Profile of An Internet Bookie

prostoalex writes "The New York Times Magazine has a story about one of Internet's most lucrative businesses - online bookmaking. Writer William Berlind travels to San Jose, Costa Rica, where the offices of such online powerhouses as BetOnSports and SkyBook are located. Quite an interesting story about numerous Americans traveling to Costa Rica with the grand business plan of online gambling, US government trying to shut down the offshore gambling operations, and how the bookies operate."

Comments

how silly is the government?

[havaloc]

There's a tremendous oppurtunity for the government to regulate, tax, and profit from this by legalizing it and bringing it back on shore, and help make up budget short falls.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. It's called the state lottery. Why would then want to allow competition?

Re:how silly is the government?

[yintercept]

In the war between the government and the bookies, I will give 5 : 1 odds on the bookies...

Re:how silly is the government?

[The Brain Murderer]

But now you are expecting rational thought from people that are elected by the populous and work for business whilst trying not to get caught out with their fingers in the pie or doing something that is 'immoral'.

Were it not for the twisted religous aspects that creep into public life, not only would gambling be licenced and controlled, so would prositution. Imagine the health implications that regular medicals would mean to both the ladies and their clients. That is to say nothing of cutting out the people that introduce drugs as a method of control.

The Brain Murderer

Re:how silly is the government?

[TedCheshireAcad]

"Gambling isn't wrong, it even says so in the Bible!"
"Where?"
"Ehh...somewhere in the back"

Re:how silly is the government?

[Awptimus Prime]

The same thing goes with drug prohibition.

There's ample, untapped, opportunities for our government to legalize and tax commodities that have no real harm on society, but are illegal for moral concerns.

A 2000 year old book tells you gambling is a sin, so we've got to make sure it's illegal in 2003. It's amazing how far we've come as a society in some aspects, and how badly we've done in others.

I say we ditch all the 'moral' laws and stick to the ones that actual cause harm to others. End entitlement programs (hand outs, section 8, etc). Separate church and state for real. Ditch de-regulation of utilities. Make punishments for government employees who let contributions change a vote extreme. Then sit back and watch America become a better place to live.

Sorry for the bad grammar, it's the thought that counts. :)

Re:how silly is the government?

[HowlinMad]

ever heard of Nevada? Gambling and prostitution are both legal and regulated.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Abm0raz]

synopsis:
Let's all become libertarians.

I like it :)

-Ab

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

ever heard of Nevada

Nevada? WTF is that?

Re:how silly is the government?

[baldass_newbie]

ever heard of Nevada? Gambling and prostitution are both legal and regulated.

Nevada? Is that the new Mac browser? I hear they do things differently over there.

Re:how silly is the government?

[leviramsey]

Number one reason sports betting is nog going to be legalized in the US:

It will kill the state lotteries.

Why? Look at the vig on sports betting versus lotteries (the vig is the amount the bettor can expect to lose and is the difference between the money returned by a winning bet and the actual probability of winning). For a typical Vegas-style bet on football against the spread or on an over-under, here's basically the way it works:

A line is set. For instance, tonight's preseason game between the Rams and Bucs has a line of "Rams - 2.5". A bet on the Rams means that, after deducting 2.5 points from their score, you are betting on them to win; a bet on the Bucs is a bet on them to win if 2.5 points is added to their score. Thus a bet on the Rams loses and a bet on the Bucs wins if the score is Rams 35, Bucs 33. Bets (assuming standard Vegas payouts, though many times the payout rates will be adjusted to encourage betting on one side or the other) are paid out on an 11-10 basis, i.e., you're betting 11 to gain 10.

The house will thus (if an equal amount of money is bet on both sides) make a $1 profit on every $22 bet (ie 4.5%).

Now, contrast this with a state lottery. In Massachusetts, 50% of the bet is the state tax on lotteries. An additional 10% of what's left is taken by the lottery as their share, for administrative expenses. Thus only 40% of the money bet on any given game will be returned to bettors in the form of winnings. These figures are not significantly different from state to state.

The end-result of this is that you only need to be right (or lucky) 53% of the time to make a profit betting on sports (when, picking totally randomly, you would be right 50% of the time), but you need to be right 2.5 times as often as random selections would be in order to reasonably expect to break even in a lottery.

One of the great appeals of sports betting is the better odds of making a profit doing it. Indeed, Oregon tried a few years ago to create a "sports lottery", which was sports betting but with payout rates similar to the lottery. No one bet with it.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

HUGE difference between drugs and gambling. Gambling is like alcohol. It can be very dangerous and addictive to some people but most of the population can control it. Drugs on the other hand are dangerous and addictive to all of the population. Even with regulation drugs would continue to be dangerous and uncontrollable. Do you think that legalizing drugs would make drug dealers more responsible? Do you think that they would all line up to get licenses to sell drugs?

Otherwise I pretty much agree with you.

Re:how silly is the government?

[__past__]

Actually, a simple division between church and state has worked quite well for most of europe in the last centuries. You americans might want to try it sometimes. You don't have to adopt to any specific ideology, just don't make one more official than the others.

Re:how silly is the government?

[jomc]

It isn't surprising that Costa Rica would allow this, and not the US. CR is growing increasingly libertarian.

Re:how silly is the government?

[BillFarber]

1) Actually, only certain interpretations of the Bible declare gambling to be a sin.

2) Gambling causes social problems that have nothing to do with religion or morals. This makes it something that the government should have a hand in.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-gambling, but your arguments don't make sense in this case.

Re:how silly is the government?

[segment]

I say we ditch all the 'moral' laws and stick to the ones that actual cause harm to others. End entitlement programs (hand outs, section 8, etc). Separate church and state for real. Ditch de-regulation of utilities. Make punishments for government employees who let contributions change a vote extreme. Then sit back and watch America become a better place to live.

How exatcly would limiting section8 and handouts help america. Nowadays there are so many people out of work, with degrees let alone what I think you meant to state was those who abuse the system. I would rather pay taxes for section8 if it will keep the crime rate down. Besides there's been overhauls on many `hand-out` programs such as workfare.

Separation of church and state will be difficult because they're both nothing more than businesses, and religion generates huge revenues. Revenues = political contriutions, so while it sounds good it won't happen in this lifetime.

Punishing government employees will not happen either as too many people don't see this as such a big problem, if they did, they would move to make sure it wouldn't happen. Search google for cognitive dissonance to understand why.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

> HUGE difference between drugs and gambling. Gambling is like alcohol.

Mod this up funny

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I'm pretty sure he was trying to make a joke. I don't think anyone could really be this ignorant.

Re:how silly is the government?

[BTWR]

actually, no he(she's) not trying to be funny.

What the parent is saying is that as opposed to gambling and drinking, there is no way to "casually" do some drugs. One can casually smoke pot or even mushrooms and ecstacy, but you can't be a "social heroin user" or be a "weekend coke sniffer."

Gambling, alcohol and marijuana are all substances that can cause harm, but self-control allows 98% of the population to not let it ruin their life. In fact, most of the population that gambles/drinks have a very enjoyable time with their occational Vegas weekends and glasses of wine with dinner. But to say that ALL drugs can be taken casually is simply not true. A very small segment of the population will actually become addicted to alcohol. Nearly every single person will become physically dependent on heroin the first time they inject it.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

So one use of heroin makes you an addict? Spoken just like someone who has never used heroin! Originally, it was a pain reliever like no other (hence the name). One use does NOT an addict make!

Besides, I've been using heroin for fifteen years and I'm not hooked...

Re:how silly is the government?

[gl4ss]

** HUGE difference between drugs and gambling. Gambling is like alcohol.**

that's not much of a difference at all, alcohol is a drug and so is tobacco and many legal medicines too. though, you should remember that some people don't count beer to be alcohol drink at all(which is of course stupid, as 24case of beer will get you wasted). and if there is a 'gateway' drug, alcohol is it, maybe tobacco trailing second place(but alcohol is pushing use of tobacco nicely in it's way, really).

here's a nice story: once upon a time there was a country in the northern europe that got it's independency due to political storming in the mother country. after some clashing of social classes they in all wisdom decided that alcohol is bad (because high portition of people there had direct experiences that alcohol could break families, cause murders and other despair). so they banned alcohol. only problem was that they kept on drinking anyways(some consumption figures were even higher than they were when it was legal!), and massive amounts of alcohol were smuggled and moonshine production was at very high, as were the criminal nature of the smuggling operations. at the same time they only drank alcohol to get drunk. after enough time finally it was turned over in vote(as majority realised it was not going to work, people wanted to get wasted). after 70 years alcohol is so taxed that it is more profitable(risk/profit) to smuggle alcohol than it is to smuggle drugs(in essence, the alcohol is now more expensive due to taxation to the average consumer than it was during prohibition). alcohol is quite addictive, it's just that for most people it never comes a problem to get wasted every now and then on alcohol because it is legal(and always available option without resorting to crime, really, around here, in that northern europe country).

the same country also regulates gambling and so it is possible to play blackjack(and roulette in some) in most of the discos and the profits go to 'common good' instead of making the casino a bigger money trap.

i'm not saying that all drugs should be made legal and regulated, i'm saying that there is not much difference between the legal drugs and the illegal one's except for the legality and ways of obtaining(which promote crime) and that the current system that categorizes illegal drugs into one big category is stupid and unworking, because it makes the really bad drugs look better (smoke weed for few years and end up thinking that since weed isn't so bad heroine can't be either since they are in the same category, the gateway effect).

as for myself, alcohol is just fine for me. thoroughly tested, regulated, always available, although expensive(currently) drug.

(and no, i won't fall to the "i've drank n+1 years and haven't gotten addicted on it" hole, as for the varying levels of addictivity i could probably live without alcohol for some nice pootang, hookers not included because they could be cheaper than drinking anyways. i could probably live without alcohol even just because the doctor says i should but i'm still going to drink that next bottle someday so i am addicted. luckily i never started smoking because that would be a real bitch, very addicting without any decent rewards)

Re:how silly is the government?

[Awptimus Prime]

I guess I'll have to come right out and say it...

First off, why should I work to support someone's grandmother, bastard children, unemployed mother, mexican immigrant, etc? I'm sorry, but that's not MY responsibility. I disagree with taxation to support anyone. Taxes should be to pay the expenses of running a government, not supporting a nation.

How exatcly would limiting section8 and handouts help america.

Very easy.. It would put money back in the pockets of the people that worked for it. These are the people who will invest it or spend it on traded goods. Did you know between 15-20% of your tax dollars go to entitlement programs?

Give that money back to the people it belongs to, they'll spend it on something besides alchohol, drugs, crap foods, and such. This would result in more production, jobs, and economic growth.

People wouldn't starve. They'd actually be motivated to be a family and help one another out.

Anyway, are you aware how section 8 works? Basically, you pay a discounted (or no) rent, and the government picks up what you didn't pay. This is often $400-800/mo per household. Guess what? Most of these are single, minority mothers. They started off single, had babies knowing they would get a free ride until the child turns 18.

Think I am exaggerating? I have a relative who's manager over a local apartment complex that began filing section 8's about 4 years ago. She has to deal with these people all the time. These single mothers keep having babies, even after they were already filed under the program. What sense does that make? They needed money from ME to pay for their first kid and now they keep having more! BTW, this is a middle income complex and there's about 315 section 8's. All female, all with no job, no education, and a bunch of kids. Most have boyfriends living with them, for free, on our dollar too.

Sure, we can keep those programs, but I'd suggest that we begin sterilizing anyone that applies.

I know there's sweet little old ladies out there that need our help. I just don't think the government should play a role and force others to help. A more localized, community or church organization would be a much better answer. If taxes were lower, people would contribute to these sort of things a bit more. Especially when there's nothing else to fall back on.

If adults acted more like adults, we wouldn't be in this situation. Invest in your future now, don't leech on society later.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading "Down and Out in Paris and London" by George Orwell for a description of society pre-welfare.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

A 2000 year old book tells you gambling is a sin, so we've got to make sure it's illegal in 2003. It's amazing how far we've come as a society in some aspects, and how badly we've done in others.

There are propably plenty of 2003 raports that show a gambling addiction is bad for people. Now these raports are:

• Newer, they may even be hot from the press
• Thiner, they are likely to contain far fewer pages then the bible.
• writen on a scientific basis rather then a religues one

But some would sugest rather cliche-ish one shouldn`t judge a book by its cover, but read it..... Anyway bible sucks, scientific reports suck if paid for by big "deregulated" corporation with huge election-campaign intererstested politicians backing.

Re:how silly is the government?

[BTWR]

yes. heroin and cocaine CAN make you hooked after a single use. This, again, is unlike gambling, pot, alcohol and even Krispy Kreme.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Lathi-]

yes. heroin and cocaine CAN make you hooked after a single use. This,
again, is unlike gambling, pot, alcohol and even Krispy Kreme.

I strongly disagree. Krispy Kreme can hook you after a single use.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you have never been around drug addicts in your life. Is it fine to joke when you live in mommy's basement and you want to take an occasional toke but when you get out in the real world and see the damage that can, has, and will be done then maybe you will see things differently.

