Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

4 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Sure is a good thing... by Atario · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:Sure is a good thing... by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      AccountKiller
  2. It will have little effect long term... by spagetti_code · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
  3. Congress wants the money by eebra82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.