Slashdot Mirror
The Looming Battle Over Online Gambling
Kadin2048 writes "According to an recent Ars Technica article, the US is headed on a 'collision course' with the WTO over off-shore Internet gambling, if a bill currently in the House of Representatives passes. The 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' (PDF) which updates the 'Wire Act' to prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, is in direct contravention of a WTO ruling. Proponents of the bill claim that it was narrowly defeated in previous incarnations due to the influence of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. However it seems as though some of Abramoff's biggest clients -- brick and mortar casinos -- are really the big winners from passage of this bill, since it does not prohibit gambling in person, only online."
I wouldn't bet on this ending nicely at all.
The 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' (PDF) which updates the 'Wire Act' to prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, is in direct contravention of a WTO ruling.
I think this act violating some funny acronym takes a backseat to the idea of every nation's own soverignity.
The government won't be able to ban online gambling; and I have $10 that says so! Any takers?
This is sponsored by US casinos that are losing business to online ones. Instead of pushing through bs legislation, they should have to compete by making their own casinos online. Yet another example of "bought" legislation that serves only the good of corporations.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Call me cynical.... But I think that the Bricks and mortar casinos give enough money to politicos that there is not a snowballs chance in hell that online gambling will be legal.
Also, Online, offshore gambling is tough to tax. If the government can't tax it, they will outlaw it...
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
good crowd and place to ask for the best banks/countries for setting up off shore gambling?
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
I wouldn't make a bet on it either way.
I have no idea where these people are or whether they're treating any of my information with due discretion. When russian teens blast their sites with DoS attacks they're all over it, but how secure are they of names and CC's?
Sorry, I'll stick to nickels in slots when I have to go to Vega$.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So, on the one hand, gambling (online) is wrong. On the other, since the politicians are being funded -oops, I mean the bill is being funded- by brick-n-mortar gambling interests inside the U.S., gambling is okay (in person). And this is how law is made...
Consolidate the whole world into the Extended USA. Then legalize everything: gambling, drugs, prostitutes, ripping CD's into MP3's (just kidding, that should always be illegal). Then tax the hell out of the whole thing, and reduce us all to serfs working and toiling for "the man", which is now a single ruling body over everything.
Everybody will work towards Friday under oppression, then celebrate the weekend by gambling, doing drugs and girls, and then listening to illgotten music (just kidding about that one). Problems solved.
Ahh, gambling. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
-THE END-
You'd think that considering how many members of congress are currently in hot water for skewing the law to favor the casinos represented by Mr. Abramoff, they'd hesitate just a little before giving another big legal handout to casinos.
Guess not.
That was telling google et al to locate their servers offshore to avoid China asking for information from them or asking them to filter content in their search engines......which is it????
I hate this Congress.....they claim that it would be ok for us to do to another country, but not to our own. I guess their mothers never taught them the golden rule. "Treat others as you want to be treated"
Screw them.
Error: Sig not found.
Or at least, a bill has been tabled.
e nt/session2/b060_e.htm
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliam
If you could be anything you want, I'll bet you'd be disappointed.
prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it
Obviously this only applies to corporations and businesses incorporated in the US. Solution? Online gambling companies will simply incorporate on whatever island their servers are hosted, and shut down their US branches.
You don't have to be a US company to take US money.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
And, even though I'm disgusted by the money they want to spend on this, I'm more disgusted that the "personal responsibility" party (repubs) and "keep your government out of my bedroom" party (dems) both think that gambling is something they have the right to regulate. Do some (dumb) people become addicted to gambling and spend their life savings? Yes, and they deserve to lose that money. Just because there are a few people unable to think logically about their actions doesn't mean we should prevent the tens of millions of people who enjoy the thrill of a weekend in Vegas or Party Poker from doing so responsibly.
The United Soviet republic of Amerikastan are a law unto themselves anyways.
Why do Americans get so worked up about things that nobody else in the world cares about - like betting and bare breasts?
This is just more stupid, unnecessary legislation for the sake of controlling people. Let the free market do its thing and kill physical casinos.
Why not put some of this legislative effort into, oh, say, patent reform?