Re:how silly is the government?

[NDPTAL85]

In case you hadn't noticed church and state ARE separated in the US and quite explicitly. Care to provide any examples where this is not the case in the US?

Re:how silly is the government?

[The Brain Murderer]

ever heard of Nevada?

Yes, but being a Brit, I don't have much knowledge of the state beyond the reputation as a place of legalised gambling.

Re:how silly is the government?

[dcgaber]

Then please explain why people play slot machines or roullete in casinos or those stupid card games such as let it ride and carribean stud. Those games all have worse player odds than black jack and craps (which i believe is the best player odds), yet you cant walk into a casino and hear the ching ching ching of losers and the money being parted on slots.

Lotteries will still well because they easy and cost a buck or two, so it seems harmless if you lose. However sport betting means you should know something about the sport and the players and then watch the game. Sure, that is great for a lot of people, but not neccesarily the majority, and not those who will impulse purchase a lottery ticket or two.

Re:how silly is the government?

[sketerpot]

It's funny how there are state-run lotteries, and yet people get up in arms whenever there's talk about letting anyone else run gambling operations. The arguments against private gambling operations would apply just as well (or as poorly, however you want to look at it) to the state lottery.

A long time ago, there was a story on slashdot about this---from the so-immoral-the-government-has-to-run-it department.

Re:how silly is the government?

[bogie]

"I know there's sweet little old ladies out there that need our help. I just don't think the government should play a role and force others to help"

Sorry, but that's the price you pay for living in America. We as a nation have decided that helping those in need is a worthy goal. If you don't like it you'll have to find someplace to live. It's not just "little old ladies" who help help either.

"Give that money back to the people it belongs to, they'll spend it on something besides alchohol, drugs, crap foods, and such."

Sad that you actually believe that.

"If adults acted more like adults, we wouldn't be in this situation. Invest in your future now, don't leech on society later."

Hmm. Hope you never become disabled in a car accident from someone with no insurance. I guess maybe you've made enough money to be able to afford medical expenses and basic things like housing and food for the rest of your life? How about your childern? They set for life as well? Must be nice to be you and be so rich.

"but I'd suggest that we begin sterilizing anyone that applies."

Why not tatoo their forehead as well so we know who to shun?

Life is not a black and white as you think it is and the people who recieve assitance aren't all just "lazy". Also forcing an "Every man for himself" doctrine upon our Nation would be a disaster of epic proportions. Thank God most people don't think like you do.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Jester99]

Another reason sports gambling is popular is because it takes knowledge on the gambler's part.

Before you bet on horse races, you consult two pages of very small text giving information about all the horses in the race and what lane they're in and how well they've done in previous races, etc.

Other sports like football are similar -- you look at who's playing that night, what players on that team are playing, etc.

Sports gambling is alluring because the more familiar you are with the sport, the better the odds are that you'll pick the winner (Who would you bet on? Notre Dame or South Dakota State?)

A lottery, by contrast, is purely random. So. Which number tonight? 5-78-21? It's as good as any other. Not quite as fun.

Re:how silly is the government?

[sketerpot]

You're right, of course---but if you want examples of (in most cases fairly minor) transgressions, there's a list of recent ones. Looking at that list makes me glad that things aren't nearly as bad as they could be. Still, having to try not to look odd sitting through a teacher-led prayer at a public high school graduation (personal experience, two years ago) is not pleasant. And niether is hearing the president talk about the "bridge between church and state".

Re:how silly is the government?

[Xerithane]

In case you hadn't noticed church and state ARE separated in the US and quite explicitly. Care to provide any examples where this is not the case in the US?

Sure thing.

Re:how silly is the government?

[sketerpot]

It may have hooked you after a single use, but there are some of us who don't have a krispy kreme addiction even after multiple uses. There's nothing addictive about doughnuts, they just give us a sensory whammie that we could get in other ways.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Popular perception is that heroin is VERY addictive, and that nobody can use the drug casually, but the research just doesn't support this. Same for coke. Check out this interesting article on the subject..

http://www.reason.com/0306/fe.js.h.shtml

Heroin and coke CAN be used casually, are no worse than alcohol or Prozac. Anything can be abused, but that shouldn't be reason to prohibit it.

Re:how silly is the government?

[leviramsey]

Sports gambling is alluring because the more familiar you are with the sport, the better the odds are that you'll pick the winner (Who would you bet on? Notre Dame or South Dakota State?)

In theory, handicap betting eliminates some of that. Not knowing much about either school (I don't really follow college football... NFL is more my style), I'd conservatively say that the line in Notre Dame/SD St. would be something like Notre Dame giving 21 points. With a line like that, a rational observer may be tempted to take the points and run.

Of course, books are generally unwilling, except in extreme cases, to spot one team multiple touchdowns. Even the Bengals last year were never more than 13.5 point underdogs (the only multi-touchdown line I can recall from last year in the NFL was Philly giving 19.5 to Houston, and betting on Houston was the smart thing; that was one of many "the Texans aren't as bad as the betting public thinks" plays that I made last year).

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does eating a good doughnut give you pleasure? if so - it's certianly possible to become addicted to them. It's the dopamine release thats "addicting"

Now suck the cream out of my jelly stick motherfucker.

opp

Re:how silly is the government?

[chanceH]

>Of course, books are generally unwilling, except in extreme cases, to spot one team

thats in pro.

In college point spreads of 35 or 45 aren't unheard of. And those lines are usually pretty sharp (i.e. a posteriori seem to be near the median outcome .... so there is no +EV bet). actually if you forced me to bet on the first college game this year with a point spread over 30, I'd take the favorite.

Re:how silly is the government?

[mosch]

Roulette isn't neccessarily a terrible game, with a single-zero wheel, and en prison the house edge is about 1.3%, though standard american roulette is about a 5% game, though american roulette with surrender is about half that.

Blackjack, craps and baccarat are indeed the least unfavorable odds-wise, but a lot of gamblers don't know or care about the math. They're interested in games where they can put down a small amount of money and pick up a large one. The smart bets in blackjack, baccarat and craps don't offer that potential large return on investment.

Re:how silly is the government?

[stoops]

gambling is a lot more addictive than the lottery.

with gambling, the rewards are immediate.

with the lottery, you have to wait until the next draw to see what happens.

do you think people would smoke crack if they got high a week after smoking it?

Re:how silly is the government?

[mosch]

Well, the lines aren't set by an analyst who figures out who they think will win the game, it's simply done by attempting to even the money on both sides of the bet, so that no matter who gets paid, the book made money. Thus, you simply need to be smarter than the average dollar that was bet.

Re:how silly is the government?

[WNight]

Sterilization is a good idea. If someone asks for money, help them, but make sure they don't make their own situation worse.

That said, I'm a supporter of welfare. There are a lot of things beyond people's control that could leave them in the street, I think society owes it to itself to keep people from bottoming out so far.

Also, it's enlightened self interest. Few rich people are drug abusing wife beaters, compared to the number of poor who do this. It's not a genetic thing, but I think, a hopelessness thing. If you've got a jaguar in the garage and a ski lodge in aspen you're not going to turn to booze to dull the pain. If the only jobs available to you pay less, after expenses, than welfare would, you've got $20k in bankruptcy-proof student loans, and six kids to feed, you're much more likely to turn to drugs and violence.

If we could keep people from sinking quite that low, by guaranteeingt shelter and food, we could keep that desperation away. I don't think welfare should pay for much in the way of luxuries, and I think you should have to "work" for it. If you had to ride transit (for free) to a city job office every day, and work collecting garbage, painting over grafitti, etc, to get your welfare you'd get a lot less bums using it. Those able to work would quickly find a job, and those unable to work would at least perform a service that'd make the rest of us feel better about supporting them.

Even moms with little kids could do real work. They could stuff envelopes or something. That, combined with not having to worry about getting pregnant again until they'd been off the public dollar for a year (when you'd stop giving them the shots) would make it easier to become self sufficient. They'd have work experience, even as simple as a history of showing up on time for their make-work, and the self-confidence to know they could do it. Not having more kids woul keep them from getting in farther over their heads.

Re:how silly is the government?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Exactly. In my bassackwards state of SC we had video poker for the longest time. You could play these games at the bar/gas station/whatever and the establishment would pay you out if you won. Then we got rid of video poker to help people who were addicted to gambling. I think it is a crock, but that was the moral argument made. Right after that, low and behold, we got a lottery. Now, that same people who played video poker all day now spend the same money playing the lottery and most likely have worse odds to win!

Re:how silly is the government?

[EastCoastSurfer]

with the lottery, you have to wait until the next draw to see what happens.

Heh, in my state of SC they do the pick 3 drawing 2-3 times a day now...

Re:how silly is the government?

[stoops]

that's still not often enough, and pick 3 isn't particularly addictive because winning anything is rare, while its ridiculously obvious how bad the odds are.

Re:how silly is the government?

[MMaestro]

In the early 1990's, a young man in California known to his associates as K.C. was trying to figure out a career for himself. He knew one thing. He liked sports, and even more, he liked betting. While in college, he gambled obsessively on dog racing and football, and after graduating, he ran a sports handicapping service, which was a legal enterprise, though it catered to an industry -- sports betting -- that is illegal in every state but Nevada. Trying a clean break from the sports and gambling world, he sold cellular phones door to door. But he couldn't stop betting, and for a brief time after giving up the salesman life, tried to make it as a full-time professional gambler. As his losses piled up, he observed that his bookie was making out far better than he was, and that this might be the best vocation for him too.

[www.nytimes.com]

This guy sounds like the standard case gambling addict. If he's addicted enough to dodge the law for nearly 10 years, what are the chances he is going to come to the US and have to pay taxes? Sure he'd have more consumers, but considering how much paperwork and scrutiny casinos and state lotteries are put under, what makes you think he'll go through all that hassel for a few extra consumers?

Re:how silly is the government?

[EastCoastSurfer]

that's still not often enough, and pick 3 isn't particularly addictive because winning anything is rare,

Wouldn't the odds of winning pick 3 be much easier than winning powerball? I would think it would be easier to 3 numbers than the 7 or 8 you have to pick for powerball. That would also be the reason why the pick 3 payoff is so low.

Keep in mind that most state lotterys are not just nightly drawings either. Add in the scratch off games where out of $10 you might win $1-$5 back it seems to me that the state lottery is setup to hook people into gambling. Finally, put in a huge advertising campaign saying how the lottery is fun and that it helps kids and schools and you have the state basically pushing gambling the way a dealer pushes drugs.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Jafafa Hots]

Heroin addiction has been VASTLY overstated. It's portrayed as akin to burning in hell in movies, etc.

I was hospitalized due to an accident for several weeks, and while not aware of it (head injury) was given several shots of Demerol a day for those weeks. Demerol is basically synthetic heroin.

Without even knowing I had been on it all that time, I was made to be physically addicted. Not from ONE use, but from unknown SCORES of them. So, I got to go through withdrawal without even knowing that it WAS withdrawal.

It was about a day and a half of feeling like I had the nastiest flu. Unpleasant, yes. But then I woke up, and apart from having messed up the bed (ala the infamous scene in "trainspotting") it was not a big deal.

Certainly not an ideal situation, but not something thats as impossible to go through as they make it seem.

Re:how silly is the government?

[dcgaber]

And that is sort of my point. What better pay-off to cost game is there than a lotto ticket that may potentially pay $250M (i.e. powerball) for $1 cost. The odds are crap (no pun intended), but the pay-off is much better than sports books.

As far as roulette, I have never played outside of the states, and always see it as the worst odds games that is not a machine or some cheesy card game.

Re:how silly is the government?

[phorm]

There's ample, untapped, opportunities for our government to legalize and tax commodities that have no real harm on society, but are illegal for moral concerns.

Not to mention all the money currently being sunk into preventing/policing such things in the first place. Not that I believe all drugs should be legal, but certain things (pot) the US seems a bit extreme over (I'm from Canada though).

Re:how silly is the government?

[leviramsey]

Never seen scratch tickets, eh?

I worked for a while at a convenience store, and th enumber of people that would come in, buy 10 $5 scratch tickets, go out to their car (or worse, scratch them on the counter!), come back in with about $20 in "winnings", convert those into more tickets, and then repeat the cycle until they hit a run that didn't win. Then they'd go to the ATM, take out another $50 and start over again, wasting about an hour in the process.

Same is true of Keno, where there's a drawing every 5 minutes or so and it's generally in bars, so you have drunks gambling it away.

Re:how silly is the government?

[mfrank]

One word: Charity. Maybe if half my income didn't go to the government, I'd give more to charity.

As far as being disabled in a car crash, I have disability insurance. It's not that expensive. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying Social Security. I also have uninsured driver insurance for my car, and I live in a state where it's illegal to drive without insurance. If I had a wife and kids, I've have term life insurance too. To not be protected like that is incompetent parenting.

Of course, why the hell should anyone bother to get insurance. It's free to just suck on the public teat if something bad happens.

Re:how silly is the government?

[wirde]

Nearly every single person will become physically dependent on heroin the first time they inject it.

