Slashdot Mirror
BetOnSports Founder Pleads Guilty To Racketeering
Hugh Pickens writes "The founder of Internet- and telephone-based gambling operation BetOnSports has entered guilty pleas to three US charges, including a racketeering charge, and will forfeit $43.7 million to the US government as part of a plea agreement. Beginning in the mid- to late-1990s, Gary Kaplan set up businesses in Antigua and later Costa Rica to provide sports betting services to US residents through web sites and toll-free telephone numbers. Those numbers terminated in Houston or Miami, and were then forwarded to Costa Rica by satellite transmitter or fiber-optic cable. Some of Kaplan's web servers were located in Miami and were remotely controlled from Costa Rica. People became customers by depositing money in a BetOnSports account. By 2004, the BetOnSports organization's principal base of operations in Costa Rica employed about 1,700 people, had nearly one million registered customers and accepted more than 10 million sports bets. Now bankrupt, BetOnSports took in $1.25 billion in 2004, with 98 percent of that revenue coming from bets made through its web site by clients in the United States. 'Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes,' said FBI agent John Gillies. 'Today's guilty plea should have a lasting effect because Kaplan was not only the founder of BetOnSports, he was also one of the pioneers of illegal online gambling.'"
The only one hurt in this operation was the American government who didn't get their cut.
The internet exposes many holes in the law, the most obvious one being locality in this case. What's the difference between driving to the nearby rez for some Pai Gow and going online to bet on the ponies?
It's illegal because it's illegal, regardless of whether it's easy to lose your money without leaving your house.
"Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes"
I can't be trusted! Protect me, nanny state!
'Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes,' said FBI agent John Gillies.
The IRS was pissed it wasn't getting a cut of the action.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
After all, Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. This guy told the gamblers the truth about what he was doing, and they gave him money voluntarily.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Antigua can just the WTO to give them even more $ in us IP now.
I'm still not sure what this guy did wrong other than offer a convenient service to gamblers.
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
His mistake was not leaving the US when he had enough money to live independently. That or he was too cheap and didn't "donate" to the right legislators.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Betting on sports is a stupid move. Any form of gambling, be it lottery tickets, horse racing, cock fighting and the Stock Market--they are all equally foolish. Each of these forms of gambling exist to funnel money to the house. Anyone who is foolish enough to buy stocks, bet on football games, buy lottery tickets or step foot in a casino is a stupid fool who deserves to walk away penniless. What kind of foolish idiot walks into a casino in Las Vegas expecting to make money? I guess it's the same sort of dunderhead that forks over money on sports betting or who stands in line at a Quickie-Mart buying $10 worth of lottery tickets. Idiots all. The only part of this statement that is really controversial is including the Stock Market. Well, if you put your money in the stock market in the last 9 years, you would have done better keeping it in cash under your mattress.
Today's guilty plea should have a lasting effect because Kaplan was not only the founder of BetOnSports, he was also one of the pioneers of illegal online gambling.'"
Yup.. the lasting effect will be operations that are entirely offshore and run by people not U.S. citizens will take over the online gambling industry.
The only effect here is to kill off the U.S. businesses that do this. Does the Federal Government really think it's going to stop every country with an internet connection from hosting a freaking gambling website?
AccountKiller
Good to see you're living up to your name. :D
Every form of investment is a risk, not just the stock market. Buying some of those safe US treasury bonds? Oops, the government decided to default on its debts, you lose. Deposit money in the bank? Oh dear, there was a run on the bank and your government decided it was not going to step in and guarantee depositors money, you lose? Money under the mattress? Oh dear, your house burnt down.
So using your logic, anybody who keeps money in any form is a sucker!
Not really a victimless crime if someone has a gambling addiction. And online gambling doesn't help prevent that lifestyle. But, if it's legalized and regulated, maybe there is hope, but setting limits on how much someone can gamble within a time period. Because, when that person becomes dirt broke, isn't it going to be a burden on our welfare system?
Cheating people who can't rub two brain cells together and engage in betting schemes where anyone with a hint of knowledge of the system has to know it can't be a zero sum game over time, that's illegal?