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
- it'll involve Lobbyist, Russians, the Bellagio, George Clooney, that cool guy with the accent and dynamite, and some crazy animal sex between myself and Catherine Zeta Jones. ...my poor roommate who treats online gambling as a "second job". I wonder if he can get food stamps for this?
No matter how hot a girl is - some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
Personally, I think gambling is a waste of time - but that should always be the choice of the person doing the gambling. Sure, it can ruin lives and mess up families - but dammit, that's THEIR problem! I should be free to spend $2.00 online gambling every now and then if I were into that sort of thing. The more the government attempts to baby the public the weaker we become. Our society is going through a massive pussification and I just can't see it ending well.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
I think this act attempting to regulate morality takes a back seat to my own sovereignty.
They can pry my online gambling from my cold, dead hands.
Or until I loose all my money.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Time to join the Poker Player Alliance, which has been specifically formed to fight legislation like this. Besides, they've got a pretty neat T-shirt.
...and there you go, instant legal online gambling.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
The issue (aside from bought politians) is that each state has the right to approve or disapprove of gambling within their own borders. I agree that gambling online, or any other online activity, cannot be controlled - this issue just shows the problem with agreeing to WTO policies. How can an international law be adopted for an entire country when, at least in the US, the individual states have (or are supposed to have) autonomy??
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
"However it seems as though some of Abramoff's biggest clients -- brick and mortar casinos -- are really the big winners from passage of this bill, since it does not prohibit gambling in person, only online."
You may not realize it, but B&M casinos are some of the largest proponents for online gambling. Harrah's, among others, has already setup their own online casino which does not allow American players (in order to comply with current legislation). B&M casinos have the experience, they have the trusted name(s) in the gambling industry, and they want in on the action.
the government should take over gambling
just like they took over the numbers racket and created the interstate lottery system
ironically, lottery money is used for educational purposes (or it is supposed to at least)
look, we all know gambling is an idiot tax. so the government should stop being a moralist and just be prudent about something they are doing anyways: collecting taxes. absorbing a lucrative idiot tax should be a no-brainer
perhaps gambling money could fund NASA or something. the stupidest of mental exercises being used to fund the highest of mental exercises
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think it's going to be near impossible to control online gambling. We can't even control the drug trade, and these guys think they can stop online gambling? I think there's problems with gambling. People get addicted, they lose all their money, and other people suffer because of it. What happens when your wife gambles away your entire savings? Are you an idiot because you trusted her with access to the bank account?
That makes it societies resposibility to try to prevent that harm. To do this we need legalized, regulated online gambling. You're not going to stop it, so the only way to control it is to legalize it and regulate it. Right now who's to say that the games are fair? No one, since it's a big free-for-all. But if it were legalized within the US, my guess is people are going to go to the trusted casinos because they're regulated and have to abide by certain rules, just like in Las Vegas.
AccountKiller
to welcome the WTO onto the axis of evil.
Welcome.
If the government is even capable of just saying "Fuck it, its not worth the fight" Honestly, what is the big deal about online gambling? I might try poker or something but if i want to gamble for real I will go to a casino...if i want to spend some money on useless entertainment like this, why should I be able to. Let the fools go bankrupt that is their weakness.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Protect me from murder.
Protect me from rape, from robbery, from bodily assault.
Protect me from corporations swindling me.
Protect me from bodily damage from others.
But, please, stop protecting me from myself. I can protect me from myself just fine without the government jumping in with a few choice words.
If you're so concerned about those too incompetent to protect themselves from themselves, find a way to either educate them or allow them to continue down their self-destructive path without taking out others along the way.
It's good that you care for those types. (Someone has to.) However, restricting me because a small minority can't restrict themselves is not right.
And if you're doing this because of some moral high ground, go jump off a bridge.
The WTO does not claim to impose or dismiss national controls over its populace--it only seeks to maintain a level playing field between countries--that you cannot place burdens on foreign competitors in order to protect the companies in your own country from foreign competition.
The bill banning US citizens from using *all* net gambling sites does not violate WTO rules, as it treats all countries' sites equally.
I just found it amusing that I go to check Slashdot and there is a story about online gambling.
God spoke to me.
However it seems as though some of Abramoff's biggest clients -- brick and mortar casinos -- are really the big winners from passage of this bill, since it does not prohibit gambling in person, only online."