Not quite true. New Scientist had a story about a WHO report (can't find a link to it at the moment) that claimed that heroin is about as addictive as nicotine. A heroin addiction will destroy your life much more effectively than a nicotine addiction though...

I smoked quite a few cigarettes in my late teens, never got addicted.

Re:how silly is the government?

[mutewinter]

Moral? Ask Bill Bennett, he seems to be an expert on those things.

Re:how silly is the government?

[mosch]

Well, if you're ever in a European casino, I suggest you play roulette, as with their rules it's one of the least unfavorable games in the house. Europe also lacks the incredible addiction to the slot machine which makes the majority of American casinos so incredibly obnoxious. (They exist, but not in anything resembling the quantity seen in any American casino)

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

drugs are NOT dangerous and addictive. sure, some of them are, but most of them are a couple hours of fun. DARE education fails because it teaches that all drugs are terrible, but this is simply not true. heroin is dangerous and addictive. crack is dangerous and addictive. weed isn't. shrooms aren't. acid isn't.

Re:how silly is the government?

[BTWR]

heroin is about as addictive as nicotine

That's in terms of withdrawl difficulty. Quitting smoking is actually as difficult as heroin. However, Nicotine is much slower to get addicted to (remember - one goes directly into your bloodstream, the other slowly goes in your airway)

Re:how silly is the government?

[rundgren]

almost everyone who has undergone major surgery has been sedated with morphine (more or less exactly the same as heroine), and I don't see people running straight from the hospitals to drug dealers...

Re:how silly is the government?

[wirde]

That's in terms of withdrawl difficulty. Quitting smoking is actually as difficult as heroin. However, Nicotine is much slower to get addicted to (remember - one goes directly into your bloodstream, the other slowly goes in your airway)

Valid point. I have not seen any figures for how fast or slow you get addicted to nicotine vs heroin

To be fair you should be comparing cigarettes to heroin when smoked though. Or compare both taken intravenously (I don't expect anyone to inject nicotine antime soon...) I think the difference would be mostly dosage anyway. Nicotine will reach your brain within seconds after the first inhalation. The whole purpose of the lungs is to get oxygen into the blood as fast as possible. If there is nicotine (or heroin for that matter) mixed with the air... too bad, it will enter the blood stream as well (less and slightly slower than if injected).

I am not advocating heroin use in any way, shape or form, but it is not true that everyone will become addicted to the drug after trying it once.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Dave2 Wickham]

i'm still going to drink that next bottle someday so i am addicted

So I'm addicted to bread, lettuce, baked beans, chips and other foodstuffs simply because I enjoy them and may have them again some time?

Re:how silly is the government?

[connect4]

The greatest damage has been and is being done by prohibition of drugs, not drugs themselves.

Violent crime, massive incarceration of NON violent offenders (at huge expense to the state), police corruption, electoral corruption, brainwashing campaigns (of which YOU are the result), and at the end of the day, addicts who can't be helped because ignorant people see it as moral issue rather than a health issue.

I know users who are addicts (a few) and users who aren't (the majority). That it is the "real world". It is your attitude that continues to re-inforce a damaging cycle.

One who sees drug addicts in an isolation (a doctor, or a social worker, for instance) would hopefully be intelligent and well informed enough to know that it is not a representative group, that one is not seeing the "real world" as you amusingly put it.

Moreover, you should be able to see that some of the most effective means of getting access to addicts and commencing rehabilitation, (eg maintainence and substitution) are unavailable to you because of the paranoia that has prevailed.

To suggest that the damage "can, has, and will be done" by drugs, is to ignore the damage done by prohibition. Yes, alchohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine and heroin cause damage to our society, However in the case of the illegal ones, more damage is being done by their prohibition

Don't bother replying back to say "if we make them legal, many more people will use them, just like tobacco and alcohol" - You have already done enough to make plain your ignorance of the history and present reality of these matters.

Re:how silly is the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep living in your middle-class bubble where drug users are just "social" users. Spend some time in the south bronx. Do you think that if drugs were legal that would change the dealers one bit? You didn't answer whether you believe that dealers would all of a sudden register themselves as legal drug distributors.

As for the brainwashing. I think it is you who has been brainwashed by the liberal media. I just dare you to spend a week on the streets and see what I've seen.

There was a show about college bookie

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a couple years ago, I think. Anyway, they were showing these college students at places like Ohio State and wherever making $10k a week. I always thought it would be awesome to be a bookie, but you gotta have enough capital upfront to get started.

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[TedCheshireAcad]

Being a college bookie is difficult. Not only do you have to have the right audience (i.e. this would work great at Texas A&M but not at say, MIT), but you also need the startup capital, and some kind of enforcement mechanism.

That means you can't be afraid to go Joe-Pesci-In-Casino style on someone who won't pay.

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what you think, me and a biddy ran abook for a while in school. Started with almost no money. You have to make sure your bets are more or less even on both sides for a couple of reasons, one so you dont lose a fuckload of money on a game, and two no matter which team wins, you win, cause you get the juice, usually about 10%.

If you spread the money even on the game, you take the losers money, plus the juice, and pay off the winners, but you keep the juice. Start increasing your volume, and its very nice money for little owrk.

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[Anonymous Coward]

you dont need much capital, and enforce ment is nice, but there are other ways of enforcement. When taking bets from someone new, limit their action until you trust them. If them decide to "screw" you out of a small bet, never do business with them again. People who gamble like to gamble over and over again, so they will pay you off, and place another bet. Never let them run up a huge debt, make them pay it off in order to bet again. It minimizes your risks without doing anything illegal like assault (besides the running a book thing....)

I've done it before. As far as not needing the cpaital, keep the money even, and make money off of the juice. No capital needed as the loser pay the winners, and you keep the juice.

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[Darth_brooks]

I always thought it would be awesome to be a bookie

No, it wouldn't be. If you are running numbers or making book, you are dealing in organized crime, not that i have any particular objections to that. (note to self, check slashdot username lists for "don", "vinnie", and "* the *"). Think your town doesn't have mob connections? Ask around about putting some cash down on this weekend's games. Someone will know someone, and there's a very good chance that person has some connection to the organized crime operations in the nearest major city. Gambling has long been the bread and butter for organzied crime, paying out consistantly, and being somewhat safer than narcotics.

Now, what happens when you start making book in someone's territory? That friend of your friend's cousin may let slip to his regular bookie that he can get better odds from you. Then you'll have a couple of gentlemen come and explain to you a definition of "monopoly" in agressivly microsoftian terms, sans-lawyers.

Oh, and what about that poor buddy of yours that can never seem to come up with the cash when he looses a bet, but demands his money that minute when he wins? At what point will you be willing to beat holy fuck out of him for your money?

Now, if someone wants to deal in criminal activities, it's not my place to play morality cop (I do my betting in vegas, where my money goes to legitimate criminals). But there is no such thing as easy money.

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[in7ane]

I actually work in semi-pro gambling - and the system is nowhere as crooked as you suggest (here in the UK at least). With the growth of exchanges (betfair.com, etc.) pretty much anyone can bet and/or lay - so there isn't any 'territory' to speak of. But then again that's what happens when you have 0% (recreational) gambling tax and an (electronic) gambling industry that is regulated by the FSA (sportingindex.com, and other complex bet semi-exchanges). The only problem is that traditional bookies close accounts if you win continuously (since they loose) and so do some exchanges if you trade heavily against their opening prices - but then again NYSE specialists wouldn't let you offload a load of, whatever, at the opening bell either.

And to reply to the grandparent - it pays better not to be the bookie buy to bet against bookies/markets, that way you decide which bets you want to make. While if you are the bookie your customers decide which of your bets to take up (see the difference? - you ultimately suffer less due to bad decisions - you still do, but not as much).

There is no easy money, but plenty of money does come from inefficient markets.

Keep in mind that gambling is not necessarily connected to crime, in fact it's not that much different than the stock market. Then again you are probably confused from living in the US where it seems both are. - sorry couldn't pass this up, now to reply to one of those 'god says gambling is wrong' people

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[tf23]

I've always thought the stock market is legalized gambling...

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[Mr.123]

You don't need much capital. With so many online sportsbook to choose from, you basically carry no risk. When someone bets with you for a dime, just bet the opposite online. Remember that you don't need to charge your guys -110. You can charge them -115 or even -120. You are guaranteed a profit. Start small with a few dimes and don't extend too much credit. There are also a lot of bonuses around to make something extra. If you're vigilant enough, there could be scalping opportunities, reduce juice days, reduce juice plays, reload bonuses, and tons of other stuff.

Re:There was a show about college bookie

[Darth_brooks]

The UK, and Canada, have been much more liberal regarding gambling. Hell, gambling winnings aren't even taxed in Canada (last time I checked, there was talk of a tax to help fund Canadian NHL teams). Attempts at 'cracking down' on organized crime have stiffened the gaming industry in this country.

Keep in mind that gambling is not necessarily connected to crime

Gambling, outside of Casinos and websites, isn't legal. Sportsbook in particular has a nasty and well founded reputation as being syndicate connected. Illegal sports betting outpaces legal sports betting by a long shot in even the most generous estimates, though i'll grant it's hard to fairly estimate the amount of money illicit gambling brings in.

in fact it's not that much different than the stock market. Then again you are probably confused from living in the US where it seems both are.

No, it's not. Though the stock market has insider trader, who know ahead of time what a stock will do. In sports you're dealing with insider knowledge of injuries / point shaving, which isn't quite as sure.

Confused? No, probably more like shell shocked from the sheer volume of asinine or stupid things we see on a daily basis.

one of those 'god says gambling is wrong' people

You may fire when ready, Gridley.

why illegal?

[siskbc]

I know I tend to a somewhat libertarian bent, but why is online gambling illegal? It can't be the exploitation of citizens - these sportsbooks pay better than state lotteries (which are nearly ubiquitous now). They can't make the "There goes the neighborhood" argument either, as the worst case is some guy looks at porn AND gambles online, instead of going to a casino and getting a hooker. If anything, online casinos could put "real" (and illicit) gambling out of business.

So what's the drawback again?

Re:why illegal?

[Creepy Crawler]

:So what's the drawback again?

The government's not getting their cut.

Re:why illegal?

[stilwebm]

Gambling == Satan

At least that's what the preachers say down here in the Bible Belt. Tennessee, where even church bingo is outlawed, is about to get its first lottery. It took years and a constitutional amendment. The money goes to collage scholarships, and now preachers are urging their congregations not to accecpt the "sin money" if their children qualify for the scholarships.

Re:why illegal?

[0123456]

"these sportsbooks pay better than state lotteries"

Precisely. Why would anyone play the state lottery if they could gamble online instead with much better odds?

Re:why illegal?

[stratjakt]

They're backed by organized crime in many, if not most cases.

Last thing I'd want is a $10,000 dept to some anonymous internet guy operating out of some country with little or no laws.

Plus, real casinos are policed by gaming commissions to ensure fairness. Online ones arent. But this article is about bookmaking, not casino "games of chance".

Re:why illegal?

[siskbc]

The government's not getting their cut.

That was sort of a rhetorical question, but it still stands as their "solution" is completely counter-productive. By pushing these guys offshore, they've made *sure* they get no tax money. Let them back, regulate it, and watch the cash roll in. Think of all the jackasses watching football on sundays (like me, for instance). If you don't live near a casino, you've got no legal gambling. And the house's cut is better than trying to get your buddies to pay up, or dealing with a bookie. If this were legal, the tax revenue generated would be phenomenal

Re:why illegal?

[stratjakt]

It's up to the state not the feds. Thats why there are casinos in Nevada but not in Alabama.

What you propose would be yet another example of the feds wrestling power from the states.

The constitution gives very few powers to the country, more to the states, even more to municipalities, and the most to the individual.

Slowly its turning to one big homogenous state, which is a bad thing. The way it is now, if you dont like Casinos and strip clubs and prostitution, you can decide to not live in Nevada, but still be an American. Soon, you'll have to renounce your citizenship and move to some filthy european country where they molest children for sport.

Re:why illegal?

[siskbc]

They're backed by organized crime in many, if not most cases.

Not trying to be a prick, but I'd love to see that. It wouldn't shock me, but it's the first I've heard of it. The story made the guy look clean, although that doesn't prove a general case.

Last thing I'd want is a $10,000 dept to some anonymous internet guy operating out of some country with little or no laws.

Well, I don't know that they'd go to Costa Rica if it was legal here (though they still might). Second, they could easily make *foreign* gambling illegal in the US.

Plus, real casinos are policed by gaming commissions to ensure fairness. Online ones arent.

I think making it legal would go hand-in-hand with some sort of certification. But as you say, sports books would be much easier to regulate - the NFL (etc) already takes care of it!

Re:why illegal?

[doc_traig]

"The government" will tell you the lottery is okay because half of the money collected ends up supporting whatever it's earmarked for -- usually education.

Vegas (i.e. its casinos) has an interest in shutting down -- or at the least, squelching the notoriety of -- online gambling sites. Sure, the casinos will still see plenty of tourists and plenty of money, but it is a threat to their bottom line.

