Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Profile of An Internet Bookie

Posted by Hemos on from the so-yous-wants-to-make-some-monies dept.

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."

9 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. how silly is the government? by havaloc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:how silly is the government? by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. :)

    2. Re:how silly is the government? by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. why illegal? by siskbc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:why illegal? by imadork · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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...

  3. Or you can make it legal... by akiaki007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    "Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
  4. You're missing the point by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. sports betting and lotteries aren't at all similar by mblase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. But... by indros · · Score: 5, Funny

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