As always, follow the money. I have been invloved in the casino business for many years. Believe me, never mind the casinos, its all about uncle sam getting his cut. Nothing more nothing less.
Laws can't eliminate or even reduce spam from offshore sites. What makes anybody think new laws to stop gambling?
Like a cartoon about running out of virgins in a paradise created by a god who chose a dude with a 9 year old second wife for his prophet. Allah's Pediphile Prophet
Will this affect Magic Online, the casino that pays out cards instead of cash?
You're an immobile computer, remember?
I understand why a government might illegalize casinos, lotteries, and betting, since it is a pernicious vice that many men are drawn into, wasting incalculable amounts of their personal savings in a futile effort to beat the house advantage. So that's fine with me. However this US law is written by the casino special interests and does not have as its end the illegalization of gambling en toto, but merely the prevention of foreign competition in the 'industry'. What outstanding hypocrisy. The world trade body is right to condemn this blatant protectionism by the Americans.
Obligatory Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade
I.e., if you are in nevada, atlantic city, in a casino anywhere, then you can log on and gamble at these sites. What you can't do is log on someplace where gambling is illegal. This is easy enough to track via IP address. You can have a list of IP's where it is legal to gamble from.
Then the law is fair.
Of course it is also stupid since you can still log on to a redirector service and make it look like you are coming from a place where it is legal.
But legally, I think the WTO couldn't complain. Otherwise all kinds of physical location laws go out the window. (course this begs the question of, are my morals supposed to be constrained by the morals of the most conservative hamlet in the entire world?)
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
for calling by its real name instead of the corporatespeak "gaming" so supinely favored by the "news" media.
It is not about regulating morality. It's about money and government corruption. The big casinos want a 100% monopoly in exploiting the human weakness that causes people to gamble.
Gambling casinos don't gamble. If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose.
If you play enough, there is no chance in casino games of chance. If you play enough, the end result is ALWAYS 100% determined. You will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage the casino decides you will lose.
--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
In Soviet Russia, our new, on-line gaming overlords outlaw you!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
With American health steadily declining (on average), as exemplified by the current rate of obesity, congestive heart failure, and adult onset diabetes - I propose we rally together and convince our congressmen to submit legislation for the banning of food in the United States.
I'm not fat, just big boned...
They can't repeal the laws here.
If they did, then they'd have to actually address the issue of which state the transaction on the Internet takes place in: the buyers state, or the sellers state.
They don't want to do that, because in doing so, they either have declare the transaction takes place in the buyers state - and limit online gaming to people in physical locations where it's legal to gamble - or the sellers state - and render illegal all those state laws regarding "use tax".
They can't limit it to the buyers state, because if they do that, there's no way to tax it or prove what state the buyer is actually in at the time of the transaction, because there's no geotracking information associated with Internet connectivity.
They can't limit it to the sellers state, because if they do that, there's no way that an online seller is going to be able to collect the tax on behalf of 50 states, Midway, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, and they effectively squelch a large part of the economy.
Sowhat the Wire Act enables them to do is to stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that there's nothing to see here, and that people who buy things on the Internet are paying their local used tax, and that sellers in the same state as the shipping address are collecting and forwarding the state sales tax to the state they are located in.
This basically lets them ignore the whole problem that derives from having non-uniform state tax laws for a little while longer.
From the point of view of someone who occaasionally makes purchaes over the Internet, I have to say that I actually approve of this tack; I'd hate to have to provide strong identification couple with strong locality information, just to access the Internet, "just in case" I decided to try to buy something online.
-- Terry
In Canada and England tabled means "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting." In the USA tabled means "postpone consideration of." Yes it is confussing.
But then there would never have been a row about the EU banning hormone treated meat either, so obviously it is not the case.
This is a much larger issue than online gambling -- this bill is a fundumental violatoin of our rights.
Gambling in person is legal in many state and local comunities. Why should it be illegal online?
Should we allow a precedent to be set where the goverment is allowed to place greater restrictions on online activities and communication than it does on live activities and communication?