Unfortunately, there is still a thick vein of puritanism in this country that believes it needs to not only set the moral standards for all of us but enforce them through the law as well. Politicians will tell you offshore gambling is illegal. Ask them why it's illegal and they'll tell you it's "wrong"; that's where it all bogs down.

Re:why illegal?

[Sircus]

Britain has a national lottery and legal gambling. The government gets a cut on both (only indirectly with the national lottery - the way it works is that the national lottery hands out winnings to various charities - the government wins insofar as they've got fewer charities begging them for money).

Re:why illegal?

[jaredmauch]

Here in Michigan the lottery funds the public schools. What they didn't make clear when selling this to the public was that it would not augment the school budgets, just take an equal amount of money away and put it back into the general fund.

Here are a few links.

Re:why illegal?

[neonstz]

Last thing I'd want is a $10,000 dept to some anonymous internet guy operating out of some country with little or no laws.

Usually you pay when you place the bet. I've placed a few bets on Centrebet, and there you have to deposit money on a your Centrebet account before you can gamble.

Re:why illegal?

[jonathan_ingram]

Online gambling isn't illegal if you live in a country which believes in personal freedom, such as the UK. And being legal doesn't make it any less profitable.

Re:why illegal?

[siskbc]

Slowly its turning to one big homogenous state, which is a bad thing. The way it is now, if you dont like Casinos and strip clubs and prostitution, you can decide to not live in Nevada, but still be an American. Soon, you'll have to renounce your citizenship and move to some filthy european country where they molest children for sport.

Right, but that whole state thing doesn't work at all for the internet - it barely works (some would say still doesn't) for whole countries. You could give the individual states the right to do this, but then where's the jurisdiction - the business or the user? Do *both* have to be in the same state? If so, is having a router in that state sufficient while still being incorporated in another?

You see where that goes pretty quickly.

Also, the internet bit is so unobtrusive, it's hard to argue any sort of harm against someone else. So I gamble online - that doesn't affect my neighbor in any way. I could see a state not wanting something obtrusive, but this is just silly.

Btw, I liked the "Europeans" bit. Sneaky troll there. ;)

Re:why illegal?

[0123456]

Actually, according to:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S1/whats_happe ni ng/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-72.pdf

the government takes 12% directly in tax, and the lottery income was falling, at least up to 2001, presumably as people have realised what a rip-off it is, with only 50% of the money being given to the winners... also, isn't it true that the big prizes are not given as lump sums, but paid over several years?

Also, is online gambling legal in the UK? The big thing the lottery offers is easy access, since tickets are sold in various outlets that people regularly visit: offline gambling is usually much harder, requiring people to deliberately visit a gambling establishment to make their bets.

Re:why illegal?

[leviramsey]

Not trying to be a prick, but I'd love to see that. It wouldn't shock me, but it's the first I've heard of it. The story made the guy look clean, although that doesn't prove a general case.

Back in the days when it was a neighborhood operation, the mob would run protection from the police and when it was very heavily margin betting (ie borrowing money from the bookie to make the bets), the mob would be the collection agency (if they didn't shark the loan already).

In the last 15 years or so, thanks to telecom and the offshore books, the Mob is nowhere near as involved as they used to be (and most of the online books don't deal in extending credit; it's far too difficult to collect when you're two thousand miles away).

Re:why illegal?

[__past__]

They're backed by organized crime in many, if not most cases.

People who organize illegal online gambling are backed in organized crime? Now, that's a surprise!

Re:why illegal?

[Dan-DAFC]

You are correct about the government taking a percentage from the lottery. My Economics teacher used to love it, he thought it was brilliant that he could go to supermarket on a Saturday afternoon and see long queues of people waiting to voluntarily pay taxes.

You are wrong about the payments though, they get one big cheque.

As for online gambling, it's fine in the UK, there are loads of companies that offer it. Some are the online version of highstreet bookmakers such as William Hill while others such as Blue Square specialise in online betting (via Internet and digital TV).

It used to be that all betting was subject to 9% tax, but the goverment have recently abolished that.

Re:why illegal?

[leviramsey]

Also, is online gambling legal in the UK?

It certainly seems legal.

Re:why illegal?

[imadork]

The constitution gives very few powers to the country, more to the states, even more to municipalities, and the most to the individual.

I think you mis-spelled "corporation" at the end of that sentence...

Re:why illegal?

[Otter]

They're backed by organized crime in many, if not most cases...Last thing I'd want is a $10,000 dept to some anonymous internet guy operating out of some country with little or no laws.

On the contrary -- that's one of the things the Internet sports books cite in their favor. Neighborhood bookies extend credit to customers, and frequently make much of their money from related loansharking operations. The Internet guys demand either deposits or credit cards and don't allow customers to get in nearly as deep over their heads.

Re:why illegal?

[fizbin]

Yeah, and in Pennsylvania the lottery money supposedly helps "older Pennsylvanians".

Bullplop. All this is is a regressive tax that the legislature can use as an excuse to not spend as much as they normally would on some particular service or other. It doesn't increase the total amount spent on that service, it just changes the tax profile so that a larger percentage of the burden falls on the poor.

As far as I'm concerned, the only conceivable justification for a state-run lottery is that it removes the "numbers racket" as a means of funding organized crime. All use beyond that - pretending that the money does some good, pretending that the lottery is a "fair" tax, or pretending that there's nothing wrong with encouraging and promoting the sale of lottery tickets - is unjustified.

For what it's worth, I don't see gambling itself as immoral, and I certainly don't see why pari mutuel systems shouldn't be allowed at most private sporting events. However, like cigarette smoking, I see gambling as unhealthy. When the state engages in a system that encourages its own citizens to engage in unhealthy behavior (such as when state money is used to advertize the lottery), this crosses the line; it becomes both immoral and short-sighted.

Let's face it: a lottery ticket (except for rare instances where payoffs rollover to the point where they're worth the odds) is a bad investment. As it stands, the lottery is a bad-at-math tax. Now, while I'm not likely to get hit by such a tax myself, this doesn't mean that I support it. Especially in a state which has well-known education problems (such as Tennessee), enacting such a tax is more dubious. I'm sorry that the citizens of Tennessee have chosen to step on each other in this manner.

Re:why illegal?

[MrWa]

pay better than state lotteries

online casinos could put "real" (and illicit) gambling out of business

Let's see: a form of gambling that is not in the best interests of the government or established casinos (that lobby said government.) Hhmmm...I wonder why they want to make it illegal...

Re:why illegal?

[mekkab]

Oh no, "Individual", "Person", and "Corporation" are all synonyms! (at least in the legal/gov't sense).

This post is wholly owned by MEKKAB Corp, LLC.

Re:why illegal?

[siskbc]

Let's see: a form of gambling that is not in the best interests of the government or established casinos (that lobby said government.) Hhmmm...I wonder why they want to make it illegal...

I guarantee that the tax revenue they make from legalized online gambling would more than offset the loss of profit from lotteries. Lottery administrative costs are rather phenomenal.

I think that puts the motive back to a moralistic angle.

Re:why illegal?

[wmajik]

but why is online gambling illegal?

There are many reasons, but a main one is money laundering. I'm an relatively big online poker player and I can tell you that many of the online casinos are very shady operations. Not all, but a good deal.

To launder money, you need to keep it out of the financial system that is the US banking network. Have a bank account? Credit card? Debit card? Took out a loan? When the IRS comes to audit you, they have immediate and full access to all of this. So if Mr. White sells a ten-kilos of cocaine to Mr. Pink and wires $100,000 to his bank account, that's going to show up on the IRS' radar.

However, let's say Mr. White sits down at an online gambling table and 'loses' $100,000 to Mr. Pink. That transaction is stored in the private database of an off-shore casino and is out of the eye of the IRS and the US Government. Washing the money after you withdraw from the casino involves more processes, but the most important thing is that money does not go through the proper, established channels, and the government does not like this.

I think the saying went: You can cheat the people as long as you remember to pay your taxes.

Lastly, I hope they go the route of regulation instead of outright banning.. otherwise my website is moot.

--
MJ

Re:why illegal?

[imadork]

Oh no, "Individual", "Person", and "Corporation" are all synonyms! (at least in the legal/gov't sense).

I suspect you will find that all three of those are considered equal in the eyes of Congress...
but some are more equal than others.

Re:why illegal?

[siskbc]

However, let's say Mr. White sits down at an online gambling table and 'loses' $100,000 to Mr. Pink. That transaction is stored in the private database of an off-shore casino and is out of the eye of the IRS and the US Government. Washing the money after you withdraw from the casino involves more processes, but the most important thing is that money does not go through the proper, established channels, and the government does not like this.

I would turn this argument by pointing out the "offshore" nature of internet gambling in the status quo. Make offshore gambling illegal while legalizing "onshore" gambling and this changes significantly. Now your books are open to examination, and if a drug dealer makes a one-time wager of $100,000...well, Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!

Sports is also the most logical candidate for legalization, as the results are pre-regulated (obviously discounting point shaving or whatnot). That way, you can't say he, uh, lost $100,000 playing roulette - he has to have made a real wager, and the feds should be able to tell if you've altered that.

Now, let's say Mr. Pink makes a sports wager and accidentally wins, now he "forgets" to collect. Sus-pic-ious. Instead, maybe he decides to make a moneyline wager on the Bengals, figuring that's the easiest way to lose money. Same deal. Or let's say the feds look for guys who put a lot of cash in the casino and bet it until it's gone, or until he loses a nice round number. All stuff to check, and being on American soil would make it lots easier.

Nice Resirvoir Dogs reference, btw.

Re:why illegal?

[in7ane]

casinoonnet.com (888.com) tried/is lobbying the US to PAY tax on their online gambling operation - but the elected officials don't want the money since accepting tax would make online gambling legal and they think it's morally wrong...

On the drawback side: www.drho888.com - a different company

Re:why illegal?

[Conspir8or]

Soon, you'll have to renounce your citizenship and move to some filthy european country where they molest children for sport.

But Vatican City has so few good Chinese takeout joints.

Re:why illegal?

[eggfellow]

i have a similar question - why is throwing a game illegal? if i am a pro ballplayer and i screw up on purpose (because, of course, someone paid me to), well i can see my boss firing me and my finding employment on other teams to be probably impossible, but, assuming gambling is illegal, i haven't harmed anyone else beyond the fact that folks watching the game didn't see what they expected to (sort of like watching wrestling)

Re:why illegal?

[Mr.123]

There not ALL illegal. There are books in UK, Europe, and Australia. Supposedly books in UK are regulated and perfectly legal to operate out of. It's the ones in Costa Rica, Panama, Antigua, and other small islands that you have to worry about. You can also take precautions by using a credit card to fund a third party account which then transfer money into the books. Very few banks will take gaming transactions which is why you need a third party. But by putting it on a credit card, you can charge back if absolutely necessary. This is also why very few banks take these transactions now. Some dumbass loses 5 grand over the weekend on a few games and decides they can't afford it so they charge back.

Re:why illegal?

[leviramsey]

The main risk is in college sports, where there's no salary to be lost (and so few of the college players have a shot at a pro career that would be damaged by a point-shaving scandal).

No gambler in the world has enough money to pay Shaq to throw an NBA game.

Re:why illegal?

[dvdeug]

why is online gambling illegal?

Because in Vegas, there's someone there to check the numbers, to make sure that every payout is what it should be. It's trivial for an online casino to shave the numbers on a slot machine, or just not payout on any wins over a hundred thousand, or over a million.

Re:why illegal?

[siskbc]

Because in Vegas, there's someone there to check the numbers, to make sure that every payout is what it should be.

First, that argument at least doesn't apply to sports betting, as the casino doesn't have anything they can fudge. Second, even for other games, the online versions could be regulated to - I don't see any reason why not.

Re:why illegal?

[dvdeug]

First, that argument at least doesn't apply to sports betting, as the casino doesn't have anything they can fudge.

What about the other part - you put $1000 down on Seashell at a hundred to one, and the casino decides not to pay up?

the online versions could be regulated to

Anyone who is so nice as to move themselves into US jurisdiction, and after the US government hired people to do it.

Re:why illegal?

[siskbc]

What about the other part - you put $1000 down on Seashell at a hundred to one, and the casino decides not to pay up?

Same law as a casino. They have to have enough liquid assets at all times to cover all active bets.

Anyone who is so nice as to move themselves into US jurisdiction, and after the US government hired people to do it.

They're already going to make US citizens gambling at (by definition) foreign sites illegal. So make foreign gambling illegal, legalize domestic internet gambling, and make them all move onto US soil if they want to continue operations. If anything, you'd just get more control - all the problems you cite occur now, as offshore gambling does currently exist.

Re:why illegal?

[slouie]

It's not illegal. So if you throw a game for no good reason, it's perfectly okay. If found out, you'll be fired/lose your scholarship/get kicked from the team/whatever. There is a chance that someone may sue you for breach of contract, but that's a civil trial. You may or may not lose... Mind you, that means you could be libel for all monies noted in the contract, plus any monies determined lost by the school/team/whatever, depending on the vindictiveness of the lawyers.

