Slashdot Log In
Betting Against Online Gambling
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Jul 15, 2006 04:36 AM
from the roaches-under-the-fridge dept.
from the roaches-under-the-fridge dept.
conq writes "BusinessWeek.com has an article looking at the possible consequences if anti-gambling legislation is passed. From the article: 'Just how much of a setback is the proposed legislation for the $12 billion industry? While online gambling companies generate half their sales from U.S. gamblers, the industry is operated almost completely by companies beyond the reach of U.S. regulators. [...] It's a lot of smoke and mirrors and misstatements.'"
Related Stories
[+]
News: U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act 334 comments
SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."
[+]
Technology: Internet Gambling CEO Arrested by FBI 298 comments
tightpoker writes to mention the news that several key individuals associated with online gambling site BetonSports have been indicted in a Missouri courtroom. Founder Stephen Kaplan, CEO David Carruthers, 9 other people and four corporations have been charged with crimes ranging from racketeering to fraud. The Sunday Time reports on the story as well, addressing fears this may be a prelude to a crackdown on all online gambling by U.S. law enforcement. From the article: "Nigel Parson, leisure analyst at Williams de Broë, said the move would 'throw online gambling stocks into a spin,' adding: 'David Carruthers is a prominent advocate of online gambling. The fear that this is an escalation of the anti-lobby will trouble markets.' Greg Harris, an analyst at Cannacord, said: 'It is too early to say if this is part of a broader strategy on prevention of internet gambling in the U.S. or if it is the Department of Justice flexing their muscles and trying to influence legislation.'"
[+]
U.S. Arrests Online Gambling Company Chairman 634 comments
imaginaryelf writes "Reuters reports that U.S. authorities have arrested Peter Dicks, the chairman of U.K. based online sports betting company Sportingbet Plc, while he was passing through Dallas. Just two months ago, the CEO of another U.K. based online sports betting company, BetOnSports, was arrested on U.S. soil as well. They are both charged with violating the 1961 Federal Wire Act, which can be broadly interpreted as declaring all forms of online gambling illegal in the U.S. Is online gambling the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century?"
[+]
Online Gambling Bill Passed in House 170 comments
rkcallaghan writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the House passed a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions." There's still no such move in the Senate, but it's a step towards banning online gambling nonetheless. Since this bill isn't expected to affect the usual, legal ways of gambling domestically, one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states, rather than overseas.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sure is a good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Like I said. A tax on people who cannot do math.
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
I responded to another part of your comment that I agreed with. This one, however, I do not agree with. Consider a 6% return on investment AFTER inflation (you'll find this is very conservative for the stock market, and not much above historical money market rates. Consider most people will spend more than 40 years in the work force.
At 6% interest (plus inflation), over 40 years, this $1/week will grow to $8,673. A $2,0
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, major shareholders and CEOs are always looking forty years in advance, not just until the next quarter until they can sell out and screw everyone else over.
Parent
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's so different about spending $1 a week on a lottery ticket than buying a beer every so often? You don't need either of them to survive. But for the people who enjoy beer or the lottery, it's worth the very small amount of money. Obviously it's a good idea to save money for so many reasons I can't list. But if you're not spending money to enjoy yourself I think you're going to be a pretty miserable person.
Parent
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you make conscious decisions like this, it is amazaing how your habits change. I have a few perks that I "can't do without"
So exactly why are you doing without? Why are you living without these perks? So that you can increase your wealth? But what is the point of said wealth? At some point, the only reason you've increased your wealth is so that you can enjoy spending it on some perk or another. No one saves money for its own sake, it's always about increasing your standard of living, and that
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if the fantasy value of winning is what you consider entertainment, then I'd suggest that the person either cannot do math, or they are able to delude themselves. I am not a fan of either possibility.
Have you ever been to a movie and "deluded" yourself into caring about the characters? You know it's not real, but it's fun nonetheless. I don't see much difference between that and the lottery. It is possible to keep two opposing ideas in your head at the same time, but still know which one is real
Not against Scripture (Score:4, Informative)
As soon as a gambler's money ceases to be an expense (like movies or gaming software), and he begins to hope or depend on a lucky streak to solve his financial problems, the gambling becomes an evil addiction. Mathematical ability is not the issue, gambling addiction is irrational. It is a spiritual problem that puts hope of financial salvation in an eventual win.