This makes me wonder what the legality will be (or is) of gambling in MMORPGs and other virtual realities, particularly those like Second Life where in-game items and currency can be bought and sold with real-world money. If you make in-game gambling illegal, that seems like an unreasonable (and perhaps unconstitutional?) constraint placed on creators of games. On the other hand, if in-game gambling is legal, that's a pretty big loophole for the "evils of gambling" to get through.
On that note, couldn't all for-pay MMORPGs be considered a form of gambling? Players pay a certain amount each month, and there's a certain chance that you'll be able to accumulate in-game items which can be sold for real-world money. There's of course an entertainment aspect to the game, but there's also an entertainment aspect for going to a casino.
Not to sound too paranoid, but I care a helluva lot more about the accuracy of the software than I do about if it's legal or not (same could be said for any number of vices, but I'll stick to this one). At least in the physical world, there are a lot of physical mechanisms in place to prevent being [too] taken by the house. Can the same truely be said of the online casinos?
tlansation ellol
it is called "pe pull lepublic", aftel 'wong lee pe pull', old dictatol
get facts stlait, lound eye!
The easiest/best way to stop Internet gambling in the USA is to remove all responsibility from US-based gamblers by requiring that US credit cards issue chargebacks for any reported payments for Internet gambling with notime limit to report; and that the gambler not face any legal penalty for making the report. So, if the gambler makes money, he keeps his mouth shut and takes his money; if (as is more likely) he loses money, he reports the charges and gets all his money back.
This would have the effect of making US credit cards worthless at these foreign casinos.
Such games are done already. US credit cards are worthless in Cuba. Any Cuban entity that foolishly accepts a US credit card in payment will find itself getting a chargeback.
"Brick and Mortar" casinos can come out ahead either way it goes.
:)
The big Vegas casinos will be the first to tell you, they *want* internet gambling in the United States. They can trade on the "trust" they've built with people face to face to build their on-line business. Any major customer service business has one major cost: labor. You don't pay dealers on-line, you don't comp drinks, you don't pay waitresses. Just a few admins and bandwidth costs.
If the US outlaws internet gambling, The casinos lose slightly, but come away with a push overall. They can't move into the on-line realm like they want to, but will at least keep the face to face business.
Personally, I would like to see on-line gambling through the major casinos. I'm hesitant to put up money with off shore organizations (why yes, I fully trust you and your Costa Rican LLC! Here's my Visa card!) You'd probably see a slight drop off in gambling related crime. For instance, I wouldn't mind dropping 20-40 bucks a week on the NFL and NHL. But since I don't live in Vegas, I'd have to deal with the local bookie. I'd be a criminal.
The easiest way to get rid of the small time crime (loan sharking, bookmaking, etc) is to make it a large scale crime e.g. a profitable capitalist enterprise
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
If the US ignores the WTO over this, who would notice? They're already ignoring rulings from NAFTA/WTO (Can't remember which, I think it was NAFTA) ordering the US to stop charging illegal tarrifs on Canadian softwood lumber (and pay back the tarrifs they've already illegally collected), but the US doesn't like the ruling, so they're just going to ignore it.
So I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the US decided to ignore the WTO. The US only follows international agreements if the US wants to.
WTO can you-know-what!
While I'll be on the Administration's side, for various reasons, it'll nevertheless show the complete and utter hypocrisy of big busines and their lapdogs in D.C. when it comes to global trade agreements (among other things). They sign up for this shit, then if it doesn't cut in their favor every time, they take their ball and go home.
Luke, help me take this mask off
"I'd certainly feel more comfortable playing online Texas Hold'em..."
Poker isn't gambling. At least, not everywhere (see California) so this is a point I'd like to see specifically addressed. AS very serious poker player, I would have to agree, it isn't gambling. There is a reason you always see the same people late in tournaments.
I suspect online poker is in large part responsible for this bill, but it may not be covered at all.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Look at the dramatic rise in online poker, and the MASSIVE increase in tournament poker in casinos, and you have a hard time convincing me the casinos don't make money off of online gaming.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
All it is trying to do is regulate *advertisements* for online gambling.
Which is a very weird bill in an of itself, but anyways, it's not the same as the US bill.
/* Gambling casinos don't gamble. If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose. */
If this was a slot machine, or other game of chance where the casino has a vested interest in you losing all of your money, that would be true.
