There is nothing in the state of Kansas for that, yet it exists in our state. A proposal last year had 1 percent of gaming revenue going into a program to deal with problem gambling.”

“One percent of individuals have a pathological problem with gaming,” Klemp said. “The other one to two percent has other problems with gaming.”

There are a couple of ways the state of Missouri has made an effort to curb the problem gaming epidemic which resides in Missouri.

“Missouri provides free treatment for anyone who has a problem with gaming,” Klemp said. “Also, there is self exclusion program in Missouri which was the first of its kind in the nation.”

The self-exclusion program is known as the disassociated persons program, in which an individual can voluntarily ban himself or herself from any Missouri casino. Currently, more than 9,000 Missourians have taken part in the state’s problem gambling assistance program.

One thing which sets Missouri gaming apart from the rest of the nation is the state’s $500 loss limit. What this means is each gaming session, which runs two hours, an individual is only allowed to buy in up to $500. This doesn’t mean they will be able to only play the $500 they put in. Theoretically, one could win an excess of the limit amount, but would not be able to buy in again until the new gaming session begins.

“The loss limit is ineffective in preventing problem gaming,” Klemp said. It’s negative in competiveness. Gamblers would prefer to play what they want.

“Some feel the loss limit is an invasion of privacy.”