Sometimes people with excellent math ability can win consistently at games like BlackJack. In my opinion, this is wrong also. An honest casino is a form of entertainment. They would be up front about the house percentage built in to all the games. The card counter again turns gambling into an income rather than an expense. Often successfully, to be sure, but it is like a quick change artist robbing a movie theatre.
In real life, of course, most Casinos seek to exploit gambling addiction for profit, rather like Tobacco companies exploiting nicotine addiction. Casinos with such sleazy motives in turn create a sleazy atmosphere around the Casino. The campaigns to ban gambling have the same motivation as the campaigns to ban smoking.
There have been some attempts to create wholesome Casinos. The main idea is that you buy tokens which cannot be redeemed for cash (same idea as pinball machines), so there is no temptation to look to the games as income. Such a Casino would probably qualify as "not gambling" under anti-gambling laws. Of course, playing this form of "gambling" is like smoking nicotine-free tobacco.
Parent
Re:Not against Scripture (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just silly. A successful blackjack card counter is following the rules of the game, and coming out ahead by making correct decisions. You might as well say that it's "wrong" to pay off your credit card every month because Mastercard wants to collect interest on the balance.
Parent
Re:Not against Scripture (Score:3, Interesting)
My boss gambles responsibly. He takes $800 to Vegas, and stays a week. Usually, he runs through that budget before the week is out, and goes to shows for the
It's not about gambling, but taxes (Score:2)
Seriously, there is something important. The war in the middle east, and this law has everything to do with it. I myself am somewhat sympathetic to the war, but the simple honest truth is that the government simply can't pay for it. Really, Congress could care less about people who are down and out from gambling, but they care alot about people escaping the overbearing
Re:Sure is a good thing... (Score:2)
Give our Congress credit where credit is due. They've prioritized on-line gambling behind flag burning, gay marriage and the threat our lettuce-pickers pose to national security.
I don't know. It seems that when the U.S. passes a law the rest of the world is supposed to obey it so are most of the servers really out of reach? Join the army and see the world? I don't think so. See Iraq maybe. But every month it seems like you read about the FBI raiding someplace in Russia, South Africa, etc. etc. Join t
Adverts (Score:4, Funny)
It will have little effect long term... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the gambling sites will move offshore. The banks and credit card companies will not want to lose that massive
source of transactions, and will find a way to continue those transactions. There is no explicit restriction on them.
There's too much money at stake here.
Re:It will have little effect long term... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why prohibit what ordinary citizens might actually *want* and like? Smells awfully like fascism.
Re:It will have little effect long term... (Score:5, Informative)
You are right that there is too much money at stake to stop it. This is yet another example of the Canute effect [wikipedia.org] where people believe that merely making a new law or regulation necessarily achieves the desired effect. Have the legislators forgotten prohibition?
Parent
Re:It will have little effect long term... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not all of it will go offshore. You can expect a lot of Indian reserves to set up server farms on Indian-controlled land. This way, even if the credit card companies are forced to stop allowing online deposits, there's nothing to stop anyone from going to the local reserve and swiping their debit card, or having a friend who lives nearby deposit some cash.
Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure this bill will be denounced on slashdot, but I really don't think of it as *that* evil. Sure, there are plenty of legitimate online gambling sites, but many of them are there solely to rip you off of your hard earned dollars, and often times people (unfortunately) cannot tell the difference. Maybe, just maybe, our elected legislators have our best interest in heart this time.
I mean in this day, is anyone really more than a few hours away from an Indian casino? Do you really need 24/7 access to gambling? It might be that the very few hours of distance is all that saves a lot of people from their self...
Re:Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:2)
I know exactly how you feel. As an IT equipment addict, I've spent a fortune on new hard drives, new monitors, CPUs' RAM etc. in the past year alone. When they've finished with gambling hopefullt they'll ban IT sales next. Oh, and then everything else. Won't someone please think of the consumers?