This seems to be more about poker, though. In poker, you do not play against the casino, you play against the rubes. The house merely takes a percentage (the rake) of the pot. On the $3-$6 tables I play, that starts a $1 per pot.
Now, what happens is that people come and go on this table, and they tend to lose x amount of money before they leave. When one player leaves the table, the pots get smaller, and that means the rake gets smaller.
Now, using this information, it seems to me that the casinos want you to play A LOT of hands.
More players = bigger pots = higher rake
Poker is the one game where the casino does not care at all how much you make or lose at the table, because they only get a percentage of each pot.
A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
The answer here is the same as for brick and mortar casinos.
There are tons of money to be made legitimately, what's the incentive to risk your reputation?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Yes, but assuming all players being equally likely to win, the rake assures that the amount they put in will be less than the amount they take out on average. The law of large numbers does the rest.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
i just read the Bill. and there are sooo many things wrong here, where do i start:
1. it calls for US$10 Million per year to be allocated to enforcing the Bill.
note (i): let me see here... online gambling is a US$12 Billion industry. 60% of which comes from the US. and somehow US$10 Million per year is going to be enough to enforce - correction: 'stop' the US$7 Billion being wagered online in the US.. ?? yea, right.
note (ii): if a Bill cannot be enforced, then (by law) the Bill cannot stand. US$10 Million will not be sufficient to enforce that Bill. and anyone who claims the contrary is either in denial or lying. much (much) more money would be required to enforce that Bill. and without sufficient funding, that Bill would be unenforcable - and therefor unconstitutional.
2. the Bill calls for the telecom companies to terminate the accounts of those subscribers who have been determined to be online gamblers! that's right. the office in charge of this bill (the one with the US$10 Million budget) would theoretically send notices to the telecom companies responsible for servicing the players (aka. law breakers). and it will be the responsibility of those telecom providers (aka. ISPs) to terminate the account of the subscriber. if they do not comply, the ISP would be in violation of this Bill.
note (i): this Bill effectively takes the right of internet access away from anyone who is found to be gambling online. i just hope this oversight department is somehow able to locate these criminals (aka. poker players) with better accuracy that the RIAA (who is currently sueing an old lady for stealing music via the internet - even though she doesn;t even have a computer).
note (ii): how is it that this oversight department will determine (with better accuracy than the RIAA, let's all hope) that you or i is up at night playing poker (for real money vs. play money) ??
note (iii): how is it that this oversight department will determine (with better accuracy than the RIAA, let's all hope) that you or i is up at night playing poker at all ? unless the US$10 Million will be spent wiretapping the entire internet ??! remember folks, this Bill is for Americans only. all those lovely online casinos in London will not be effected. but in order to enforce THIS Bill, all internet communications will need to be monitored. (And we thought !!China!! was harsh).
in conclusion:
A) US$10 Million is not enough (to successfully spy on everyone).
B) ISPs will be forced to terminate personal internet accounts at the direction of this oversight office. An entire family will lose their internet access becasue one single member was playing on partypoker with the free US$10.00 offered to every new player. Or what about a University? with one primary access point. how many college professors bet on college football? and if found out, the entire unversity losses its access? wrong!
C) in order to enforce this Bill, one of two measure will have to be implemented: either every cable modem/router will have to be wired with Big Brother's "all seeing eye". or ISPs will be forced store and disclose access records to the Bill's oversight office. either way, that is f**cked up.
honestly, the passing of this Bill may or may not assist the gambling industry (in some way). but it will certainly cause undue pressure on ISPs. jeopardize legitimiate internet access. and threaten online privacy to its very core. the authors of this Bill are so narrow minded. they have NO idea what they are saying. they have NO idea what they would be setting into motion should it pass. the authors of this Bill have one thing in mind: their own political stature. they want to be the one to have "banned online gambling". little do they know they would also be known for effectively giving bith to Big Brother in America. bye bye freedom.
Solution: REGULATE IT!! TAX IT!!!! (DUH!)
assuming all players being equally likely to win
This will almost always be an incorrect assumption in a game of poker.
