Having long held onto its status as a foreigner-only casino jurisdiction, Vietnam is testing the waters. In December, the government granted Phu Quoc’s Corona Resort & Casino permanent permission to allow casino access to local players – provided those players fulfil necessary criteria – while, more significantly, The Grand Ho Tram, located outside Ho Chi Minh City, was also granted locals play under a five-year pilot program. In this opinion piece, Shaun McCamley, a former President of The Grand Ho Tram, argues that the resort now carries disproportionate weight in Vietnam’s locals-play policy experiment due to its location, scale and political visibility.
Vietnam’s long-running debate over allowing local citizens into casinos has moved decisively from policy theory to operational reality. With The Grand Ho Tram opening its casino floor to Vietnamese players in early January, locals play is no longer an abstract concept debated in ministries and policy papers. It is now being tested daily on a live casino floor, under real operating conditions, with real consequences.
This shift does not represent broad liberalization. Rather, it reflects Vietnam’s decision to extend a tightly controlled experiment into a far more complex and politically sensitive environment. In doing so, Ho Tram has become the most demanding test yet of the country’s cautious, incremental approach to casino policy. Ultimately, this means the resort now carries disproportionate weight in Vietnam’s locals-play policy experiment due to its location, scale and political visibility.
Vietnam has now approved three casino projects in principle to admit local players, although only two are currently operational. They are Corona Resort & Casino in Phu Quoc, which operates under the original pilot framework; The Grand Ho Tram, which is newly admitted under an extended pilot arrangement; and a third project – Van Don, in Quang Ninh province and developed by Sun Group – which has approval in principle but remains in early development and is several years from opening.
In practical terms, Vietnam’s locals-play policy is being tested on just two casino floors – and increasingly on Ho Tram in particular. That distinction matters. Ho Tram is not simply another pilot participant. It represents a fundamentally different and more challenging test of whether locals play can coexist with Vietnam’s political sensitivities, social concerns and regulatory expectations.
Why Ho Tram matters more than Phu Quoc
Phu Quoc was always a special case. As an island destination, geographically isolated from Vietnam’s major population centers, it allowed policymakers to test locals play at arm’s length. Tourism-led demand, limited repeat visits and controlled access points created a relatively contained environment for observing behavior, compliance and social impact.
Ho Tram is fundamentally different. Located within easy reach of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’s largest urban and economic hub, Ho Tram offers locals a more visible, accessible and repeat-oriented setting and is more politically sensitive. This is the first time locals have been permitted to gamble in a near-urban integrated resort environment where frequency of visitation, media scrutiny and public perception are all amplified.
For policymakers, Ho Tram is a genuine stress test, where theory meets reality. What succeeds – or fails – here will carry disproportionate weight in determining whether locals play remains a tightly contained exception or can gradually expand beyond the current pilot framework.
Permission granted, scrutiny multiplied
Vietnam’s casino policy has evolved cautiously by design. Local play remains an exception, not a right, and every approval has been explicitly framed as a pilot. That framing shifts risk away from policymakers and onto operators.
With only two casinos admitting locals, regulatory tolerance is lower, not higher. There is no sector-wide buffer, and there is no ability to dismiss problems as isolated anomalies. Any serious misstep risks being interpreted not as an operational failure, but as evidence that the policy itself is flawed.
In this environment, success is not defined by headline revenue. It is defined by control – operational, social and political. Ho Tram will not be judged on how much locals play contributes to gaming revenue, but on whether it can be managed predictably, discreetly and responsibly.
Sports betting and the wider gambling framework
This phase of the locals-play experiment is particularly sensitive because it coincides with unresolved policy discussions around other forms of regulated gambling, most notably sports betting.
Under Decree 06/2017/ND-CP, Vietnam permits limited, state-controlled pilot programs for football, horse racing and greyhound racing. While implementation has been slow and commercially constrained, the policy direction remains clear: tightly supervised, incremental expansion.
Crucially, regulators do not view casino locals play, sports betting and other gambling verticals in isolation. From a policy perspective, they are interconnected indicators of how Vietnam regulates citizens’ access to gambling.
Any perceived loss of control in one area risks hardening attitudes across all of them.
As a result, Ho Tram is being assessed not only on whether locals can gamble responsibly in a casino environment, but on whether the broader narrative of regulated access without social disruption remains credible. Negative headlines or visible social issues at Ho Tram would likely have consequences beyond the casino sector, potentially slowing sports betting reform and reinforcing the government’s preference for tightly controlled models.
Where Ho Tram will be judged first
Entry controls will be the first and most visible test. Casinos are no longer just entertainment venues; they have become frontline gatekeepers of state policy. Eligibility criteria must be enforced consistently, discreetly and at scale – during peak weekends, for mixed domestic and international visitation, VIP arrivals and first-time local visits.
Poorly executed entry processes do more than inconvenience guests. They undermine the customer experience, put staff in confrontational positions, create reputational risk and erode regulators’ confidence. This scrutiny is not limited to formal regulatory channels; in practice, operational issues are often reported informally through local Party structures, extending oversight well beyond conventional compliance mechanisms.
Entry fees, responsible gaming and AML pressure
Vietnam’s entry-fee mechanism creates a narrow funnel, not a mass market. With locals play limited to two casinos, the domestic player base will be smaller, wealthier, more visible and more sensitive to service quality and perceived value. In such an environment, mistakes are magnified, not diluted.
Responsible gaming will ultimately be decisive. Regulators and the public are no longer interested in policies on paper; they want proof of application: early intervention, behavioral monitoring, staff empowerment and auditability. With only two operating casinos, every incident carries disproportionate weight.
Locals play also raises AML expectations. Domestic players bring more frequent transactions, closer interaction with local banking systems and greater political sensitivity around source-of-funds issues. Even without formal regulatory change, expectations will rise. Lapses that might once have been tolerated as operational noise now risk being interpreted as systemic weaknesses in a pilot framework.
Fraud, staffing and cultural pressure
Near-urban locals play environments inevitably attract attempts to exploit entry processes, identity verification, incentives and staff discretion points. Ho Tram’s proximity to Ho Chi Minh City increases both frequency and sophistication compared to an island-based environment like Phu Quoc.
Managing this risk falls disproportionately on frontline teams, who must detect patterns without profiling, intervene without escalation and enforce rules without public confrontation. In Vietnam’s political and cultural context, missteps can quickly become reputational issues not only for the property but for the policy itself.
License fragility and the strategic imperative
Perhaps the greatest strategic risk is license fragility. With only two operating participants, policy reversal is relatively easy. Regulators do not need to unwind an industry; they need only suspend a pilot.
This places a heavy burden on operators to demonstrate that locals play can coexist with social stability, political acceptability and professional governance. The next 6 to 12 months, therefore, matter disproportionately.
For Ho Tram, priorities are clear: streamline entry processes without diluting controls, invest seriously in responsible gaming, strengthen AML oversight, proactively manage fraud risk, and handle public and regulatory narratives with discipline.
Final Thought: Two casino floors, not a market
Vietnam has not opened its casino market to locals. It has opened two casino floors.
For now, that is the experiment. Ho Tram’s performance will shape not only its own future, but the trajectory of Vietnam’s casino industry more broadly. Decrees and announcements will not decide the outcome. Execution will – quietly, consistently and under constant scrutiny.
That is the real challenge Ho Tram now faces – and why this phase of Vietnam’s locals-play experiment is the most difficult yet.