However, if you did do it for profit (someone paying you), then you're in big trouble. It becomes racketeering (confidence scheme/fraud) if it can be proven that someone who knew of the "fix" either bet or profitted by the outcome of the game. Note that you don't need to bet money in order to "profit" from a game. There are other reasons to do so (make a future game more valuble, devalue team, etc.).

It's much harder to prove single players are "throwing" a game without a paper/money trail. So if Andre Agassi decides to do poorly in a low prize game so he can get an easier seed rating for a future one, it would be nearly impossible to determine. However, if it is found out, his sponsors could sue him for fraud and breach of contract.

Fun stuff eh?

THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

[Creepy Crawler]

Why would a bookie, an eight-foot-tall bookie, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Jamicans. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself - what does this have to do with this case?

Re:THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

[infinite9]

I suggest a different strategy R2. Let the bookie win.

Maybe if we elected some libertarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

...we could be as cool as Costa Rica. If only we had PR.

Re:Maybe if we elected some libertarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we had the tropical climate and tropical rainforests.

Re:Maybe if we elected some libertarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

We do

Re:Maybe if we elected some libertarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

...we could revert to Third-World status. Yep, seems quite likely.

Re:Maybe if we elected some libertarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

The LP does have PR. Unfortunately, it sucks, because it's in the form of raving lunatics who seem to pop up everywhere on the Internet...

Or you can make it legal...

[akiaki007]

TraderSport is an online exchange based out of Ireland that basically creates a market on Future Contracts. Very cool because you can buy and sell contracts on a LOT of different things, ranging from Index (DJIA, SPX, etc) to Superbowl winners.

The beauty of it being a true exchange is that you can sell your contract at some point if you don't want to hold on to it anymore. Example: You buy Giants win 2004 Superbowl today which is valued very low, and say the Giants win their first game and the value goes up, you sell it make a couple of bucks and invest it elsewhere.

So...legalized gamling?

Taking bets...

[Gibble]

Put $50 on the bookies winning for me ;)

Outsourcing

[wwhsgrad2002]

This is just another example of outsourcing. Many products that are sold in the US are made in third world countries because the labor is cheaper, and profit margin is bigger. Slowly, but surely, the US IT industry is moving to India, because programmers work for less money there.

Here online gambling has shifted to Puerto Rico, because the Costa Rican government has taken a laissez-faire approach. This means more money for the bookeepers. Besides in a overpopulated country, more jobs mean a better economy. It is a win-win for both the government and the businesses. THe US should restructure its current government so that it is more favorable for business. Maybe then, we can get out of this recession.

Re:Outsourcing

[wwhsgrad2002]

Correction: Here online gambling has shifted to Costa Rica, not Puerto Rico.

Re:Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen anobody correct a troll before. Which number is the outsourcing troll in the library? Where is that guy when you need him.

...er...Poor Tax?

[thePancreas]

I'd say they are smart to keep it (and the organized crime that surely sloughs along after it) off shore.

The total cost of having gambling operations (a casino for instance) cannot be judged only by how much money it brings in to the community (say the U.S. for instance). It should be judged on the ethical and moral costs as well. Just walk in to a casino in Niagra Falls, look at the poor fuckers hooked up to the slot machines with coiled cables linked directly to their wrist, it's like something out of the Matrix, but these people are aware (at least partially) of what is going on.

I'd say leave it where it is, and keep their Nigerian get rich scams too.

Re:...er...Poor Tax?

[leviramsey]

And sports betting, especially of the online variety, doesn't have the problems that you list. There's no mob influence (at least at the major books... the mob may be involved in fly-by-night operations, but if you bet with a fly-by-night book, you deserve everything you get; choose your book like you'd choose your bank). And it's far from the likes of casinos or lotteries (especially scratch tickets) in terms of instant gratification; you wait at least a couple of hours between when you place a bet and when you know whether you won (and it's generally not until a couple of hours after that that your winnings are paid out to allow you to bet again).

In addition, unlike the casinos, the online books aren't pouring liquor down your throat to alter your judgement.

Re:...er...Poor Tax?

[tf23]

In addition, unlike the casinos, the online books aren't pouring liquor down your throat to alter your judgement.
What? No free booze? I'm outta here!

Re:...er...Poor Tax?

[leviramsey]

If you want free booze, you can go to Vegas and bet at Caesar's...

P.S., I certainly hope you're promoting bookiejoint in this story... ;o)

Re:...er...Poor Tax?

[tf23]

Hell yes I am. Checkout this comment post.

I wonder if we'll get more players this year straight from this slashdot article?

You're missing the point

[0123456]

Vice-law enforcement is a multi-billion dollar a year industry (AFAIR anti-drug enforcement alone is a >$10,000,000,000 a year industry in America): if these things were legalised, that industry would vanish overnight, and put many government workers and their cronies out of jobs. That will not be allowed to happen until and unless a major crisis occurs, no matter how sensible it may be.

Re:You're missing the point

[Shenkerian]

Would you mind providing a source for the $10 billion figure? I'm not challenging it, but I'd like to have a source before I cite the number and get challenged myself.

Re:You're missing the point

[k98sven]

if these things were legalised, that industry would vanish overnight, and put many government workers and their cronies out of jobs.

So, you're claiming the government can't find another way to spend $10 billion?

Riiight...

Re:You're missing the point

[sketerpot]

In 1998 (only year I could find) drug enforcement in the US was 15.9 billion dollars.

Re:You're missing the point

[mfrank]

Don't forget the prison guard lobbies; they're one of the main forces pushing for tougher drug laws and longer sentences.

Confusing

[iamdrscience]

So I read the headline talking about "bookies" and think it's going to be about online gambling. Then I read the description, see the word "bookmaking" and think "so I guess it's about people that make books -- that's a stupid headline, it's very misleading". Then I read further in the description and realize that it is in fact an article about online betting/gambling and think "Why do we call those guys editors again?"

Re:Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

In common English usage ( and this is everywhere English is spoken, not just in America ) "bookmaking" refers to keeping a ledger of bets and odds. Manufacturing books is called "binding," "binding," or "publishing." "Bookmaking" is also used to refer to faking entries into acounting systems Enron or WorldCom style, a purposeful play on the unsavory reputation of bookmakers.

Re:Confusing

[leviramsey]

"Bookie" is the friendly nickname of sorts for "bookmaker", the term for the operation that takes and records the bets (along with setting the betting line).

"Don't make book if you cannot cover bets."

Re:Confusing

[robi2106]

It is almost like they wanted you to read the headline and the article before jumping to any conclusions!

robi

Gambling is for idiots ..

[Jeppe Salvesen]

as simple as that. Idiots almost invariably get into trouble for being idiots. So - let them gamble. The only trouble with online gambling is that the idiots' money are channeled out of the country..

Re:Gambling is for idiots ..

[Pfhreakaz0id]

... playing games where you have no long term chance of winning (roulette, craps, or -- god help you -- slots) is for idiots.

Playing games against other idiots where the house just takes a cut (like poker) can be decidedely profitable... as my recent cash out check from Costa Rica indicates :)

Re:Gambling is for idiots ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way about discussions of The Matrix. I wish people had to leave the country before glorifying that over-blown holodeck episode of virtual mediocrity.

Re:Gambling is for idiots ..

[mfrank]

Seeing as how I used to know a guy who consistently won 20-30 K a year (he was a "sharp"), and only stopped when he got married and his wife made his stop, not all of them are idiots.

sports betting and lotteries aren't at all similar

[mblase]

I don't see the government's ban on sports betting as hypocritical at all. The problem with sports betting has always been one of authorizing the results: if anyone has a lot of money riding on a particular game, then he has a motive to rig the game or otherwise pressure the players involved to throw the game. This ruins the betting practice, the game, and everyone else's fun--not to mention making a lot more work for the government's law-enforcement agencies.

Lotteries and gambling devices like slot machines, on the other hand, are required by law to be completely random regardless of who's playing. It's awfully hard to "rig" a lottery when the numbers are being selected by ping-pong balls being bounced by random air jets on live television.

In other words, the government (on the average) has no problem with gambling, provided it doesn't increase the level of associated crime.

But...

[indros]

how do you break someone's legs when they don't make good?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

The bettors set up an account with you before they even make a bet. You already have the money.

Re:But...

[yamla]

I know this is a joke but you bring up a good point. Generally, the gambling houses ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY before you place a bet. You have to transfer money from your visa account (or whatever, probably visa doesn't allow this any more) to your account with the bookie before you can even place the bet.

Now, most houses will extend a line of credit to certain trusted gamblers. And yes, sometimes those gamblers don't pay.

You now need to concern yourself with how legitimate is this gambling house? Because many of them are run by organised crime. And they can and have hired thugs to track you down and break your legs. Even if you are in New York. And they are in Costa Rica. That said, they'd probably hire thugs who lived in New York, it is cheaper that way.

But they're *our* idiots.

[Channard]

The only trouble with online gambling is that the idiots' money are channeled out of the country..

Exactly. Governments don't mind their citizens being exploited as long as the money's eventually making its way via taxes etc to their coffers, ethics be damned. But they'll scream blue murder if they're not seeing a penny. Eg, them making a fuss over pot but not doing a thing being quite happy to leave alcohol companies unharassed.

Repeat after me

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not publish a stupid comment until I look stuff up.

Will answer questions

[yamla]

I worked for a company in 2000 and 2001 that wrote and sold the software to run these companies (well, some of these companies... BetOnSports was using our software at least for a while, several others were as well).

The software isn't particularly interesting but it means I have direct knowledge of a number of items... whether Wise Guys actually exist, how you really can regularly make money as an informed gambler (and why the gambling houses don't care), whether there's any back doors in the software, what language the software was written in, etc. etc. etc.

Ask away if you wish, I'll try to answer any question to the best of my ability. I'm well outside of the NDA now.

Re:Will answer questions

[caveat]

Why not just give a little rundown of the system? I dont mind reading a long post if its interesting...

Re:Will answer questions

[q2k]

How gambling software works - how to beat it, etc sure sound like "news for nerds, stuff that matters to me." Write an article, if Taco doesn't want to publish it K5 probably will!

Re:Will answer questions

[Knife_Edge]

Thanks for offering, but I already have an unbeatable roulette betting system. You know how you are allowed to bet on colors in addition to numbers? Bet on one, at the minimum bet. If you lose, double your bet to make up your loss. Every time you lose, just keep doubling your bet. Once you win back your loss, return to making the minimum bet.

Yeah, it's a joke. But a serious-faced business major explained this to me. He actually asked to write some stuff down; I thought this meant he had a really complicated system. So I give him the paper, and he starts writing:
5
10
20
40

etc.

Of course the obvious problem with the system is that the probability of winning by betting on a main color is slightly less than 50%, because there are two main colors and then one or two thingies (don't know the technical term) with a third one. Also, while if you win you gain money slowly, if you lose, you lose it very quickly. I wrote a little program to use this method. It would stop once the doubling of the bet would take away more money than it had if it lost (otherwise it would really lose spectacularly). After many runs of this system, the result I expected became apparent. It made money with the same probability as a single bet. The amounts were widely different - but with no change in the likelihood, betting everything you had on one throw was just as legitimate a strategy. This was faster, too.

I never bothered trying to correct the guy. I was so flabbergasted when he showed me initially that I really could say nothing, especially since it was obvious he wouldn't understand me. I suppose the problem was he was having trouble imagining the probability of losing eight or nine times in a row, which, while unlikely, is not that unlikely. It happened every simulated time, of course, usually within a hundred throws, frequently in far fewer, once in the initial eight!

If you are interested in making easy money, I think running a casino to cater to people like this would be much easier than 'informed gambling', whatever the hell that is. Let them think they are gaining some sort of advantage when all they are doing is moving risk around.

Re:Will answer questions

[RexRuther]

That system is called the Martingale system. It's major drawback is when you go on a deep losing streak. The streak will eventually happen and you will loose big time. It all depends on the depth of your pockets, and the size of your initial starting bet.

Re:Will answer questions

[Rudeboy777]

This is the so-called "Martingale system" (presumably named after the inventor) and it has been proven many times to be a disastrous strategy. A limitation that usually kicks in before your bankroll runs out is the table maximum bet. If the betting range for the table is $5-$100 you can only lose 5 times, then you're out $155 trying to earn a measly $5. No thanks.

Re:Will answer questions

[dboyles]

Well, the range for a $5 table is usually $5-$500, from what I've seen, but that's still just seven bets until you're no longer able to continue with your system. Of course, you can always get up and go to a higher-limit table and continue where you left off, but neither my heart nor my bankroll can handle that. I seem to recall that the $25 minimum tables had a $5000 maximum the last time I was at the casino. Even with that, if you lose ten hands in a row, you can no longer double your bet within the limits of the table (close, but not quite). And experienced blackjack players will tell you that losing 10 hands in a row is not uncommon. And that's not factoring in splits and doubles.

In the long run, the Martingale will fail unless you have the bankroll and high enough table limits available... and the guts to put down several thousand dollars to win back $5.

Re:Will answer questions

[in7ane]

"why the gambling houses don't care"
Why do we get accounts with bookmakers closed down after betting regularly and making steady gains over time?

