It seems only Beacon Hill could take a potential gold mine like casino gambling and completely muck it up.

Even as they blather on about the virtues of competition, State House leaders are quietly taking steps that will benefit local favorites while potentially creating problems for some top national players.

The Senate’s bill includes some bonus points for some local favorites while limiting the amount of debt casino companies interested in bidding on a Bay State license can have on their balance sheets.

Sounds sensible, but it may be just ambiguous and vaguely worded enough to create problems for the same Las Vegas giants with the expertise to make the emerging Massachusetts model of high-end resort casinos a success.

“It probably knocks out a lot of the big casino firms,” said Rev. Richard McGowan, a Boston College economist and expert on the business of gambling. “It does look kind of foolish.”

Political Maneuvering

The Senate’s recent moves in shaping the emerging casino bill are worth noting, especially in light of some of the holier-than-thou rhetoric that has come out of the upper chamber.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo was derided as an old-time pol when he rammed through his casino bill this spring.

DeLeo made no attempt to hide the fact that he has two racetracks in his district. So when he packed his proposal with slot machines for local tracks, insiders chuckled while political rivals maneuvered to get the high-ground.

Sen. President Therese Murray and her followers were loud in their disapproval, promising competition, competition and more competition that would prevent slot machine licenses from being quietly slipped into the hands of those dastardly racetrack owners.

But in the end, actual legislation means more than sound bites. And the Senate bill, while proclaiming the gospel of competition, unwittingly or not gives a boost to some local players with some strong political ties.

Instead of having to win over the entire city of Boston in a referendum campaign, Suffolk Downs’ owners will just have to get a majority of East Boston residents to vote for their plan – a likely bet, given the potential for job creation in the struggling neighborhood.

That should hit all the right notes for casino developer Richard Fields, who, aided by some of the Boston area’s top business players and developers, has spent years lining up crucial political support to build a grand casino resort at Suffolk Downs. Along with DeLeo, whose district includes the track, Mayor Thomas M. Menino is a strong backer as well.

The Senate bill also takes into consideration how close a proposed casino is to other possible competitors. And that plays into the hands of both Suffolk Downs and Mohegan Sun, which, at opposite ends of the state, are far from any likely rivals.

For its part, Mohegan, which wants to build a Western Massachusetts casino in Palmer, has its own ties here, with former Lt. Gov. Thomas P. O’Neill III’s high-powered lobbying firm going to bat for the tribal gambling powerhouse.

These are the two front-runners for casino licenses, and Statehouse insiders know it.

A Rigged Game?

And that brings us to the mysterious debt-to-equity requirements, which, in a certain context, could also be read as an attempt at limiting the field of competitors.

The Senate’s bill appears to require that potential bidders for the state’s three proposed casino licenses have no more than a four-to-one ratio of debt to equity on their balance sheets.

One would-be casino developer, who has also reviewed the legislation, believes this applies just to individual proposals, not to company balance sheets.

But others, including a corporate attorney and gaming law expert, see much broader implications. Having read it myself, it certainly reads as if it is referring to the corporate debt load, not individual projects. And while this may sound like an arcane detail, the gaming industry’s biggest players have amassed huge debt loads over the past few years.

But despite the debt loads, most would still be able to fit under the wire here, in some cases only barely, under the Senate’s proposal.

In fact, it may be nothing more than a feel-good attempt to prevent overleveraged players from starting construction on a casino project and then going belly up.

But given the context, all I’m saying is, it has to make you wonder.

Now, after giving a boost to the House leader’s favorites, what’s in this for Murray, the Senate president?

Murray, who made a stink about racetrack slots, also gets to claim victory. The Senate bill may give a boost to Suffolk’s casino hopes, but it does not include racetrack slots, cutting out two Southeastern Massachusetts tracks that had hoped to open so-called racinos.

That’s fine, but hard-pressed Bay State taxpayers could lose out completely if all the maneuvering scares off the big players and insulates the local boys from outside competition.

With the economy still struggling and the gaming industry having faced its own share of hard times, it’s a dangerous assumption to think you can just set whatever crazy rules you like and the high-rollers will come anyway.

Casino tycoons may be loaded, but they know when the game is rigged. They know when they are being had. And if the rules are tilted against them, they simply won’t play, whether it’s in Massachusetts or Macau.

Hopefully the good folks on Beacon Hill will figure that one out before it’s too late.