Push To End Online Gambling Ban Gains Steam

The Washington Post updates a story we discussed last spring about a push in the Democratic-controlled congress to legalize some forms of Internet gambling in the US. "Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers. ... The federal government, which rarely prosecutes online gambling, would net billions of dollars in tax and licensing revenue if it were legalized, proponents say. ... The outlook on Capitol Hill, however, is uncertain given a slate of unfinished business... [and] nervousness among Democrats about November midterm challenges. ... [A politically conservative poker player said] 'There's a part of the party that always believes this isn't something people should do. But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issue.'"

Comments

Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[khallow]

If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.

I continue to be impressed by your talents though this isn't your usual fare. This is clearly true because we all know that making online gambling illegal gives online casinos incentive to stay in the US. It's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school. It would encourage students to smoke off campus due to the taxes!

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[vegiVamp]

The difference being that you can't offshore your pot dealing activities due to your clients not being there. He may have a point, given that there is another location where they can a) set up large datacenters, b) get decent connectivity to the US, c) not pay taxes and d) not get their asses prosecuted.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[Tim C]

But what makes that different to the current situation in the US? Is it illegal for US citizens (while in the US) to gamble online at sites hosted elsewhere in the world? Given the amount of spam I get for online casinos (with most of the sign-up bonuses quoted in dollars) I assumed it was not, but I'm wiling to be proved wrong.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[BlueTrin]

From the viewpoint of the government, it is still better to get a small share of the taxes than none whatsoever.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[vegiVamp]

I have no idea wether or not it's legal, not being a USian myself, but the amount of spam about a subject generally bears no relation to it's legality.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[demonlapin]

Yes, it's illegal to gamble online in the US. The primary method of enforcement is via credit card payments; the banks that issue the cards are in the US, so the law can reach them.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[wurble]

One of the problems with overseas casinos is lack of oversight. With no oversight, there's a very good chance that the casino you are logged into will cheat. After all, why not? What have they got to lose? It's not like you can report them to some authority. Heck, even online poker they can throw in a house hand that wins in addition to taking a cut of the pot officially. Nothing to stop them.

So what does legalizing it in the US get? It allows for oversight. Sure some places will break or bend the rules, but there will be risk in that for them so it's less likely. At the very least it wouldn't likely be rampant like it is with overseas online casinos. Any online casino based in the US would be regulated by local, state, and federal gambling boards. These boards would work to ensure payout percentages, and check for cheating. it'd be tougher than regulating brick and mortar casinos, but some oversight and regulation is better than none.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[AGMW]

One of the problems with overseas casinos is lack of oversight. With no oversight, there's a very good chance that the casino you are logged into will cheat ...

LOL, yer that's right. The only way casinos can make money is by cheating ... er, have you ever been to Vegas?

lmfao!

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[mcgrew]

It's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school.

Ironically, it's easier for a twelve year old to buy pot than it is for me to. As an adult, I could be the Secret Police ("undercover"), but not a twelve year old.

You can buy pot in any high school, but not beer. That should tell people something about their misguided drug laws, which cause the very problems they purport to solve. The same goes for gambling, prostitution, and other victimless crimes.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[wurble]

Nice straw man.

I was arguing that without any disincentive, casinos will cheat. Then you said casinos can make money without cheating. Where in my post did I say that casinos can't make money without cheating? I wasn't talking about whether or not a casino can make money without cheating, I was talking about reasons why a casino would NOT cheat. Casinos are businesses. The purpose of a business is to make money. More specifically to make as much money as possible. A simple risk benefit analysis will clearly show that if there are no repercussions for cheating, then it is in the casino's best interest to cheat. They will find the optimal balance between cheating and playing fairly to keep players playing but steal as much as they can from them.

In Vegas, it is rare for casinos to cheat because the penalty for doing so and the likelihood of being caught are both high. This risk outweighs any potential increase in revenue. So by and large, they don't cheat. The rules are fair and clearly posted for all to see.

But, if you own an online casino, why in the world would you play fair? Why wouldn't you cheat? There is no risk of being caught and no penalty if you are caught. The reward however is greatly increased income over what you already make. Money is good, more money is better. The only thing you have to worry about is word getting around that you cheat and thus driving away players. With carefully crafted cheating combined with some astroturfing and shills, you can easily avoid that.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[Nadaka]

And in vegas there is a massive industry around the process of verification of the accuracy of the odds and ensuring that the house does not stack the odds below the prescribed limits and laws about how they operate.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[ae1294]

If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.