Did you ever get to predicting true probabilities of a win? Or did you just focus on hedging the public's bets (set prices given volume so that the house wins regardless of outcome)?

Outside the NDA, what are the odds on you sending us the code then :)

Re:Will answer questions

[wmajik]

What you described is a common strategy known as the 'Nightengale' betting system. It was developed back in the day of early gambling (think Greeks) where the concept was to double-up your bet each time to cover your losses.

There have been exhausting mathematically simulations that show how this betting system works and the results are interesting. Whereas random roulette betting will have each player loosing a little bit of money, under the nightengale system, most players win a bit of money while a few players loose a LOT (read: all).

Like you said, the probability of losing eight times in a row is extreme, but play long enough and the odds will catch up to you.

With all of this said.. I've actually used a deviation of this system myself with success. No, I am not going to sell you a book now, but I am going to say that with some creative thinking, a bankroll and a willingness for risk, you can maximize your chances for winning. The only trick is that you must resolve never to make more than six bets on this system for the duration of your entire life. The principle is to stay away from long-term predictability by hedging on short-term variance, then quitting.. forever.

And if that doesn't rub you right, I recommend learning poker (my poker guide website).
--
MJ

Re:Will answer questions

[yamla]

I'll probably post a more detailed message later as a reply to my initial post, going in to a bit more detail.

As to why accounts get closed down, that is entirely up to the specific gambling house. Our software provided them only ways to help determine if the account was a wise guy or not. The only real explanation I can come up with for a legit house to close you down is that they are finding it hard to keep both sides of the line equal. That is, they need about as much money on X-to-win as on Y-to-win. You have to remember, though, that many (most?) gambling houses are run by organised crime so sometimes they're just going to be bastards.

Gambling houses are not generally interested in the true probabilities (which is why some people can continue to make profit). So long as they can collect their juice, they are happy. That way, the house wins regardless of which side of a line wins. Now, NOT every house runs like this... some try to get closer to the true probabilities. However, this is much more risky if the house is wrong. If they instead just try to balance the money bet on each side of the line, they are guaranteed to make a profit.

You wouldn't want the code, trust me. I don't have the code any more, of course, but when I was still working for the company, we had roughly a third of a million lines of code. In Visual Basic 6. Now, I don't like VB at the best of times but I acknowledge that it has its place. Also, VB.Net is meant to be much better. But there's no way you should have that many lines of code in VB6. Maintenance was a nightmare. Although we did put an effort into using a decent design, nowhere near enough effort had gone in at the beginning. That we could maintain it at all (while continuing to add features) was impressive, to be honest.

At least we did use a bug tracking system.

That said, there are no known backdoors. I'm not saying the software was secure because I know full well that it wasn't. But there were no backdoors that we knew about and we minimised the potential security issues for the web-enabled version as much as was reasonable.

Re:Will answer questions

[Anonymous Coward]

The system you are refering to is known in the gambling world as the Martingale system. Most betters use a modified Martingale system. In this system every time you win, you got back to your original bet. Every time you lose, you double your loss plus add the amount of your original bet.

This strategy insures that every time you win, you will not only wipe your previous loss but actually make a profit equal to the miniumum bet.

In theory, the both the Martingale and the modified Martingale are unbeatable if (and this is a big if) you have enough cash to double your loss plus the add the minimum bet and if you don't bump up against the house limit.

In practice the Martingale does not work simply because the house has a betting cap

Re:Will answer questions

[dunston1212]

The same thing can be done with craps. Bet on the pass line and double if you lose until you eventually win. Of course if you lose many times in a row you better have a big bankroll to back it up. Anyways here is a very unrobust simulation: a href='http://www34.brinkster.com/dunston1212/jmelo nis/games/craps.asp'>Here

Re:Will answer questions

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much crosstalk is the between differnt bookies to tell if people are doing such things as screen scraping odds.

Re:Will answer questions

[Thing 1]

After my first trip to Vegas, I too wrote some software. Mine was slightly different, though: I tripled my bet instead of doubling it.

I figured, you keep doubling your bet and you wind up (after a losing streak and then a single win) only $1 ahead of where you were when the losing streak started.

Tripling your bet, you wind up gaining about 1/3 the maximum bet (instead of just going up a dollar per [win | losing streak followed by single win]).

All the other responses are valid, though -- you need an unlimited bankroll to survive more than about 10 or 12 consecutive losses, and you also need a table with no betting limit. Both these things don't exist, so although I could "make money" with the simulation, I could never put it into practice.

Re:Will answer questions

[yamla]

Ha ha ha. Actually, the truth of the matter is that the bookies do this at least as much as the players. At least, they tend to for sports betting. The trick is to keep the amount of money bet on both sides of the line equal (so you get your juice). But because players will check odds at different gambling houses, lines can RAPIDLY get out of sync. So the bookies check as well.

We didn't have any specific code in our app to handle this but we DID put code in to handle line movers. Those are wise guys (i.e. guys assumed to know more than the house, guys who typically win) and if they place large bets, the odds AUTOMATICALLY AND WITHOUT INPUT FROM THE HOUSE change slightly. Last I heard, the houses all vigorously denied there even were a class of gamblers called wise guys but my understanding is that you cannot sell software that doesn't categorise the bettors (though the actual categorisation doesn't happen automatically) and support automatic line moving.

Re:Will answer questions

[yamla]

Some people have asked, if I know for a fact you can regularly make money as an informed gambler, why am I still a computer programmer?

This is a very good question. mindstrm pretty much answers this here, I'm just adding a little to his comments. I am a little out of practice with how the odds are written up, it's been a couple of years so please excuse me if I get that terminology wrong. What I'm going to do is list all my odds as 100-gets-90, which means if you bet the first number as your stake and you are right, you get the second number (plus your stake). If you lose, you lose your stake. THIS MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM HOW ODDS ARE ACTUALLY LISTED, you have been warned. Also, I'm assuming that you either win or lose. And if you had bet on the other side, you'd either lose or win. So, like in a playoff hockey game, you bet Oilers to win against the Flames. EITHER the Oilers win OR the Flames win, no possibility of a tie.

Now I have all that out of the way, the ideal situation for the house is to have an equal amount of money bet on each side. They might set the odds to be 100-gets-95 for Oilers to win and 100-gets-95 for Flames to win. This would be a 5% juice. Now, what this means is that if there's $100 bet on the Oilers and $100 bet on the Flames, the house will take $5 They take in $200 and pay out $195.

If you think about it, that means that PROVIDED the house sets the odds this way and PROVIDED the gamblers bet the same amount of money on both sides of the line, the house is GUARANTEED to make a profit.

So, how can you make a profit? I'm leaping ahead a bit here. Let's say that the Oilers are favourite to win because, hey, apart from Iginla, the Flames suck. So now the gamblers have bet $200 on the Oilers and only $100 on the Flames. That's no good, they MUST have pretty much an even amount bet on either side. So they alter the odds. Now, the odds on the Oilers are 100-gets-90 and the Flames, 100-gets-100. After a while, both sides of the line are equal. $300 bet on the Oilers ($200 at 100-gets-95, $100 at 100-gets-90), $300 on the Flames ($100 at 100-gets-95, $200 at 100-gets-100).

So, the game happens and the Oilers win. The house takes $20 of the $600 initially bet. If the Flames win, the house takes only $5, but that's because my example is bad. The point, though, is that either way, the house wins. Not all gambling houses adjust their odds this way but the vast majority of the ones that will stay in business long-term do. Because it is guaranteed money.

Great, so how do you, the gambler, make money? There's two ways. Let us say that you happen to know the odds that the Oilers will win is EXACTLY 45%. The Oilers just had a big injury to one of their players and Iginla on the Flames has been doing really well recently. Well, if you know the exact odds, you just bet on the lines whenever the house provides odds in your favour. In this example, the house, after adjusting the odds, is providing 50-50 odds on the Flames. But you know the odds favour the Flames. So you bet on the Flames. Yes, you might lose money but if you get the odds correct, you won't lose in the long term.

Ha! But nobody can know the exact odds, you say. Yes, but the house does not care what the actual exact odds are, they are just trying to equalise the lines. Professional sports gamblers use all kinds of software models to estimate the true odds and then bet exactly as I've described above. They will go so far as to pay players on a given team to give them the inside track on how other players are doing at the moment. Yes, determining the exact odds is hard... but you only need to be more accurate than the house, who isn't even trying to be accurate.

Truth be told, you need to be accurate enough to cover the house juice as well, the 5% difference in odds that I listed in my first example.

So, how else can you make money? Well, you can

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[hipster_doofus]

Just because someone has $10,000 riding on a game offshore doesn't give him any less incentive to rig the game. Because the rigged games are still a problem, we still have to spend dollars to detect these crimes. Therefore, we'd be better off getting the tax dollars here in U.S. to offset that cost.

Easy ...

[Monofilament]

Steal their identity.

I know i'd much rather have a leg broken, than my bank accounts drained to some anonymous swiss bank account.

What's the problem?

[ajs318]

Gambling at the racetrack is legal. Gambling in licenced betting shops is legal. Gambling in casinos is legal. What's the problem with gambling on the Internet?

Maybe some jurisdictions don't have the same rules of fair play or something ..... I can understand someone might want to limit offshore betting, but surely the proper way to do it is to use a domain name over which you have jurisdiction. EG. William Hill use a secure server with a .uk domain name. They could have that domain name withdrawn if they get a bad reputation.

I certainly can't see anything wrong with gambling per se ..... it's only a problem if someone starts spending more money than they could afford to lose, but you can do that in any number of ways ..... drink ..... fags ..... having kids ..... all of which are perfectly legal!

A proper bet at a bookie's is about one thing: can you weigh up the odds more accurately than the bookmaker? If you believe the probability of an outcome is greater than the odds would suggest, then the bet is justified. On the other hand, if the probability is worse than the odds would suggest {UK Lottery: 1 chance in [49*48*47*46*45*44*43]/[6*5*4*3*2*1] = about 14 million, as opposed to a payout of about 3.5M to 1} then you should steer clear.

And it ain't the government's job to stop people from doing stuff that might be bad for them ..... let 'em learn the hard way .....

Re:What's the problem?

[wmajik]

There are many reasons, but a main one is money laundering. I'm an relatively big online poker player and I can tell you that many of the online casinos are very shady operations. Not all, but a good deal.

To launder money, you need to keep it out of the financial system that is the US banking network. Have a bank account? Credit card? Debit card? Took out a loan? When the IRS comes to audit you, they have immediate and full access to all of this. So if Mr. White sells a ten-kilos of cocaine to Mr. Pink and wires $100,000 to his bank account, that's going to show up on the IRS' radar.

However, let's say Mr. White sits down at an online gambling table and 'loses' $100,000 to Mr. Pink. That transaction is stored in the private database of an off-shore casino and is out of the eye of the IRS and the US Government. Washing the money after you withdraw from the casino involves more processes, but the most important thing is that money does not go through the proper, established channels, and the government does not like this.

I think the saying went: You can cheat the people as long as you remember to pay your taxes.

Lastly, I hope they go the route of regulation instead of outright banning.. otherwise my website is moot.
--
MJ
(actually wrote this for an earlier post, but still relevant and everoyne hates 'go to this link' replies)

Re:Troll...

[jonathan_ingram]

Group freedom is just as valid as personal freedom. For the other end of the scale, see Singapore, which is a 'free' society in a very different way to the 'freedom' inflicted on the USA. The UK's a happy medium between the two.

Re:Troll...

[Paul Brown]

Ignoring the trolly bits of the parents (no, we don't have a Bill of Rights, so enumerating the differences would be tricky) gambling is quite accepted here in the UK, be it on sports (football, horse racing, boxing, etc) and more casino type games.

As for is it profitable, Hilton Group (the hotel people, also own Ladbrokes bookies and Vernons pools) reported worldwide betting profits up 31.5% to 149.3 million in 2002. I'm sure the government is quite happy with the tax they get on that.

regular pari-mtuel wagering!!

[rabbits77]

One interesting point is that regular "racetrack" style pari-mutuel wagering is good and legal within the US.
I have been handicapping jai alai and greyhounds for years now. The best way to bet horses, dogs, and jai alai is to get an account with ct otb and then watch the races at a site like onlineracing .
Just in case anyone is suspicious I have no affiliation other than that of cutsomer iwth either of these operations. I just wanted to take a good opportunity and spread the word about a pleasant diversion, which is all gambling really is. In fact figuring out a decent mathematical model to predict races/games is as old as the games themselves!!

Re:regular pari-mtuel wagering!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bet on jai-alai? Do you bet the over-under on the number of points before the ball kills one of the players or what?

Re:regular pari-mtuel wagering!!

[rabbits77]

Ha!! No, actually I favor the 3 player $1 exacta box.
On a side note, wtf is up with my original post being MODed as a troll? Someone out there hate pari-mutuels or something?

Internet Gambling = Any other "Good" Idea...

[hipster_doofus]

As far as I can tell, the Internet Casino/Bookmaking business is one that is well past its prime - unless you got into the business several years ago.