Round up investment bankers and stock brokers!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The statement by FBI agent John Gillies that 'Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes' is utterly nonsensical. Where is it written that gas companies and automobile manufacturers must get their cut on one's journey towards bankruptcy?.
I am a statistician (says my degree at least). Yet, on occation, I buy a lottery ticket and visit a casino. Fully aware that my chance to win is minimal compared to the chance that I lose. It's a game. It's fun. It's a cheap little thrill. It's nothing I'd put my last 5 bucks on.
The problem isn't so much that people engage in gambling. It's not really a problem unless you plan to make money that way. As long as you see it as a pastime and realize that it's basically a pastime like so many others where you pay to do it, from playing paintball to collecting stamps, there's no problem.
It becomes a problem when people live in the delusion of having a "system" to beat the house and make money that way. It does not work. It simply cannot. If there was such a thing as a "system", casinos and lottery company would have folded a long time ago.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Thank goodness for the extra effort required to walk into a gas station to buy a state-run-lottery ticket.
I'm glad the FBI is thinking of the children.
the devil's dice are wicked praise jesus the pope is the whore of babylon
The owners, the loan sharks, the payday lenders, the cops, the employees, the hookers, the blackmailers ...
As for the stock market, it's legalized gambling only if you're too small to control the market. That's why the small fish get eaten alive every pull-back.
You know that card counters have an advantage over the house in blackjack? That's why the casinos will kick you out if they think you're counting cards - they just want people who can't count to "play."
If I spend 20 bucks to see Star Conflict Robot Murderers IX at a movie theater, and get the overpriced popcorn and a giant 174 oz soda, I'm making a rational value judgment to spend money on entertainment because I feel I get adequate value of entertaining.
If I spend 20 bucks over the course of two hours at a casino, I'm stupid fool.
A stupid fool who probably talked to a stripper instead of a dork dressed up like Colonel Robokillbot showing off his "real lights and sounds" robo laser chainsaw that he ordered online for $499.
Personally, I don't actually gamble. And, I'd expect not to have much in common with the hypothetical stripper if I did wind up talking to her for some implausible reason. But, if somebody makes a different value judgment than I do with their money, that doesn't automatically make them wrong. It doesn't automatically make them a foolish idiot. Most people spend money on things that are demonstrably of no real value. Gambling has the odd quirk of demonstrably having potential value. That value is rare enough that gambling is clearly a net cost on average, despite the occasional zillion dollar win.
At least with poker, and to a lesser extent, stocks and sports bets, there is a genuine skill element involved which means that you can potentially learn the game well enough to turn a profit. It's just the random chance games where you are guaranteed to lose in the long term.
If you can count 6+ decks, you can make more money with "honest" work...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sorry while the stock market as the appearance of gambling its not quite the same.
Here are differences:
1)
If I put down a dollar in a casino I either win or loose, its a binary.
If I put down a dollar in the stock market I have the choice of getting my money back at a later point in time at a loss or gain. It is not binary.
2)
If I bet on red I have odds that red might win.
If I buy a stock based on analysis X I have a probability that I can go home with a gain at my discretion.
3)
Casinos work on randomness
Stock markets are not random. They appear random and to the layman seem random, but are not random.
If you had put your money in the stock market in the last 9 years you would have lost. Ok how about the last 20 years? You would have made money. If you had shorted you would have made money. If you had sold premium you would have made money. The list goes on...
People who say think that there is only one way to make money in the stock market. In fact there are many ways, you just have to know what to do and when.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Yes. With a few minor exceptions. Poker can be won, since you are not playing against the house.
Blackjack can be won in theory due to counting, although that will be spotted quickly, and one will be asked to leave.
Lastly, under lab conditions a few people have been shown to be able to assert a level of precision in throwing craps die to be able to gain a slight advantage. The problem with this one is that in real world conditions additional variables hamper this, and in any case the advantage is so small that it would take more time to earn significant amounts of cash that way then to take a regular job, so the casinos are not worried about that.
