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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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...

...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.

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.

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.

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...

"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.

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 ?

[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.