Re:Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Gambling is not chemically addictive. Its time for you to take some personal responibility for your lifestyle choices.
Re:Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:2)
The job of elected legislators is not to look after our best interests. It is to serve our stated interests.
Re:Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:3, Informative)
Playing poker online isn't the same as playing in a casino, for a few reasons:
The strategy is different, because you can't see anyone's face.
There are a lot more clueless players online (read: people you can win money from), because what kind of rookie is going to play poker at a casino when all those table games are placed more prominently and easier to get started with?
In fact,
Re:Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:2)
I'd say the problem isn't really gambling but the way our society allows gambling to be performed.
If you go into a bar and start slamming shots as fast as you can, the bartender has a responsibility to cut you off at some point. They say, "You've had enough, go home."
No su
Re:Coming from a gambling addict.... (Score:2)
The Indians already run internet casinos http://www.mohawk.ca/policies.php [mohawk.ca]
Not even the Mafia wants to tangle with the Mohawks, so forget about the government shutting them down.
See also . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress wants the money (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt the republicans are doing this to "save us" from the evilness of gambling. After all, the vast majority of all Americans gamble responsively. Blaming the industry too much would be like blaming television for murderers becoming who they are (read: artificial violence). If people have a problem with spending money, it will end up in pockets of other people no matter what, simply because gambling is only one way to canal it.
So once again, my point is, the US authorities should look at options of keeping as much of the industry within the US as possible instead of messing with peoples' habits and hobbies.
Re:Congress wants the money (Score:2)
I gamble responsibly.
I had a roommate who played online poker about 18 hours a day. He was doing so well that at one point he quit his job (it wasn't a good job) and began living entirely off of his poker winnings.
Then he had a bad week. Then he had a bad month. Then he admitted that not
... unless they are betting on horses (Score:5, Funny)
In my home state of PA (Score:5, Interesting)
But this bill isn't about protecting people, it's about protecting revenue. Afterall, if you can sit in the comfort of your own home wasting your money on gambling, why go out and do state-sanctioned gambling (lottery tickets and casinos). What you can't tax, you ban.
BTW, for gambling proponents endorsing building Casinos as a public good, just go to Atlantic City (hey, if you are a Senior Citizen, just take the bus for minimum cash, like $10, and they give you that and a little more back in slotmachine tokens - hell, you can probably cash your social security checks there too), and look at the streets directly behind the casinos. One street behind the Boardwalk, it becomes a total dump. All show, no substance.
Re:In my home state of PA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
US card networks can block gaming category code (Score:5, Informative)
If the US wants to stop its population from using online gaming sites, all that they have to do is dictate that the issuing banks in their country simply decline all authorization attempts which contain the 7995 category code. The US banks can also look at the merchant country codes, so that it can allow US based gaming sites like horse betting (which is legal in American but illegal in many countries) to be authorized, while still declining the overseas gaming sites.
Problem solved, since the vast majority of people using any type of Internet commerce, including online gaming, pay directly or indirectly with their credit cards.
I am sick and tired of politicians in one country expecting to regulate Internet activity of other countries, using broad extra-territorial legislation. This is impossible for online merchants and banks to enforce, especially since many countries have laws that contradict each other. Should we ban online sales of electronics globally, because they are illegal in North Korea? What about alcohol that is illegal in some Islamic countries? What about mediciations, mod chip, etc.? Even non-physical online software and services, including proxy agents, news & political websites, adult entertainment, etc. are banned in many countries.
Re:US card networks can block gaming category code (Score:3, Interesting)
And they are real hard to get in Panama, Sierra Leone, and Uzbekistan.
I know you are American, but get a grip - credit cards and the internet are world wide.
And anyone stupid enough to bet in circumstances where he is unable to detect whether he is playing against a computer that is programmed to cheat is probably doomed anyway. Why not send them to an asylum the moment the CIA monitoring shows they placed a
Re:US card networks can block gaming category code (Score:5, Interesting)
Are citizens going to be prevented from transferring any money or holding any bank accounts outside the U.S.? How would they stop someone from simply mailing the funds as a money order or using a "shirea"(sp?)-type money transfer scheme?