What? who said they couldn't make it legal for U.S. based companies and illegal for offshore ones?

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[nametaken]

After all, why not? What have they got to lose?

To be worth the aggravation they'd have to make good money doing it. If they're making good money doing it the players will notice and play elsewhere. Even with the ban there's brutal competition for players.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[joebok]

I agree with your points, however I think in the larger context if online gambling were allowed, it seems to me that they would have to be subject to the same oversight and regulation as the "brick & mortar" casinos. So if such things can be applied and enforced for on-line based casinos, we would assume the incentive to cheat would be about the same.

Successful implementation of some kind accreditation of on-line casinos would probably mitigate off-shore ventures - almost by definition such would be untrusted.

Is it possible to designate "trusted" on-line casinos? Would potential customers use these over the others? The barriers seem very high to me to be able to create such an environment - but it seems like it ought to be possible.

But why? You get free drinks at brick & mortar casinos, even if you lose!

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[pluther]

That's true just about anywhere.

The first time I was in Eugene, Oregon, I was looking for a bottle of rum at about 9 at night.

I went to two different stores before discovering that you can't buy rum in a grocery store in Oregon. After learning of the existence of specialized liquor stores, I was walking downtown in search of one. I asked several passersby if they could give me directions.

The only ones I could find were closed.

In the end, nobody could help me find rum.
But three different people offered to sell me pot, and one offered LSD.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[brkello]

If you make drugs legal, it just give drug cartels incentive to go overseas to avoid paying taxes whatsoever. Huh? You see how what you wrote doesn't make sense?

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[mcgrew]

It isn't hard to hide a can of beer. The kids all use backpacks; easy anough to carry a 12 pack in one. The fact is that it's harder for a kid to buy beer than pot, in or out of school.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[wurble]

If the regulations were such that regular inspections were required and a limited number of licenses awarded by the government, then likely the first US online casinos would be run by existing casino chains. The cost of entry, due to extreme regulation requirements would result in a very small "playing field." So if I were to guess, you'd likely have only half a dozen or so actual online casino corporations running many sites. Sands, MGM Mirage, Harrahs, Wynn, Tropicana and maybe a couple others would get licenses.

Public demand would only require 1 or 2. The strict regulation would give the public enough trust in those online casinos such that they'd likely kill any and all business from offshore online casinos in the US.

Obviously this isn't the most free market solution, but industries such as gambling inherently are more prone to fraud and thus enforcement must be stricter.

On a side note, I think this would actually benefit those brick and mortar casinos greatly. They could start by creating an online version of each of their real casinos, filling them with advertisements for the real thing complete with show previews, etc. They could link up their compensation programs etc. which would all result I think in greater business. They could also use the web as a medium to test out various themes before building them. Building a themed casino is extremely risky. That's why all the new casinos in Vegas lack any theme; they are all modern contemporary clones now. Sure it's difficult to stand out, but there's less risk of being something people deliberately avoid. If you ask anyone what their favorite casino on the strip is, I can almost guarantee it won't be any of those new themeless casinos. Most people will mention places like The Venetian, Bellagio, or Paris. By creating a website first, they can test out the possible popularity of a theme ahead of time. If it proves to be popular, demand will be obvious and creating a themed hotel/casino based on that theme becomes considerably less risky.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[jonwil]

So you implement a law allowing online casinos and gambling but only by casinos who are willing to follow appropriate laws on things like taxes, validation that the games are fair etc.

Most legit casinos would have no problems with such things if it meant they could operate legitimately in the US and without the risk of having transactions from Americans denied

Its the casinos that are dodgy in the first place (not making payouts that people are owed, rigged games or whatever) that wont like it.

Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas

[eyendall]

But I thought opposition to paying taxes was the American way. True patriots go offshore, right?

As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[BlueTrin]

... as opposite to making them unlawful ?

I do not understand, if they make it unlawful it still gives the same incentives, isn't it ?

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[goombah99]

... as opposite to making them unlawful ?

I do not understand, if they make it unlawful it still gives the same incentives, isn't it ?

No because the traditional way to enforce the ban on gambling has been to make all gambling debts unenforceable in court. You lose, you don't pay, the casino can't do anything.

If you legalize it, then it means the debts can be pursued in local courts, your wages garnished, your possessions seized.

