Item 1) The company is now profitable- which is completely expected due to previous filings and conference calls. Additionally, the company isn't done improving operations; which they have historically been excellent at! If you take the earning of last quarter and extend them to the whole year, you are looking at a P/E of under 40 (while still having a p/b that is well under 1). Again, this, to me, seems reasonable when looking at how they just acquired the casinos in the past year, and have only been reporting their results for 2 quarters. Turnarounds take a lot of time, and these guys are improving operations in a way that would make Sardar Biglari look like a turtle! As noted here, this is no small feat.
Item 2) There is a decent chance that gaming laws in Washington State will change, which has the potential to significantly help the company. Given that the operator has 13% of the mini casino market, this is REALLLLLY nice. Just look at this chart to see the gross receipts, and where Nevada Gold's properties lie on the list...
Let's say that the article is right, and the additional gambling machines will bring in $190 million to the state. With an effective tax of ~1/3 of revenue generated by the machines, this means that there will be ~$570 million in revenue coming from said machines. If UWN gets ~13% of that, as that is the share of the mini-casino market that they have claimed in the past, we are looking at ~$74 million in revenue for UWN. If they can achieve a super low 5% profit margin (which is below the industry average), we are looking at $3.7 million in new profits for a company that is presently trading for just over $21 million. That number alone makes the company compelling, even if you value the rest of the business at nothing... In which, there are very valuable assets, and as I have written about here, some super potential on the acquisition and development front.
I will note that this is an overly broad caculation, and, you should change the metrics of it as you see fit. Additionally, I don't believe that the state will generate the type of revenue that has been estimated in the article (they never seem to). Furthermore, it is important to realize that when people are not spending money on video machines, as is currently the case, they will be spending it in the pre-existing casino operations, so, there may be some self-cannibalization of the company's business, or more entrants to the market.
Regardless, even if the company is forced out of one of their casinos, they will do well in this new environment. As the article points out, just a single city gets 450 jobs and $2.1-$2.4 million in revenue from gambling. With state and local budgets in such a tight spot, can the state (or even this locality) afford to not be as accommodating as possible to gambling in the area? I think not.
Disclosure: Long UWN. This is not advice of any kind. Always do a ton of your own research in regard to anything that I say, write, do, or so much as even think about!