But yes, no betting based system will give you an advantage over the house.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Betting on sports is a stupid move. Any form of gambling, be it lottery tickets, horse racing, cock fighting and the Stock Market--they are all equally foolish. Each of these forms of gambling exist to funnel money to the house. Anyone who is foolish enough to buy stocks, bet on football games, buy lottery tickets or step foot in a casino is a stupid fool who deserves to walk away penniless.
Your comment shows you have a gross misunderstanding of everything you mentioned. Most of the people who gamble do it for fun - and don't risk their savings. People are aware of the risks when they gamble, and they choose to do it anyway because they enjoy the thrill. This does not qualify said people as stupid or foolish. If a guy spends £10 on a bet instead of £10 on another luxury (say beer for instance) he at least has a chance of making some money. The chance and % of ROI may not be great (depending on his bet obviously) but buying £10 of beer will just give you really expensive piss with a close to 0% chance of any ROI. Unless of course, you trade it on the piss market.
People who are willing to take a chance on something for fun or for profit are the people I like to spend my time with. People who never take a chance are generally in my experience, not very fun to be around and don't get where they want to be in life. You probably only live once - take a chance and enjoy it! DISCLAIMER: as long as it is not at the expensive of your family's well being etc.
But back on topic. This whole saga seems pretty ridiculous to me. Can't adults just be held responsible for their own actions? If people choose to spend all their money on fixed odds gambling, it's probably not a sensible choice of investment (unless they win millions of course...) but it's still their right to make that choice with their own money.
Oh wait, what am I saying. *puts on modern political thinking hat* Clearly, these people need to be protected from themselves. I mean, if we don't make the choices FOR them they might go ahead and make the wrong ones and actually gain wisdom from the experience!!11!11!1
Sports betting is not a "sucker game" if what you mean by that it is not beatable. Betting on sports at 11-10 odds (Bet $110 to win $100) as is normal for most sports bets involving a point spread requires the bettor to win 52.5% of his / her bets to make money. While most people do not, the game is beatable. Doing so online involves risks like the government seizing your payouts and other stuff that raises that hurdle. Poker is another game that is also played online that is very beatable by skilled players.
The World Trade Organization has found in favor of Antigua, and states that the US is in violation of the law by making online gambling illegal just because it wants to protect its brick and mortar casinos...
However the US threatens others with the UN, WTO, sanctions, military force when it wants to, and ignores those organizations when they become "inconvenient". And then Americans wonder why they are hated everywhere. That's ok, keep printing those dollars (the Federal Reserve is now the biggest purchaser of US treasuries - imagine that), propping up that bubble and lying to the public with imaginary "inflation" and "employment" figures, America. The whole house of cards will come down soon enough.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
More importantly, stocks are a claim to partial ownership of a company. Thus buying stocks is an investment in a business venture. There is always risk in business, but successful entrepreneurs minimize their risk by researching their markets and filling an unfilled need, or filling a need better than anyone else.
While a stock-owner does not make all of the same decisions that an entrepreneur does, they do play a vital role in the economy by funding ventures that are producing goods and services that are in demand.
Most people think of the stock market as gambling because they confuse investing with speculating. Many stock-traders do speculate by purchasing stocks that they believe will go up in price (with the intention of selling them when they do), or short-selling stocks that they believe are about to go down*. However, the VAST majority of stock-holders are investors who put their money into carefully researched companies with the intention of earning dividend yields. Here the risk is minimal and while the returns are not as high, the investor stays liquid and acts more as a lender. Lending only to those companies that have a good track record and operate in "safe" markets (traditional examples of "safe" markets are commodities, raw materials, natural resources, public utilities etc.)
* Short selling means borrowing a stock from a broker, selling it at it's current price and then buying it back at a lower price. Since you only owe the broker the stock, not it's original value, you return the stock to the broker and pocket the difference between the original price you sold it at, and the lower price you bought it back at.
Plenty of people enjoy the gambling to the extent that it is worth the losses to them (Personally, my actual gambling is limited to the occasional Mega Millions ticket, but only when the expected value of the ticket goes above the cost, it is fun to fantasize about absurd wealth once in a while).