Legal online gambling is a bad idea. When casino's open theft crimes go up. With the rise of indian gaming casino's we've done this experiment over and over. It's not arguable that casino's drain money out of a community in a way that is harmful. The only people who gain, are the big mecca casino's that get money from people outside of their local community.

If you legalize it on-line, it will flow over seas. Which direction will if flow? it doesn't matter. All it does is hurt most communities.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Ihmhi]

Games of chance and the lottery are a tax on people who are poor at math, and I wholeheartedly support it.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[astar]

Degenerate Barney Frank Champions Push for Internet Gambling

February 8, 2010 (LPAC)—American statesman Lyndon LaRouche characterized Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) as "a degenerate," yesterday, upon being briefed that Frank will try to ram through the legalization of Internet gambling for poker, and thereby thwart a law enacted in 2006. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 bars U.S. banks from accepting payments to settle online wagers. The bill was to go into effect Dec. 1, but Tim Geithner's Treasury and Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve gave the gambling/money laundering interests a six-month delay, to facilitate its repeal.

Barney Frank, a champion of legalizing Internet gambling and marijuana, who also championed the bailout of predator financial institutions as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is opposed for the Democratic nomination in 2010 by LaRouche Youth Movement representative, Rachel Brown.

This dirty deal for a six-month postponement of the enacted law has been masterminded by Frank, Bernanke, Geithner, and the Poker Players Alliance, funded by the Interactive Gaming Council based in Canada. Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) is so incensed that he has put a hold on the most recent six nominees for Treasury Department positions. Supporters include has-been Sen. Alphonse D'Amato (rumored to be close to the mob), and former Rep. Richard Gephardt, who now lobbies for PokerStars.

Frank has taken $100,000 in contributions from gambling interests since 2007. In summer 2009, Frank opened the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas, and then took in $50,000 at a fundraiser hosted by the Poker Alliance.

The Justice Department has viewed all online gambling as illegal under a 1961 law aimed at mob bookies using telephone lines, but only a handful of Internet betting operations have ever been prosecuted. The gambling firms operate from Antigua, Malta, the Isle of Man, and other "Dope, Inc." sanctuaries.

Frank's bill to legalize internet gambling is scheduled for markup in the next few weeks. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), in a replay of the sick rationale used for drug legalization, has a companion bill that would levy a 2 percent tax on gambling deposits. The Ranking Republican on Frank's committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) is strongly opposed.

 

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[the_one(2)]

Wow.... you obviously haven't done the math on that statement. Very large tax on people who are poor on math -> people with nothing to lose -> crime -> tax on everybody + general suckyness....

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Mantis8]

I timothy 6:9-10 But they that WILL be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

All gambling, online or off, has the same root cause: the love of money (greed). There is a massive amount of highly credible research that proves it has very negative effects on the individual, family unit, and society. Here is just one of thousands of articles.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rn2235135662lm80/

Nothing wrong with being rich. What is wrong is the lust to be rich. Huge difference.

So any form of gambling is bad. Period.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Skarecrow77]

That's got to be one of the most unintentionally ammusing press releases ever.

I love "(rumored to be close to the mob)". Libel anyone? Now, IANAL, but apparently neither is anybody in that organization's public relations department either.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Main Gauche]

There is some evidence about the crime thing, but it is far from conclusive. Let's use Occam's Razor, and keep it simple:

tax on people poor at math ==>
more people who need bailouts ==>
yet another excuse to increase tax on the 10% of us who actually pay taxes.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[interkin3tic]

Games of chance and the lottery are a tax on people who are poor at math, and I wholeheartedly support it.

Thank you for proving that while many laws are passed for absolutely terrible reasons, there are always -worse- motivations that our lawmakers didn't go with.

Taxes go to the government, where they're at least supposed to be spent on social welfare programs, defense, infrastructure, etc. Online casino revenue will go either to more annoying ads and spam for online casinos or directly into the pockets of it's shareholders. If your motivation is to punish people who are bad at math, at least we could do something useful with that money if it were an -actual- tax.

And why abuse people who are bad at math? If you gamble away all that you have, that hurts your family. You lose your house, that hurts your neighbors. It's really just elitism that makes you say that isn't it? That's pretty sad.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[astar]

Hah, IANAL either, but it real hard to libel a public figure in the United States.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945563,00.html

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, and hard drugs are a tax on people who're poor at considering personal consequences, I guess. Do you wholeheartedly support that as well?

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Skarecrow77]

Even under the grounds specified in that article, the press release is getting dangerously close to libel on some grounds, although I agree that to prove "actual malice" would be difficult.