Short of requiring the government to exclusively handle all citizens' money, and outlaw *any* transfer of citizens' money outside U.S. financial control, I see no way they can possibly prevent them gambling online, or even collect enough data to prosecute them for doing so.
Of course, one could put on his tinfoil hat and argue that this is a step in the direction of the government seizing (more) direct control of citizens' money.
Myself, I just think it's another short-sighted lawmaking exercise that will end up curtailing freedoms and hurting the U.S. economy with more regulatory and enforcement costs while not actually accomplishing the goals that are espoused for it's passage, something that the U.S. government is legendary for.
Cheers!
Strat
Parent
The tough issue will be gambling ads (Score:2, Interesting)
But if you can't run gambling ads, I think a lot of current and potential future sports information sites will be in trouble. There are only so many retro jerseys their advertisers can sell
Odd though it may sound, the big losers from a real crackdown on internet gambling might be fantasy sports players.
And
Re:The tough issue will be gambling ads (Score:2)
Takers? (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
This reminds me of the invention of Swaps; a financial instrument originally devised by banks as a means to provide a service helping multinationals circumvent capital controls imposed by the British Government [google.com] (warning: PDF).
I can see the formation of off shore entities that will sell a "service" to US consumers. Whatever the the facade (e.g., email, picture viewing, etc) of this service, the real purpose will be to enable US based consumers of online gambling to move offshore; by paying for the "service" the cash is then off governments radar.
Visit your favourite on-line gambling site and the funds you used to purchase the "service" are now magically available, minus some "friction", of course, to fund your gambling. Later another "service" would be used to repatriate funds back into the US.
There are loads of other mechanisms I can think of to get around this stupid law. Of course the government will find it necessary to establish policing actions to find / stop this avoidance, thus screwing the taxpayer a second time ("No, you CANT gamble online AND you have to pay me to make sure you DONT gamble online)".
Another reason I'm glad I don't live and pay taxes there anymore.
A ban is never going to happen (Score:2)
Anyone wanna bet? (Score:2)
take a piece (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just a warm-up. Legalizing online gambling so the feds and US corps can get their cut is the real goal. Ask yourself: why aren't the major US gaming corporations being extremely vocal on this issue?
Once again, The Right brings up an issue to legislate on moral grounds (gaining votes) only to collect behind the scenes (gaining $$$) when they later fulfill the interests of the corporations.
So all the Online gamblers switch to "day trading" (Score:3, Funny)
This could be interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, the only thing to do is to somehow catch it when American-based credit card companies are exchanging funds between an American and an online gambling company.
But how do you tell if the company is an online gambling company or not?
Well, the credit card companies might know, but if a company is overseas it's entirely possible that the CC company might not know all the details of the business. It may be listed with the CC company as a business that does something else entirely, and not even necessarily be lying about it (since the last time I checked, CC companies only want to know what is a merchant's _primary_ business, not all of the details behind every single transaction they ever do).
So... how do you tell if any particular CC transaction is connected to online gambling or not?
Ultimately, you can't. So the only thing left to do at this point is to impose fines on any and all credit card transactions with businesses other countries, regardless of what business they are actually in.
I don't use online gambling sites myself, but I am _SO_ curious to see how this whole thing plays out.... (like a traffic accident, you can't look away, even when you want to).
Re:If this bill passes, online gaming is DEAD (Score:3, Informative)
But there are countries that won't honour US judgements and in fact even won't extradite criminals!
Cuba and The Dominican Republic are but two that come immediately to mind. I'd be surprised if Russia or Venezuela would rush to honor any US civil judgement, and Middle Eastern countries? Not a chance.
And as laws change these companies will move about, away from more restrictive regulatory enviromments to domains where enforcement is lax. You see this
Re:If this bill passes, online gaming is DEAD (Score:3, Informative)
You might have taken legal action against a foriegn company for something that was illegal in both countrie