As far as the stock market, you can actually bet with the house (buy an index fund). The last 10 or 15 years certainly have been miserable, but good investment advice pretty much starts with "don't invest money that you might need short term access to in stocks"; that advice gets roundly ignored (people in their 50's and 60's frequently have huge exposure to equities, when they shouldn't), but that doesn't change the value of the advice for people that follow it, so 10 years of poor market performance is easy to view as an opportunity to buy...
Even Jim Cramer, a guy a lot of people view as a loudmouth tool of the bad guys, starts with advising people to take out insurance against catastrophes (good medical insurance and disability insurance, to protect against illness and loss of income, which are much bigger considerations for retirement than good investment performance) and to conservatively invest their retirement assets (the title of his show "Mad Money" is a reference to money that the particular investor can afford to lose, and thus can take larger risks with).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Help, I just accidentally my sports betting website! Is this bad?
Oh, there most certainly are "systems". If you (ab)use one to profit at the house's expense they'll break your kneecaps (or charge you with racketeering).
Most people only think they can count cards. The casinos love those people, and sell them books on card counting in the book store.
If you "make too much" they might notice you, I suppose, but they will probably refuse service to anyone who's not losing money over a long enough time period, regardless of method, just-in-case. They're private businesses. They can refuse service to whomever they wish. Although I suspect they let a few "career card counters" go on for a while. Those guys are the kernel of stories about beating the casino that gives their real customers false hope.
The real scam is the poker tables. The casino risks none of its own money on the poker tables, yet feels entitled to a percentage of every pot? WTF?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Sorry while the stock market as the appearance of gambling its not quite the same.
Here are differences:
1)
If I put down a dollar in a casino I either win or loose, its a binary.
If I put down a dollar in the stock market I have the choice of getting my money back at a later point in time at a loss or gain. It is not binary.
2)
If I bet on red I have odds that red might win.
If I buy a stock based on analysis X I have a probability that I can go home with a gain at my discretion.
3)
Casinos work on randomness
Stock markets are not random. They appear random and to the layman seem random, but are not random.
If you had put your money in the stock market in the last 9 years you would have lost. Ok how about the last 20 years? You would have made money. If you had shorted you would have made money. If you had sold premium you would have made money. The list goes on...
People who say think that there is only one way to make money in the stock market. In fact there are many ways, you just have to know what to do and when.
1. Clearly you have never heard of a binary option. There are other derivatives that have very close analogies in the gambling world.
2. If I buy a sports betting ticket based on my analysis that team A will beat team B X% of the time, how is this any different than "investing" in an option based on similar analysis.
3. Not everything in a casino operates off of randomness and not everything in the stock market isn't random. Sports are not random, but to a laymen they can appear random. I can bet on sports in a similar fashion to the way that based on analysis I can bet on equities or commodities. Blackjack appears random, but past cards can help predict future cards and that is why the game is beatable. There are lots of ways to make money gambling -- it isn't as simple as betting red or black and praying to the gambling gods to shine on you.
An argument can be made that stock investing is not exactly like gambling due to the partial ownership of the company. However, derivatives ARE gambling. Plain and simple.
Kaplan was not only the founder of BetOnSports, he was also one of the pioneers of illegal online gambling.
Gary Kaplan may have been a pioneer of online gambling, but it took the U.S. government to pioneer the wonderful concept of illegal online gambling.
The Pentagon is not a bank, it is a landmark military post, and it was also attacked on 9/11.
9/11 was an attack on the institutions of the United States in general, not simply an attack on a BANK.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The provide a nice playing table and chairs. They provide nice cards and chips. They provide a dealer who vaguely knows the rules. They provide a public location with security to find people to play with without having to sit in a private location with strangers and large sums of money. They provide an unbiased party for dispute resolution.
And they don't always feel entitled to a percentage of every pot, pay by the hour isn't that uncommon.
It should be a very, very serious crime to force anyone to gamble on sports or anything else, including the stock market or tomorrow's weather.
That's it! The other gaming ("gambling") laws should all be tested against this one, and should be tossed if violating them does not involve forcing someone to gamble.
No questions? Alright, I'll be in my office today, and office hours as usual on Wednesday.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Why can't we let US based casinos have on line betting? they want to have it and you can't fix sports like you can with on line porker, slots, and black jack.
Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes
Betting, which allows dumb people to broke themselves, is illegal.
Guns, which allow dumb people to kill others, are still legal.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I lost a fiver on the English football today. Out of the 10 bets I made over the weekend, I won 3 of them but, most importantly, I lost the last one of the day. I'll probably lose another fiver next week and the week after that. These one pound bets hopefully wont bankrupt me.
I wont play the lottery though because the odds are rubbish. The odds at a bookmakers is the game. If the bookmaker has it wrong then this where my money goes. And believe me, they do get it wrong often. If only I could gamble with hindsight!
In the UK there is no such thing as a poor bookmaker and we all know it. You can even be the bookmaker on some websites but I'm not a hardcore gambler, so this is not for me.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Why do people so often the verb when posting online?
Do tell. There are several counting systems that, while not simple, are not exceptionally difficult. If you were allowed unrestricted use of one (even if you have to count entirely in your head) there's the obvious potential for exponential profit.
I would love to know how I could make 7 figures in a job I could do any time i wanted, an hours i wanted and, given internet gambling, from anywhere i wanted.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
...or to put it more simply: The stock market is FAR more complex than most of the people comparing it to gambling even suspect. Investing in the 'market *IS* still a risk but it's one so complex it's impossible to put actual odds on.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Yes, if you would have kept the stocks all this time. Why would you though.
;-)
;-) That would really be speculation, gambling if you want to say so ;-) It's a lot less risk than calls for a shorter time though, and might either cost me 5k, in which case I'll still end up with more money than interest on a savings account would have gotten me in the same time, or turn the 5k into 10k-18k in half a year...
:-)
In june 2003 I bought 10k worth of stock. It was money I saved up over quite some time, without other purpose than well, saving up some money. In december 2005 I sold the stock for 15k. That's 5k in 2.5 years - tax free!. Then I put that into savings accounts and got about 4% interest on it - taxed!, until april this year. I think I got about 2.2k interest over that period, roughly 3.5 years. I moved it to a different account twice, paid a small amount of tax, and took everything above 15k to finance fun stuff
April this year, I bought 15k worth of stock. It's now worth about 18k. I don't *know* what the stock market is going to do, but I assume that if it'll drop down somewhat again because the recession takes longer and so on, it will just take half a year or a year more to make my profit... so in that case the savings account would win for 1 year... I don't care...
Right now though, I'm at about 100% profit in about 6 years, most of which from stock, and in the big scheme of things we're still right after a crash. I'm not getting rich, it's not a big bang, but I am still very pleased with the results of my fooling around with 10k... I don't compare to the DJ index, or what I could have gotten *if*... but I compare to a savings account...
It *will* crash again... I probably won't have stock then... And buy them again. That time I'll probably be using some of this profit to buy calls with expiration date 18 to 24 months into the future, and see if that'll work too. It would have worked wonders both in 2003 as during this 2008 crash...
If you're looking for a quick buck right now I can't tell you what to do... I'd be too busy doing it... But if you can do without the money for a couple of years, I think now is still a good time to buy some stock, and be pretty sure you can sell it at a nice profit after a couple of years, then put the money somewhere safe till next crash. It won't drop down far from *this* point
I have done so, I am doing so, and it works for me. It's a fun hobby this way, and as a bonus some of my friends think I'm crazy... because among them, I'm the only one looking *forward* to the next crash!
They supply the table, the cards, the room, the dealer... Why do you think they shouldn't be entitled to a profit? One might argue about the SIZE of the profit, but please be reasonable.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Depending on the people you play with, having someone who has no interest in the outcome of the game who provides cards and location is already something that might allow you to end up in a fair game...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, sports contests can and have been fixed. The prevalence of that was one of the reasons betting on sports was originally made illegal.
Mr. Kaplan probably couldn't have fixed sports. He was too small time an operation. But the Nevada casinos... well, it may be just as well that they AREN'T allowed to have on-line betting on sports.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But there was more than just "fair". There was also your game not being robbed by guys with guns who heard about it somehow. Which could also happen at a casino, but the security is better and there's juicier targets than the poker table.