It is sad though that the press release needs to resort to such base attacks. We all know that when you have to resort to name calling directed at your opponents, it really implies that your arguement can't stand on it's own. The sad part however isn't that they're doing the name calling, but that such attacks actually probably do resonate with the public.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Ihmhi]

If your motivation is to punish people who are bad at math, at least we could do something useful with that money if it were an -actual- tax.

It's not my motivation at all - I'm just saying what it is.

I probably best fall under the spectrum of a libertarian (small l). I don't give a shit what you do or who you do it with so long as its consensual and doesn't directly infringe on another person's rights.

From a governmental side, trying to legislate human behavior is a huge mess. Look how well prohibition worked out. Instead, we should tax it and put a portion of those taxes towards recovery programs for the people who need help.

From a personal side, if you read "1 in $SEVERAL_MILLION chances of winning" and you still play, then that's stupidity on your part. I am in favor of helping people who are in so deep with an addiction or compulsion that they are destroying their lives and the lives of those around them. I am not in favor of babysitting people who don't have any damn common sense. I believe that there are significantly more people that use marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, or engage in other potentially compulsive behaviors and are able to lead a relatively normal life and thus don't need any help whatsoever.

Incidentally, if we want to do something useful with the money, the government is the last place it should go. It's a huge, bloated mess. At least you said:

Taxes go to the government, where they're at least supposed to be spent on social welfare programs, defense, infrastructure, etc.

So that tells me that you are at least aware of the fact that the government is a huge, inefficient mess.

If the government really gave a damn about its people, there are tons of social programs already working in other countries. All we would have to do is consult with them and emulate the program. Instead, we get proposals loaded up with special interests that will provide short term fixes at best.

Online casino revenue will go either to more annoying ads and spam for online casinos or directly into the pockets of it's shareholders.

If it's paid for in America and its an online casino, the money can be tracked either via bank accounts or credit cards. If it can be tracked it can be taxed. Tax the online casinos and funnel a goodly portion of the money into gambling regulatory agencies to keep track of these online casinos. Perhaps demand some sort of certification and fine sites/players that are not certified.

If it's a foreign credit card, gift card, or some other way in which money can be hidden, then that is more the IRS's department with the hiding of the finances and all that lovely jazz.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Ihmhi]

Right, because if we make something illegal people would never do it and crime would go away forever. Puppies and lollipops all around gentlemen!

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[Ihmhi]

In a word, yes. It's not the government's business what people put into their bodies, do to their bodies, etc.

Rather than make something illegal, education would be way more effective in my opinion.

When I was in elementary school (primary school), I had physical education a few times a week. We spent a good half hour running around on the playground. I was in better shape in elementary school and high school (secondary school) than I am now because of that physical activity.

Our health classes, though, weren't really too heavy on the practicality part of exercise. I know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise, but at the time I wasn't really aware of their significance. Now, 5+ years after high school I have a lot of work ahead of me to get to a healthier weight.

From the drug perspective, the education we use is absolutely wrong. It's just all "drugs are bad, mmmkay?". A bit more honesty would be helpful. Yes, opiates can make you feel really, really good. They will also likely destroy your life, and that's not even considering the risks of transmission of blood-borne diseases with needle sharing. If you hammer these kind of things into kids heads instead of spending an afternoon talking about it so you can meet some federally-mandated quota, then perhaps less kids would actually use dangerous drugs.

Ultimately, though, that's as far as the government should go. Legalize it, tax it, and use a portion of the taxes to help the people that are the worst off and educate the populace without resorting to deception. The money the government pulls in by taxing marijuana and cocaine and the money the government saves by cutting back on drug enforcement would more than pay for the dearth of rehab programs that we already have.

Re:As opposite to making them unlawful ?

[astar]

You seem like a gentle soul and I wish you well.

Still, instead of doing a framing as name calling, you might look at this as invoking the american exceptionalist moral criticism that is common to both gambling on the internet and wall street speculation. While say Resorts International, if it is still around, is deeply evil, it does not have the same direct significance as say goldman sucks. So the invocation of moral outrage at Franks support for internet gambling also raises outrage at his support for bailing out the speculators and tends to lead to his crushing, and with leadership, on a more conscious basis than exceptionalist outrage.

