With all afforded respect, like many things in life, it all depends. At the risk of being pedantic, I would say random examples as you have presented, without presenting a fact nexus back to Native Hawaiiana, do not highly illuminate the situation. With that said, I would say, there are several metric drivers which can inform if a native entity might be successful--regardless of whether they have gaming or not. 

Applicable metric areas would include the following: land base, proximity to both urban and cultural centers and access to capitalization. Hawaiians have all of the above. One must remember that the successful tribes have leveraged gaming for two specific purposes: one to leverage into more mainstream industries and two, to create a destination or sorts for commerce. Again, Hawai'i is already a destination and thus there is a legitimate strategy that says we might NOT need gaming. Last, the state has at least 300,000-400,000 acres in trust, our market valuation is the billions