Once these casinos started generating large sums of cash, anyone able to raise the capital decided it would be a great idea to start their own Internet Casino. Consequently, the market has become extremely diluted. If you don't believe me, just go to Google or Yahoo and look at the number of Internet Casinos available.

Another side effect of these large numbers is an overall lower quality - as well as lack of any originality. Most sites use pre-packaged software, which is then "customized" with some different graphics for each casino. So I could go to ten different casinos and I would basically feel like I was playing in the same place.

As far as cheating goes, I've never suspected that I've been cheated, but I was stiffed for $50 once by a casino that is now out of business. That is another risk you take when playing offshore, as opposed to a land-based casino.

I do still feel that there is a good opportunity for someone in the market who can be original and market themselves well.

If you're looking for a good Internet Casino, I would recommend the following:

Casino-On-Net
Global Player
InterCasino
UltimateBet (Poker only)

Re:Internet Gambling = Any other "Good" Idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on whether you want a downloadable or non downloadable casino. The Spinroom is the market leading non-downloadable casino: http://www.thespinroom.com. Its run by Victor Chandler, one of the most trusted names in Gambling and Sportsbook

I read it too fast..

[fudgefactor7]

Bah. I thought it said "Internet Nookie" ...

"Most lucrative businesses"?

[heironymouscoward]

With a 3% profit margin, life as an exile in a foggy central American jungle, too much drink, too much stress and not even enough time to learn Spanish and enjoy the local nightlife?

Merde, someone's idea of lucrative ain't the same as mine.

I almost have pity on the poor bookmakers, humbly trying to make their million the only way they know how. What amazes me is the Fed's repressive attitude to what is after all simply a service industry. Creating criminals always seems to be good business for government agencies. Allowing adults to do what they want without hurting others, damn, that can't be allowed, can it?

My choice of "lucrative Internet business" would be something involving porn, I guess. That, or selling routers and firewalls.

Re:"Most lucrative businesses"?

[leviramsey]

Guaranteed 3% of a few hundred thousand each day, 7x365? I'll gladly take that, thank you very much.

Re:"Most lucrative businesses"?

[alonsoac]

Hehe you surely don't know what you are talking about. First San Jose Costa Rica is not foggy or a jungle, it is a big city.

Now the 3% profit margin is probably just a figure to fool you, we costa ricans know for a fact that these people are moving amazingly large sums of money, 3% is ridiculous. You have to see it. Gambling is probably second only to porn in the internet.

As for the stress this is actually a nice place to live in if you can adapt to a few things.

As for too much drink, ..., hmm, well ok you got us there.