Now it is true that an agreement to the point say that currency does not have an intrinsic value and the implications thereof is IMO much more valuable and also leads to the crushing of Frank. But quite a bit of, for instance, history is at least useful in such a discussion. So I am willing to support sort of symbolic arguments based on cultural residues. Maybe you should also. Alas, there is no time to create a competent educational system and culture and raise a new generation to power. And you would still have to crush Franks to get there.

Re:At UK sites

[Sulphur]

Bet on he US end of online gambling ban.

You betcha.

Online gambling is a bad idea.

[ZorinLynx]

It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.

I'd much rather online gambling remain banned, and we unban brick and mortar casinos across the country. At least the latter can be regulated, brings money into the local economy, and gets people out of the house.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.

This seems like a self-regulating feedback loop, actually.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Rockoon]

..and creates lots of jobs.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[vlm]

It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.

So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"? Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?

I'm not sure how its easier to get addicted to gambling at home. I can tell you don't have a spouse, house, and little kids, as god knows I can't accomplish any tasks at home anymore. Back in the bachelor apartment days, well yeah, maybe, and in addition to spare time, I also had more available cash to "gamble". D-n-D, watching sports, and MMORPGs suffer the same fate.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[obarthelemy]

Mmmm. The same can be said about all e-commerce. Or all e-anything, pretty much. Do you want to ban the internet ?

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[corbettw]

1) Online gambling is no more difficult to regulate than brick-and-mortar casinos. If it were, you wouldn't have sports books and race tracks across the country taking wagers from people who are not onsite. Allowing the same thing to happen from someone's home is just a difference of degree, not of kind.

2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors. Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes). That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help. (Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.)

3) There is no third point.

4) I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas. I live in North Texas, and the police in most of the towns here spend way, way too much time raiding private poker rooms, when they should be focusing on crimes with actual victims (if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

It's harder to regulate

Why should gambling be regulated at all? Cheating is fraud, that's already illegal. With illegal gambling, fraud is harder to prosecute, since the victim is also breaking the law.

and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home

It's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much, or gambling too much. It should not be government's role to protect you from yourself, government's role should protect you from ME. You would like them to outlaw McDonald's because too many people can't help but shove so much junk food down their gullets that they become unhealthily obese? I supppose you want to outlaw World of Warcraft because some people screw their lives up with that? Outlaw alcohol because some people are alcoholics?

If you have a problem with gambling, that's a personal problem, not a public problem and is non of my or government's business.

and gets people out of the house

Dude, this is slashdot. Most of us don't even come out of the basement. HIBT?

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[vlm]

when they should be focusing on crimes with actual victims (if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim)

Two problems:

1) Best contemplate "malpractice" and "restaurant/grocery food safety laws" before making a victim definition. Also unless you were forced at gunpoint to drive, a drunk driver could not be responsible for your death because you were voluntarily driving.

2) The problem in your situation is the cops confusing "private poker rooms" as being the evil to be eradicated, being unable to punish the "private poker room" itself, so they just lash out at whomever is nearby, such as the people in attendance. Its similar to the gun control problem, where some morons think the problem is the inanimate object itself so they lash out at the innocent people nearby it, such as the law abiding citizen whom purchased the object (gun). Classic "to save the village we had to destroy the village" thinking.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[vlm]

Why should gambling be regulated at all? Cheating is fraud, that's already illegal.

Money Laundering. Oddly enough, I always lose when I play my dealer / loanshark.

Given a free and open market you don't need regulation, since the free market will clean it up. However, the whole point of gambling is working on limited and hidden information. Hence its inherently impossible to have a free market in gambling. Hence we need regulation.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.

You can not legislate away stupidity. The stupid will always innovate. On the other hand, if you believe that gambling addiction is a disease... well you certainly can't legislate away disease either.

Finally if you think the way to go is banning an activity that a small portion of the populace may have a problem with, so that the larger populace as a whole who find enjoyment in the activity are locked out of said activity, please let me know when you run for office so I can go out of my way to help someone else get elected...

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Rockoon]

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who takes a bet must by definition be a criminal.
,br> Is your local convenience store run by criminals?

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Speare]

So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"? Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?

This is a tempting philosophical generalization, but there is a critical difference between gambling and your other examples of risk-taking. Trading securities has an element of supporting the work of the company involved: you are supporting constructive industry, whether you end up with a gain or a loss on your "bet" in the market. Flipping houses has an element of physical maintenance on the property: it's hard to earn any profit without at least trimming the bushes, and many flippers put significantly more elbow grease into the property so it will command a higher price. In the case of betting on whether you get three Queens in a random selection of cards, there is no constructive aspect. It is for this reason that many of the ancient religions forbid the activity, and as we all know, ancient religions still hold particular sway over the majority of mankind.