I worked for these guys from 2002-2003 and asked how they could be accesting radio spots for offshore gambling. They told me to mind my business, and ultimately fired me. Now look at what happened to these clowns! http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060120/pl_usnw/past _promotion_of_illegal_gambling_costs_the_sporting_ news7_2_million__says_u_s__attorney210_xml
But on average it is totally true. Total amount won = total amount bet - rake. The average winnings will always be about 1-2% smaller than the average bet...so on average, poker players lose too.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
/* But on average it is totally true. Total amount won = total amount bet - rake. The average winnings will always be about 1-2% smaller than the average bet...so on average, poker players lose too.*/
That's true if you use the average. The house taking the rake will obviously make the average winnings go down. The point, however is that good players beat bad players most of the time. So good players make money usually, and the bad players lose money usually.
A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
...and one really has to study their culture to be able to take part in the internet -- otherwise you run into traps everywhere.
Go say shit on #gentoo and you get a nice, fat warning. Ask why and you get "this chan is G rated". Ask politely what G means and you get a "don't act stupid".
Now THAT is something I like: Intercultural differences and you are called stupid...
Oh if they only used their TLD, so we could learn that *.us has some funny attitudes. But in this internet we have to be careful everywhere!
(Actually a guy from LIthuania said "shit", he was in for a first surprise about the USA: that David Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson do not represent that country)
The bill banning US citizens from using *all* net gambling sites does not violate WTO rules, as it treats all countries' sites equally.
Yes, the bill violates WTO rules, and probably also the constitution. It violates common sence and also the basis on which the Republican party (which really needs to change its name to The New Socialist Lunatic Party) was built on, namely the freedom of the individual.
The reason the bill violates the WTO rules is that it favors Brick and Mortar casinos over their online counter parts, thereby unfairly targeting foreign business.
The interesting thing is that the largest online gambling site has clearly said that they would incorporate in the US if they could since the US is a better capital market to operate in. Access to VC funding etc is better here than anywhere else in the world, and a whole bunch of other advantages. Sadly, due to near-sighted policy makers with big egos and little brains they can't, with the resulting loss of revenue for the US.
"Not to mention it's also false (i.e. it's not the only gambling game that requires skill.)"
Where did I say it was?
Why are you such a flaming idiot that you make up argumnets and read things that don't exist?
As to the strength, California says poker is a skill. I really don't think anyone gives two shits about your opinion, especially since it's stupid (because you make up arguments and can't read for comprehension)
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
You will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage the casino decides you will lose.
.8% edge at this game, a 1.2% edge at that game.
The sick thing is, that's how they sell it. The house has a
Most people at casinoes aren't playing games they can play long-haul, though. They show up to a casino with $200 and play blackjack at the $10 tables. They've no concept of "variance".
So for the people who are playing "smart", the casino takes their percent. For the people who aren't, they take everything the person was willing to show up with, because they weren't smart enough to realize that the expected swings over time in a $10 blackjack game are MUCH higher than $200.
Neat trick, ain't it?
-F
One of my favorites points of all:
State run lotteries are now crossing state boundaries and this seems to be perfectly legal. They also give the worst odds of any gaming company that I've been able to find. Strange isn't it that certain people are trying to ban online gaming.
I chose "gambling" because in the context of a site like Slashdot, "gaming" means something else entirely. Furthermore, I just think calling gambling 'gaming' is idiotic. I have no problem with gambling, but call it what it is.
/. ...
Although, I'm sure that saying "Congress has introduced a bill to ban all online gaming" would probably have made for a far more interesting discussion here on
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That's very interesting. Few people understand the underlying mathematics. "Gaming" is vicious.
And this is EXACTLY why the government should have little to no regulatory authority in the free market.
When the government is far-reaching, then the legislators are influenced by whoever writes their campaign checks. Big business gives lots of money in order to get legislation passed IN FAVOR of big business. Ever wonder why a small business man these days really MUST have an attorney AND a tax accountant on retainer?
Independent and small business is a thread to big business. Therefore the big businesses attempt to skew the market in their favor by buying legislation.
The simple solution is to shrink the government and have a hands off approach to the market (thus the term "free" market) that way big business cannot pay off legislators to legislate in their favor and crush competition through regulation.
Libertas in infinitum
How in the bloody hell did this get modded "interesting"?!?!?!
Libertas in infinitum