the Mob and Sports

[thePancreas]

~~~~~~~~~There's no mob influence ~~~~~~~~~~~

Two words one sport: Pro Boxing

Nuff said

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[mcmonkey]

Lotteries and gambling devices like slot machines, on the other hand, are required by law to be completely random regardless of who's playing.

Then I guess every slot machine in Vegas is breaking the law. The only thing random about modern slot machines are who might be playing when a particular pay-out comes up.

How much the machine pays out is a fixed percentage of how much it takes in (casinos even advertise these numbers) and larger pay-outs may even be coordinated between machines.

Slot machines are not random.

Wheres the cost

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Several lines of logic show up here.

1. Gambling is a personal choice and should not be restricted.

2. Governments should get a percentage.

Prohibition showed us that some moral (religious) judgements go against the will of the people and that opens up an industry for gangsters. This has been shown to be true.

One of the benefits of legalizing alchohol was to make those gangsters find other businesses go to into. Drugs for example and gambling. Not sure that there was a long term benifit here.

The cost of course for readily available alcohol is alcoholism and all the assocaited trama and cost to the individual and society. Some of that spills over into lost lives and higher crime rates.

We have the same problem with drug addiction as it can ruin lives (especially when the addiction is so expensive because of being illegal) and the increase in crime, and with some drugs violence.

Gambling has the a similar associated cost of gambling addiction which has shown up in states that have legalized gambing with the associated cost to individuals, society and increase in crime.

We have as a population (here in the States) decided that the cost to the individual and society for tabacco smoking is such that we have decided to restrict its use. Mainly because the effects of second hand smoke and the increase in health problems raise everybodies insurance cost. Essentially we all pay for the habits of a few.

I think this is generally true but not generally perceived.

So there is a cost to allowing gambling. I have a problem with the government getting a vested interest in what could be viewed as also having a negitive societal cost. Seems like dirty money to me.

Re:Wheres the cost

[JimBobJoe]

So there is a cost to allowing gambling. I have a problem with the government getting a vested interest in what could be viewed as also having a negitive societal cost. Seems like dirty money to me.

It's interesting to note here that, while Nevada has had legalized prostitution (in some counties) since 1955, the government has chosen to regulate but not tax that industry--which is amazingly lucrative. I suspect that they were indeed bothered by the idea of making money off of it (apparently Nevada's current fiscal shape is making them rethink their no-tax stance.)

Re:Wheres the cost

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Yes very interesting fact. If Nevada were to rethink their tax stance then would they start getting into advertizements or relax restrictions on advertizements to increase revenues? Would they start issuing Pimp mobiles to state workers?

Regulating but not taxing seems to be a smart balanced approach to the matter.

After all there is no reason any particular thing is Taxed. Its just a way for the government go get funding.

Some of the problems with government taxation is it is based on economic activity or property values. But then if they fall off they are unwilling to take the fair portion they allotted themselves which then unmasks the "fairness" arguments they used to pass the taxes in the first place.

So little time and so many things to tax, what to do.

Re:Wheres the cost

[THEbwana]

We have as a population (here in the States) decided that the cost to the individual and society for tabacco smoking is such that we have decided to restrict its use. Mainly because the effects of second hand smoke and the increase in health problems raise everybodies insurance cost. Essentially we all pay for the habits of a few. I recently saw a study that claimed that the costs associated with smoking (for society as a whole) would actually increase if all smokers would quit. This was due to the fact that smokers would end up in a coffin before they started to claim their pension.

Re:Wheres the cost

[sirgoran]

While its true that the brothels are "not taxed" per say, they do have to pay property taxes on the land it's built on, and the women are taxed on the income from working in the brothel as well as income tax on the share the brothel collects.

The state of Nevada has no state income tax, but the feds sure do.

While never having partaken of the talents of the ladies at the Mustang Ranch (my wife would have kicked my ass), I did have to pick-up a co-worker from there a time or two. Seems he didn't save enough money for the cab ride back home. But at $9.00 for a can of cola, I only stayed long enough to pick up my friend, and to chat with the women.

-Goran

Re:Wheres the cost

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Well its thats a true cost savings and one that many businesses practiced, by eliminating jobs of people close to retirement. They have several better solutions now. No retirement benefits and/ or outsourcing, you choose. No wait you have not choice.

Besides if by pension you mean social security then those people have paid for that privilege. It is just windfall profit for the government if they die sooner than they can collect on the funds they have kept in the governments safe hands against their retired years.

If it is truely a company pension then yes this is another form of legalized gambling where the insurance company benefits. But in either way it is not a societal cost. (well only if you take into account the governments stealing of SS funds for other things for many years and now we all have to pay for their misdeeds).

Ah, yes, San Jose

[K-Man]

The newly remodeled airport is surrounded by chain hotels, freshly paved roads and shiny corporate plazas. After that it goes rapidly downhill.

Yes, that's San Jose in a nutshell!

Wait...Costa Rica?

A Good Related Read

[binaryhead]

For anyone interested in the bookmaking industry, an excellent book to read is The Odds. It tells the stories of 3 gamblers and also goes into some detail from the bookmaker's perspective. Looking on Amazon, Book On Bookies also might be a good read, but I can't say anything about that one, haven't read it.

Re:A Good Related Read

[WorkingHome]

I have read the Book On Bookies title and loved it. It talks about all of the steps a person needs to take to get setup as a bookie. The author does a decent job in doing this and has several examples in most circumstances. I had a little interest in doing this, but I think the book would be an interesting read for anyone who bets through bookies.

Government Information Awareness: +1,Speculative

[Anonymous Coward]

United We Bet:

Get Against George W. Bush

Cheers,
W00t

Bush Bet Spelling Correction: +1, Literate

[Anonymous Coward]

United We Bet:

Bet Against George W. Bush

Cheers,
W00t

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[Anonymous Coward]

Most state governments have a problem with gambling, since most states don't have legal casinos.

But...

[l-ascorbic]

Sports gambling is fully legal in the UK and the UK National Lottery is one of the most successful in the world.

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[mblase]

The only thing random about modern slot machines are who might be playing when a particular pay-out comes up.

Er, I believe that's exactly what I said.

How much the machine pays out is a fixed percentage of how much it takes in

Well, this makes sense. I'd hate to be the one designing a slot machine which could, conceivably, be asked to pay out more money than it has inside.

Obligatory not as humorous, nor as witty, response

[El_Ge_Ex]

Tell his mother that the only reason he has an Internet connection going to his room in the basement is so he can gamble and look at porn all day and night.

The threat alone should get the average '35-year old still livin in his parent's basement' to quickly sell his comic and Collectible card collection to recoup the loss. :)

-Brian

Not US jurastiction!

[mabhatter654]

Everyone seems to be missing the point that this is outside the US and therefore just fine.

Of course the congresscritters will tell you it's not fine, but if they don't like it, they should legislate to have ISPs block said sites, and Credit Card compainies report offenders. Unless the sites are dealing with US soil, their not breaking the law...even if they are communicating on US soil, the customer is breaking the law, not them.

For a republican govt to threaten this is stupid..after all, these are just business men, trying to make money. After all, we allow US businesses like Tyco to move offshore to avoid taxes, we allow all the toy companies to move to China [and import the product here for profit]...do you think they follow US labor laws there...Ha!

For the record, I'm against most gambling..particularly state lotteries and anything electronic. But the fact of the matter is that the US govt's approach to Offshore internet gambling is unconstitutional..particularly some of the particular instances...It's more proof that Americans need to get back control of their leaders, because they are "applying" US law only for big business interest [morality is about control...business doesn't like immoral employees off the clock either] and not when it really does good [look at "free trade" with china]

Re:Not US jurastiction!

[blchrist]

I know it's outside US juristiction for the sportsbooks, but is it illegal for someone within the US to bet on one of these sites? I've done it before and I always just assumed that it was legal.

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[Anonymous Coward]

If sports games become rigged, well, who cares? It's only a football game. If they're routinely rigged, then people will bet on which way it's rigged.

Troll?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell? Somebody gotta read up on combinatorics!

Yes, but ...

[JohnQPublic]

Yes, online gambling is legal in the UK. But the tax structure there is truly intense, leading to some oddities. Some of the largest online sports-books have there servers and banking operations in the Caribbean (Antigua, in particular). This allows them to settle the bets offshore and just repatriate (and pay tax on) the net profits, rather than on the gross revenue.

Just Call the Coach's Hotline

[kev0153]

TV: So call me now! $5 for the first minute, $2 for each additional minute!

Homer: [dials the number]

Voice: You... have reached... the Coach's... Hot-...

Homer: Line.

Voice: Line.

Homer: Yeah, lay it on me, Coach.

Voice: In the game... of... Mi... am... i...

Homer: Mm hm.

Voice: Versus Cin...

Homer: Cincinnati.

Voice: cin...

Homer: Cincinnati.

Voice: nat...

Homer: Cincinnati.

Voice: i...

Homer: Come on, come on, don't you realize this is costing me money!

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[in7ane]

Do you think companies should not be publicly listed then? Since ownership of stock by executives gives an incentive to manipulate financial results...

Oh, I forget...

Or you can make it legal..."photo"-finish.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a question. Does the bookmaking (or any other gambling operation) have a R&D department?

Re:Or you can make it legal..."photo"-finish.

[akiaki007]

I don't know about a whole department, but they must have someone that is searching to see what is interesting. This site generates money on commission - meaning, they get a piece of every trade. Some very nominal amount, but in large quantities it amounts to a VERY large sum of money.

They will most likely list the most popular topics. Like currently they have some contracts on "Recall Gov. Davis and xxxx person wins." I believe the ask/bid for Arnold is @ 50/50 , meaning that people are split in what they think will happen.

There is no real need for R&D. People create their own contracts. This site merely provides a legal exchange for them to sell (or buy) the contracts in. The site of course has a right to "suggest" contracts, by just putting them on the front page, but I'm sure the end user/trader can request contracts as well.

Re:Or you can make it legal..."photo"-finish.

[leviramsey]

Well, a sportsbook at some level has to guess the way the money will fall in order to get their 50/50 split. Most of them outsource the basic research to a few consultants (Las Vegas Sports Consultants is one) and then adjust based on the way their betting is going (allowing for the pack mentality that dominates the sportsbook industry, because line differences tend to be raped by gamblers and breed even more imbalance... if you liked the Rams giving 2.5, you'll love them giving only 2).

The Bookiejoint

[tf23]

This story's perfect for this:

http://bookiejoint.org/

While it doesn't use real money, you can get cash for karma ;)

tf23

Gambling doesn't hurt ?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You need to visit a gambling addict (preferably one with a family) sometime.

Obviously a lot of people suffer immensely from gambling. Yes it's "voluntary", just like taking drugs is voluntary (which is to say, not at all).

Re:Gambling doesn't hurt ?

[spruce]

But are the majority of the people in our society addicts? Should we make it illegal for everybody just because a few people can't handle it? Then certainly we should go back to prohibition, because I know quite a few drunks.

Re:Gambling doesn't hurt ?

[mosch]

We can't set laws for general society by what the least responsible among us do. Should we criminalize extramarital sex, because some girls are self-destructive sluts who use sex as a substitute for love?

Should we criminalize ice cream, because some lardasses can't stop eating pint after pint of chunky monkey?

Should we criminalize marathons, because many habitual runners end up with a variety of debilitating injuries?

I understand that gambling addiction is terrible, but the answer is for the addicts to stop gambling, not for the world to be baby-proofed such that nobody can ever do anything fun, for fear of abusing that fun.

how silly is the government?-"Hitting" the mark.

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend that the government tax and legislate the "wack a person" industry. It does no real harm to society (might even improve it), but is presently immoral. There's a 2000 year old book saying it's wrong, but what the hell do they know? Our society has come far, but still held back. I say we ditch all "moral" laws and stick to the ones that refer to harming anyone else, except the intended "victum". Do this and America will be a safer place for people who don't get on the "wack a person" list, so be good.

What wrong with Offshore gambling?

[CarlosPicks]

I've had this "hobby" for years and never had any problems. I like the sportsbooks. The Feds should allow legal sportsbooks and gambling everywhere. Larry Flint has the right idea.

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[sketerpot]

Well, this makes sense. I'd hate to be the one designing a slot machine which could, conceivably, be asked to pay out more money than it has inside.

I think the point was that the percentage of how much money the slot machine has is fixed.

Used to work years ago

[fasura]

Old European Roulette wheels used to be vulnerable to this method until the 0 and 00 were introduced.

Fraud

[siskbc]

i have a similar question - why is throwing a game illegal? if i am a pro ballplayer and i screw up on purpose (because, of course, someone paid me to), well i can see my boss firing me and my finding employment on other teams to be probably impossible, but, assuming gambling is illegal, i haven't harmed anyone else beyond the fact that folks watching the game didn't see what they expected to (sort of like watching wrestling)

Well, presumably you've defrauded your employer - that's a biggie. They'll get you for conspiracy too, since you conspired to defraud. And given the potential losses incurred by your employer, that's pretty serious.

Interesting question though.

Drugs are not the same...

[John Seminal]

I think sports betting is a fun activity which causes no harm to anyone. Look at Las Vegas. They make good money from gambeling and many people consider it a great vacation spot. Drugs are different. Drugs can kill a person. You will never see someone drop dead because they bet a few hundred on a game. But someone who does cocain or crack can die on the spot. Huge differance to me. Not to mention, those on drugs typically do not have jobs. They are the thieves who have to steal. Drugs destroys the mind, and takes away ability. Everyone I have known through college and life who gambles on sports has had jobs. Plus, those who have bet on football games did some research (learning more about statistics and correlations than in a math class). Drugs and Betting are nothing alike.

Re:Drugs are not the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

I smoked marijuana and took LSD all through college and still graduated on time, cum laude in the honors college.

I went to graduate school and smooked marijuana all through grad school. Still made As.

I no longer take drugs, but the reason is that I'm afraid of the draconian drug laws and I have moved and don't have any connections anymore to buy them. The idea that "drugs" are dangerous and gambling is not is incorrect.

There are people who are f*cked up on drugs, but also people who are f*cked up on gambling.

The way I see it, if I can't take drugs, then I think gambling should be illegal. If I can't have my fun, no one else should have fun either.

And by the way, I do have a job, thank you.

Re:Drugs are not the same...

[John Seminal]

On the large scale, drugs do far more harm than betting on sports. When was the last time someone dropped dead because of a bet they made? With drugs, there are people overdosing all the time. You are the exception, not the rule.

Re:Drugs are not the same...

[mfrank]

One of the reasons that people OD is because it's illegal and not regulated. If you had to buy your liquor from a criminal, you'd have a good chance of going blind from drinking wood alcohol.

Make it legal, regulate and tax the hell out of, and the number of people who OD will go down.

Of course, that's not even mentioning the 400,000 people a year that die from tobacco and the 50,000 a year that die from alcohol. Drug users don't even come close.

Just legalizing pot and selling joints with filters would reduce most of the health risk associated with pot.

Re:Drugs are not the same...

[tiled_rainbows]

"You will never see someone drop dead because they bet a few hundred on a game."
Yeah, but you WILL see someone drop dead if they can't afford to feed/shelter themsleves adequately because they spent all their money on gambling.

"those on drugs typically do not have jobs"
LOL. That's just SO not true. Most people have jobs. People who take drugs are like other people, except they take drugs.

The only part of your post I do agree with is about how gambling is mathematically educational. Like when I bet on horses. I don't know anything about horses, but I sure dig the numbers.

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[fuckfuck101]

well no, because most online betting bookies allow small limits, so unless you feel like buying off a footballer for 20,000 to get your $500 bet at 6/1 i wouldn't bother.

Land of the free?

[fuckfuck101]

heh whoever told you that is your enemy.

you yanks don't seem to be allowed to do anything! overthrow your goverment and legalise BEASTIALITY!!

or not, whatever.

you figured me out.. =)

[Awptimus Prime]

I hate political labels, but yeah, that fits.

Re:you figured me out.. =)

[cpeterso]

Ditch de-regulation of utilities.

but how can you be a libertarian if you are AGAINST utility deregulation?

WHY IS PARENT MODDED AS TROLL!? MODS PLEASE FIX!!

[Anonymous Coward]

please fix!!

Cool, my country in /. BUT with a not real image

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on!. CR is a great country with great people. The dark picture described by the article is not fair.

The thing with those companies, is that they are registered as a normal company, one of the big ones is registered as marketing company! Our legislation was not prepared for that type of activities, BUT there are people working on that and it will be regulated in the future. Those activities are not promoted by the government, they are just not considered in our laws, and they are taking advantage of that of course...

Legal prostitution??!?!?!?!??! What the !@#? That's out of reality! Of course it is not!

Our country is experiencing a lot of changes that are part and consequence of a "country in development", and a lot of those problems are present in the US and almost any other country.

BTW, I am talking with knowledge about this matter beacuse a couple of years ago, I worked developing software for several of these companies ( not as part of them but selling them the software ) and you can find good people in those companies...and very, very scary ones, believe me!

PS. Sorry for any English errors.... I don't work for one of those so,... my English is not very good... :-)

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[SillySlashdotName]

I'd hate to be the one designing a slot machine which could, conceivably, be asked to pay out more money than it has inside.

Quit smokin' that stuff, it is making you say dumb things!

I have not seen many slot machines, but EVERY ONE I HAVE SEEN had a notice that "This machine pays out up to XXX credits, anything more is paid by the attendant."

I drove past a casino the other day advertising a $35,000 jackpot available inside on a guarter slot machine. At 5.67 grams each, that would be ($35000)*(4 quarters per dollar)*(5.67 grams per quarter)/(32grams per ounce)/(16 ounces pe pound)=1,550 pounds. I would think it would be a little hard to carry up to the cashier in those little tubs...or even a wheelbarrow!

That is probably why the payouts are done through an attendant - not to mention that taxes have to be withheld on winnings over a certain level.

I assume you meant "pay out more than it has taken in" - but even that is wrong, as the odds kick in from the moment it is turned on - it could jackpot immediately. The casinos make their money on the total difference between paid in and paid out for their games, not from any one machine.

check your facts

[Anonymous Coward]

from http://www.masslottery.com/QNA.htm

1. QUESTION: What happens to the revenue which the Lottery generates from sales? 1. ANSWER: Revenue generated from Lottery sales is used for three purposes. 1. A minimum of 45% of revenues stays in the State Lottery Fund to be paid out in prizes. Currently, the Lottery's prize percentage is over 69%. 2. A portion of revenues is transferred to the Commonwealth's General Fund for the expenses incurred in administering and operating the Lottery. The administrative and operating expenses of the Lottery are appropriated by the legislature as part of the annual state budget. Operating expenses cannot exceed 15%. Currently, operating expenses are under 8%. These operating expenses include 5.8% in commissions and bonuses paid to the sales agents who sell the tickets and under 2% in administrative expenses due to Lottery operation. 3. After prizes and expenses, the remaining Lottery revenues (approximately 23%) is transferred to the Local Aid Fund and returned to the cities and towns of the Commonwealth in the form of local aid.

And just for fun...
http://www.rilot.com/WEREMONEYGOES.htm 67.6% prizes
http://www.ctlottery.org/proceeds.htm 61% prizes
http://www.mainelottery.com/money.html 45% required by law, 60% FY2002
http://www.nhlottery.org/yrlyrev.htm average prize payout since 1964, 63.8%; FY2002 66%

I picked a bunch of New England lotteries since you used Massechussets as your example, but I can assure you you're going to find the same kinds of numbers at pretty much every state lottery.

In general your $1 spent on a lottery ticket is divided into 5 piles, generally from largest to smallest: The money used for prizes, the "proceeds" money that goes to whatever cause a particular state's legislature directs it to (ie. education, environment, local government, scholarships, general fund, to name a few out there), the money paid to the contractors who print the tickets, run the terminal networks and provide other services (Gtech, Scientific Games International, Obethur Gaming Technologies, and AWI to name a few of the big ones), the commission given to retailers who sell the tickets, and then actual operating expenses.

But, of course, it's how that prize money is divided into big and small prizes that affects the overall odds for a game (lots of small prizes, better overall odds. a big top prize, higher overall odds), and generally lotteries try to create a product mix that has something for everyone's taste.

The other great thing about state lotteries is that all that information is public, and easily obtained, either right from their website, or through a freedom of information request, so you don't have to rely on someone making up numbers in a /. post...

this actually works,

[Mr. Asdf]

but only if you have an unlimited bankroll, and if there is no limit to how much you can bet. There are very few casinos that have the latter, and no one has the former. So although logically sound, the system is realistically invalid.

Re:sports betting and lotteries aren't at all simi

[cpeterso]

but what if someone rigs the rigging? That's not fair.

Wrong.. totally.

[mindstrm]

Betting on casino games, no, there is no way to win.. the odds ARE in favor of the house. The exception would be Blackjack, where, if you can get away with counting, you can actually tilt the odds slightly in your favor. Current casino practices make this not worth the effort. Online blackjack is a different story, as there is no deck involved.. it's usually an infinite deck.

The parent poster is correct... it IS possible to make money off informed gambling.. he's talking about SPORTS betting, not casino games... you see, when you bet on sports, you aren't betting against the house(bookie)... you are betting against other players... the bookie tries to get equal action on both sides of any given wager... and takes a percentage.

The bookie sets his odds based fundamentally on how he thinks people are going to bet... if the game is percieved by the public to be a 1:1 game, the bookie will place the same odds on both sides winning... ideally, he wants an equal dollar value in bets on both sides, so no matter who wins, he has no risk. If twice as many people are betting one side, regardless of how the bookie thinks the game will turn out, he will change the odds to try to get more action on the other side. Now, it gets far more complicated than this, and bookies sometimes DO take risks with the house money based on their own experience and knowledge of the games... but in principle, that's how it works.

So.. how do professional sports bettors make money? They spend a LOT of time analyzing the particular sport they are interested in... they know it inside out, backwards and fordwards.. they are doing the same thing the bookies do.. analyzing the game to calculate what they think the odds should be. Then, they find a bookie who's posted odds are NOT the same as their own calculations... and they wager on it.
It's kind of like the stock market... buying and selling risk, in a way.

Your roulette system onll works on paper if you have a HUGE bankroll, and no table limits... witih each loss you double the amount needed in the next roll, and the amount risked.. that's a geometric progression, and NOBODY can keep paying into that for long. Think grains of rice on a chessboard.

If you said: You can win at roulette if you have infinite money to spend, and no table limits and an infinite number of spins... yes, you can keep betting until at some point you are UP, and therefore, won... but that's not how it really works.

Winning at sports gambling is not like winning at the casino... it's more like winning at the stock market. You make predictions, and if you are good at it, better than those you are betting against, you will win. This is not like saying there is some magic system to winning at the casino... but an informed person who understands their sport CAN make money betting on it.

This is a great post

[Anonymous Coward]

You might just have convinced me to register for this site. Very imformative and well thought out!

peer to peer betting

[Anonymous Coward]

peer to peer betting wins over all -- and you get better odds! check out betfair.com http://www.betfair.com/

Why It's Not Legal Here

[Anonymous Coward]

The leagues (and the colleges) have enough problems with illegal betting and implications for the integrity of their games. If there was widespread legal gambling, aspersions would be cast with every crucial dropped pass, penalty (not) called, missed free throw, reported injury...and so on.

All professional sports leagues are doing whatever they can to distance themselves from this, even if it's betting on one's own team (e.g. Pete Rose)...

They just deal with Nevada as best they can...but if people would legally bet from anywhere anytime...yikes.