You might be able to tell that I'm not keen on the hocus-pocus of the church. Hey, I sell a bumper sticker that says "if electricity comes from electrons, what does morality come from?" Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[vlm]

They are not the same, Equities are investments, I don't know of any gambling site that pays dividends, do you?

Do you know of any futures contracts that pay dividends? Or 1999 style dot coms that paid dividends?

Financial futures markets are legal gambling...

Speculation is gambling by another name.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[jcr]

Better for them to go broke online, than run up a debt with a local bookie who'll have their legs broken if they don't pay up.

-jcr

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[vlm]

A key feature of gambling against the house is that, over the long run, the house will always take its cut.

Aka sales commission

http://www.flipkart.com/customers-yachts-schwed-fred-jr/0471770892-1xw3frp8bb

"The title refers to a story about a visitor to New York who admired the yachts of the bankers and brokers. Naively, he asked where all the customers' yachts were? Of course, none of the customers could afford yachts, even though they dutifully followed the advice of their bankers and brokers."

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[BadBlood]

It seems like poker, played against other RL opponents, would be outside the bounds of this, although there's no guarantee that you won't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money (or one person playing several seats).

No guarantee, but there are plenty of safeguards. The two biggest online poker sites, PokerStars and Full Tilt, each take colluding very seriously and if a player suspects something, they are encouraged to report it. With respect to one person playing several seats, there are also ways to detect and prevent that too. The above two risks you mention are very minimal and not really something to worry about at all.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[vlm]

Trading securities has an element of supporting the work of the company involved: you are supporting constructive industry, whether you end up with a gain or a loss on your "bet" in the market.

I suggest you research financial futures trading, commodity futures trading, currency futures trading, all of which are legal and no different than betting on whom gets three queens, and re-evaluate your position. Also if a company is not issuing stock, but is paying its $0.5M/yr exchange fee, its not necessarily constructively making money, not all that different from selling bonds or taking out a commercial loan and paying interest, could be constructive but not necessarily, nor is it the only way to raise money for constructive purposes.

Hey, I sell a bumper sticker that says "if electricity comes from electrons, what does morality come from?"

I like that. Google shows you're not alone. We can have nearly identical beliefs yet given dramatically different input data, get opposite conclusions. That's not indicative of a philosophical difference as you originally claim.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[TheLink]

The difference between the Finance sector and Casinos is that in the Finance sector it is more common for "professionals" to gamble with OTHER people's money. If they win, they get a big bonus. If they lose small, they still get paid. If they lose big, at worst they have to change jobs. If everyone loses big, they get a bail out (and might still get bonuses).

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

Money Laundering

Without victimless crimes we wouldn't have to worry about money laundering.

Given a free and open market you don't need regulation

Tell that to the people who died of salmonella last year from the poison peanut products. The worst part there was that the regulations weren't being enforced properly. If they had been, the filthy factory would have been shut down and nobody would have gotten sick.

You're against OSHA? OSHA protects you from unscrupulous employers. Had OSHA existed in 1959 my grandfather would have lived long enough to retire. How about the EPA? Before the Clean Air Act you couldn't drive past a Monsanto plant with your windows down; the air was so bad you couldn't breathe.

Even in a free market some things still need to be regulated.

However, the whole point of gambling is working on limited and hidden information. Hence its inherently impossible to have a free market in gambling. Hence we need regulation.

Your logic is faulty, unless you're saying you need regulations to keep the house from cheating. And all businesses rely on some limited and hidden information; that's how you keep one-up on your competetion. Pepsi and Coke rely on their soda formulas being secret.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[j00r0m4nc3r]

(if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).

That's an absurd statement. If I voluntarily play a game of poker in some guy's garage, and he cheats, am I not a victim? If I buy stock in a company that falsified their bookkeeping, am I not a victim? If you voluntarily take part in a game that's called "You Are Guaranteed To Lose Your Money. And We Really Mean That. You Will Not Win." then maybe you would be correct, but that is never the case. By your logic if I voluntarily went outside and got murdered I wouldn't be a victim, because everyone knows there is some small chance that you can get murdered whenever you go outside.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[nedlohs]

We should also ban drinking alcohol at home. After all there's no bartender to stop serving you when you have had enough.