Those that are ahead of the curve usually get burned at the stake.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200908051805dowjonesdjonline000841
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/01/30/2009-01-30_how_gambling_addiction_works_in_the_brai.html
Then, please, stop your ignorant, uninformed and idiotic opinionating on matters of which you clearly know nothing about.
I will not waste my time refuting your lame assertions, I just wish to flag to others that people that actually know about this topic would address the matter properly, such points of view are easy to find in order to balance the nonsense the parent poster just ejaculated.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Companies that actually pay dividends.
Most other people "invest" in share appreciation, which is speculative in nature.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In which US state is that?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are systems, you're right. But they are all losers. None of them work, because you can't beat the math.
One common system is to double your bet every time. Eventually, the theory goes, you will win and double your money (except you wouldn't, because it would only give you a small extra amount of money back when you factor in all the lost money). The problem with this system is table limits. if you're exponentially raising your stake, you will hit the cap pretty quickly and then you're REALLY stuck.
The problem with most systems is that they seem to work at first glance, but if you keep track of your winnings and losings over time, you will always come out a loser.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Contrary to popular belief, most bookmakers don't set their line based on who will win or lose. Instead, they set their line in such a way as to attract equal action on both sides of the game. Then, they make their money on "the juice", the difference between the favorite and the dog. The bookmaker then acts as an agent moving money between the two sides, taking his cut. If he's done his job right, then he's at no risk of losing any money.
There are some risks though. Some people may not pay (that's why many books are "postup" which means you give them the money first, others are "credit" stores).
Sometimes a bookie "gambles" though, and sets his line in such a way that will attract business to the other side of what he thinks will win. Or maybe he just won't get enough action on one side or another, and he will try to "lay it off" with another bookie.
In any event, any bookie that goes out of business is either gambling or robbed.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
That example's an "inside the box" system, and one based on flawed math to boot.
The profitable tricks subvert how things normally work. They're hacks. Any slashdotter ought to appreciate that, right?
The thing is, exploiting loopholes tends to piss off those who own the thing being exploited. When done to excess the exploit can change the way the game is played or even ruin the game for all the players. Case in point: naked shorting works... it just wrecks the market you do it in.
Because they should back to /b/.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Not if you are playing with millions of dollars.
Can:
* In most states, your local church can do bingo. Believe me when I tell you that it's gambling.
* The state itself my set up a monopoly on lotteries, some in collusion with other states.
* Some states allow gambling establishments to particular parties, often hand picked by officials, to run organizations.
* Considered non-US, but inside the borders of the US, Indian Reservations.
Can't
* Average citizens who do not have political or financial clout enough to purchase licenses.
* Anyone attempting to provide gambling from outside the US by any infrastructure (phone, internet, etc)
Gambling is very profitable, but the profit doesn't come from what you think it does. It's not the 10% margin on bets. That's a nice thought, but it doesn't wash. Gambling is profitable because people gamble to a loss margin. For example I may go to Vegas and $2000 with me. I'm likely to play that money away. I won't stop at $200. I'll keep playing until that entire bankroll is gone. I may even win $500 on a $10 bet, and this is what I'll remember. The easy money I made... but most would gamble that away too. It's not 10%, it's 10% compounded per bet. This is why there are limits on the kinds of bets that get you a 50/50 split. When you bet on black, you are limited much more to the amount you can bet than you are if you bet on 00 even though the pay-out is less.
Oh yeah, because 'remembering' is so highly sought after, they automatically add a zero to the end of your paycheque :P.
Besides... you don't have to memorize the entire deck... just start at zero and increment mentally each high card, decrement each low card.
The people really hurt by this were the proprietor, his sister (the government stole $7-million from her, according to the article I read (not this FA)), and the close to one million customers who had accounts with BetOnSports. All told, the US government stole about $50-million from about a million people.
Say a company builds a site for something that is legal (say sports bets) and regulated in a country where I am living in (say Algeriabeckistanbulzuela). And US citizens use this site to place bets. This makes the company liable? Obviously I am missing something here. Someone care to explain the rational here? I would really appreciate it.
Too Lazy to register since too lazy to remember.