Betting Against Online Gambling

conq writes "BusinessWeek.com has an article looking at the possible consequences if anti-gambling legislation is passed. From the article: 'Just how much of a setback is the proposed legislation for the $12 billion industry? While online gambling companies generate half their sales from U.S. gamblers, the industry is operated almost completely by companies beyond the reach of U.S. regulators. [...] It's a lot of smoke and mirrors and misstatements.'"

Comments

Sure is a good thing...

[Atario]

...that there's nothing else important going on the country or the world, so Congress can address the dire scourge of online gambling.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[KiloByte]

But gambling is against the scripture, while depriving citizens of their freedoms isn't.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[Vellmont]

You assume there's no value in a lottery ticket beyond the actual payoff. Sorry, but you're wrong. What people are buying is the CHANCE at winning the lottery. It's a fantasy of being able to do whatever they like for the very low price of $1 or a pound. Many people judge the value of that fantasy as being worth far more than the cost of a lottery ticket. It's not about being "bad at math" as you say, but about mentally ignoring the overwhelming odds that you're not going to win, if only for a little while. That doesn't mean you don't know you're extremely unlikely to win, you just don't think about that so you can enjoy the fantasy. I don't play the lottery because I can't easily ignore the fact that I'm not going to win. Other people can do that, and as the poster pointed out it's a trivial amount of money to buy a lottery ticket. You're not really hurting yourself as what else of more value can you really spend $1 on?

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[drsquare]

At 6% interest (plus inflation), over 40 years, this $1/week will grow to $8,673. A $2,080 investment will pay itself off 4 times over.

You'll be lucky to get 6% interest. 5% is the usual amount, which is 4% after tax. Take away inflation and you're not left with much. Anyway eight grand over forty years is absolutely nothing. Expecially compared to the millions you could win on the lottery.

Unfortunately, the saying we have in the financial industry is true: "The rich man plans for the next generation. The poor man plans for Friday night."

Of course, major shareholders and CEOs are always looking forty years in advance, not just until the next quarter until they can sell out and screw everyone else over.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[Vellmont]

I'll trust your math is right (though I take issue with getting a steady 6% over such a long period of time), but there's still an implicit assumption that there's something wrong with buying fantasy in your argument. You can make the exact same argument for buying anything. Why buy that cup of coffee on the weekend when you could invest the money? Don't spend an extra 20 cents on the quality tomatoes that taste better and you'll enjoy more because you could invest it and make more money in 40 years.

What's so different about spending $1 a week on a lottery ticket than buying a beer every so often? You don't need either of them to survive. But for the people who enjoy beer or the lottery, it's worth the very small amount of money. Obviously it's a good idea to save money for so many reasons I can't list. But if you're not spending money to enjoy yourself I think you're going to be a pretty miserable person.

It will have little effect long term...

[spagetti_code]

FTFA:

encourages financial institutions to deny Internet gambling transactions

So the gambling sites will move offshore. The banks and credit card companies will not want to lose that massive
source of transactions, and will find a way to continue those transactions. There is no explicit restriction on them.

There's too much money at stake here.

See also . . .

[bblboy54]

See also: Prohibition.

Congress wants the money

[eebra82]

The way I see it, the congress is worried about the billions of Dollars that's sipping out of the country. Online gambling will always be there, so if we don't want all the money to end up in hands of tropical islands, why not just vote for legalizing this industry instead?

I doubt the republicans are doing this to "save us" from the evilness of gambling. After all, the vast majority of all Americans gamble responsively. Blaming the industry too much would be like blaming television for murderers becoming who they are (read: artificial violence). If people have a problem with spending money, it will end up in pockets of other people no matter what, simply because gambling is only one way to canal it.

So once again, my point is, the US authorities should look at options of keeping as much of the industry within the US as possible instead of messing with peoples' habits and hobbies.

take a piece

[duffbeer]

Folks, one hell of a lot of people like playing poker and gambling on the internet. Unfortunately, the rake from those games is ALL going offshore. Take note that this bill made it through the house but is not going to be matched in the senate.

This is just a warm-up. Legalizing online gambling so the feds and US corps can get their cut is the real goal. Ask yourself: why aren't the major US gaming corporations being extremely vocal on this issue?

Once again, The Right brings up an issue to legislate on moral grounds (gaining votes) only to collect behind the scenes (gaining $$$) when they later fulfill the interests of the corporations.

Re:Not against Scripture

[bnenning]

Sometimes people with excellent math ability can win consistently at games like BlackJack. In my opinion, this is wrong also.

That's just silly. A successful blackjack card counter is following the rules of the game, and coming out ahead by making correct decisions. You might as well say that it's "wrong" to pay off your credit card every month because Mastercard wants to collect interest on the balance.