And we should ban trading stocks from home. Heck, they let you buy on margin something no gambling site I know about does.

And don't get me started on those currency trading sites - have you seen the margins they essentially require.

In the case of gambling it is much better that our problem gamblers end up at unregulated (by the US) online casinos run out of tax haven countries (read very easy book keeping rules). With all the revenue staying out of the country and none of it being declared to the IRS or under their jurisdiction. Or is creating a China style "Great Firewall of the United States" part of your preference?

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Nevyn]

"So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"? Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?"

They are not the same, Equities are investments, I don't know of any gambling site that pays dividends, do you?

Talk to the people who bought Bank of America stock at $40+. See if they think there is any "gambling" (or more commonly called risk in this context) in equities. Might want to ask them how their wonderful dividends are doing too.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[QuoteMstr]

I agree. Internet gambling, like all gambling, is a terrible idea. Because the odds are always tilted in the house's favor, you lost the moment you type in a URL or cross the physical threshold. Gambling preys on the poor, the weak, and the stupid, and I don't like the idea of living in a society where it's not only right, but justifiable to take advantage of another man's desperation.

That said, banning gambling itself causes harm: it leads to intrusive regulation, jail sentences for otherwise-productive people, and resentment of the government. The harm caused by the ban exceeds the harm of gambling itself, and so reluctantly and grudgingly, I'm forced to oppose the ban.

That said, there are things we can do to discourage gambling without banning it outright. The tax code is part of the solution. I'd also be in favor of levying a special tax on gambling houses (physical or online), and using that money to run anti-gambling advertisements, and to fund gambling addiction programs.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[nedlohs]

So buying a stock that doesn't pay a dividend is gambling, but buying one that does isn't?

What about buying a stock that pays a dividend with the intention to sell it in the near future without ever holding it on a dividend date?

Those activities should be made illegal I take it?

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Dog-Cow]

Until I no longer have to fund health care for people who have no willpower at McDonalds, they are hurting me.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[corbettw]

You can't voluntarily take part in fraud. Which renders all of your examples moot.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[corbettw]

Did you volunteer for your doctor to cut off the wrong leg? No.

Did you voluntarily eat contaminated food (hint: you can't volunteer for something you didn't know existed)? No.

Did you ask that drunk driver to smash into your car at 80 mph? Of course not.

You really need to think about what the word "volunteer" means before trying to say I'm using it incorrectly.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

You do realize that the government taxes alcohol at a rate higher than most other products, right?

That's just a ruse to get more revenue. They tax gasoline at a higher rate than alcohol, but if that tax's purpose were to get people to use less gasoline they'd tax the purchase of SUVs at a higher rate than sedans as well. Same with cigarettes; the "they're bad for you so we'll tax them more" is a specious argument. Alcohol taxes don't make people drink any less, and cigarette taxes have some people rolling their own, which is even less healthy. They're by no means too stupid to realise this.

Some people think that we should continue to expand it

I'd rather have direct government bureaucracy than insurance company bureaucracy, especially since the insurance industry is one of the US government's biggest owners (which is why we have the current clusterfuck legislation instead of a Canadian or European style plan).

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[ae1294]

It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.

Are you these people's mommy? Freedom means being able to fuck yourself...

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Jaeph]

It's nice and easy to label it all "risk-taking", but there is a distinction between betting on cards and buying houses. Quite honestly, I've never seen a problem with house-flipping; sure, there are probably marginal cases, but in general people buy houses that need real work done to them, do that work, then resell. Sounds completely above-board to me.

-Jeff

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[hedwards]

Electronic gambling is a lot worse than the more traditional methods, even if the game is the same. It's not a coincidence that casinos are trying to switch to electronics wherever possible. They want to speed up the process as much as possible because over the long term, the house always wins, and the more hands a player can play, the quicker and larger the profits are. On top of that without the tactile handing over of chips players lose out on the feed back of how much their really wagering making it feel a lot more like play money than money that could be used for things like rent or food.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Shakrai]

They tax gasoline at a higher rate than alcohol, but if that tax's purpose were to get people to use less gasoline they'd tax the purchase of SUVs at a higher rate than sedans as well

The implied purpose of the gasoline tax is to pay for the highway trust fund. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with discouraging people from driving.

I'd rather have direct government bureaucracy than insurance company bureaucracy

You'd rather have bureaucracy backed with guns than bureaucracy you can leave at anytime?

