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?

[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?

[Abm0raz]

synopsis:
Let's all become libertarians.

I like it :)

-Ab

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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).

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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?"

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?

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

[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

[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: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.

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)

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)

"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.

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.)

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?

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!

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.