(which is why we have the current clusterfuck legislation instead of a Canadian or European style plan).

No, we have the current clusterfuck legislation because the Democrats know that single payer is dead on arrival. Do you seriously believe that the only thing stopping single payer is the evil insurance companies? You really think you could get single payer through the United States Senate or even the House if it wasn't for the insurance companies?

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[tehcyder]

3) There is no third point.

"Borrowed" for sig:-)

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[lgw]

You can certainly use the futures market to gamble, and speculators help provide liquidity in those markets, but that's not their primary use, and on average a speculator loses money, just like a gambler in a casino.

There are also people making informed investments in these markets, and they tend to end up with most of the money that speculators lose. For example, producers and consumers of commodities are the reason that commodities futures markets exist, and those participants tend to make money at the expense of the speculators.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[cayenne8]

"...easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home."

And it is the Federal Govt's mandate to prevent this...?

[Goes to get copy of Constitution to look for this enumerated power the Feds have concerning this...]

Seriously, part of being free...is being free to fsck up...to fail to make bad decisions. As a grown, adult, should I be deprived of an adult activity that I am perfectly able to control, afford and enjoy just because Billy-bob over there can't keep from betting his whole life savings?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe the government is supposed to be there to save you from yourself.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[cayenne8]

"2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors. Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes). That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help. (Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.)"

Why would you have to do the SSN thing? You don't have to show your SSN (or any ID) to enter a brick and mortor casino and gamble. The only time that is required..is if you do any transactions over $10K I think. Why could online be any different? As an individual, there is a place on your 1040 tax form to put winnings/losses from gambling. It isn't the 'houses' responsibility to pay your taxes (again, unless you trip over the magic large number). The house pays their taxes...you pay yours. No need for more surveillance.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[hitmark]

thing is that the market is (in theory) not rigged to favor one party, the casino (or whatever) that one is frequenting.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[shutdown -p now]

You don't need to actually ban casinos to "ban" gambling, imprison anyone ,etc All you need to do is declare that any debt accrued by playing in a casino is not legally considered a debt - so casino cannot legally force gamblers to pay (and if they resort to illegal means, well, that's easily countered - especially so long as betting itself isn't illegal, so the gambler doesn't have to "rat himself put" by going to police).

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[MisterZimbu]

I disagree with that last part - online gambling always tells you exactly how much you lose. It's much easier to put a value on the computer telling you that you lost $800 than it is to just toss another 8 black chips on a table.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

You'd rather have bureaucracy backed with guns than bureaucracy you can leave at anytime?

It doesn't matter if it's a gun or cancer, a death threat is a death threat. The fact is I have no choice whatever about my insurance. I cannot leave at any time, and few others can either. If you're making $200k/yr you're fine, but the US median inaome is about 1/4 that. I have what my employer provides, and without it I simply could not afford to be insured, and almost everyone else with insurance is the same way. I'm lucky enough to like my insurance; God help those with HMOs.

No, we have the current clusterfuck legislation because the Democrats know that single payer is dead on arrival

At least we agree on one thing - the current legislation is fucked up. Single payer is DOA because of two things: the Republicans (which IMO is stupid of the Democrats) and the insurance lobby, who pays off congresscritters from both parties.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[TheMidnight]

I think it depends on your "style" of perception. If you're a tactile or kinetic person (like me) the chips are more "real." If you're primarily visual, the value on the screen might seem more "real." For example, when I buy something expensive at the store, if I just swipe my debit card, I know internally how much I spent because I can see the total, but it doesn't resonate with me like it does if I have to open my wallet and count the twenties, and then hand a big stack of them over.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

You don't have to eat junk food to have a heart attack, and you don't have to smoke to get cancer. Also, the converse is true. My grandmother's doctor, for example, told her "you have to get your cholesterol down or you're going to die." Well, the doctor died. Her next doctor said the same thing, and she outlived him as well. After outliving three more doctors who all told her if she didn't get her cholesterol down she was going to die, she finally did die.

She fell down in the nursing home and broke her hip at age 99.

Her older brother had stopped smoking at age 82 after starting at age 12; he got a skin cancer on his lip and it scared the hell out of him. He died twelve years later of "old age".

Meanwhile, my grandmother and her siblings, all who lived very long, went to the doctor on Medicare (your dime) every two weeks. Her son, my Uncle, smoked 4 packs of Kools per day, drank heavily, and worked at a garbage incinerator. He didn't live long enough to collect Medicare. Your fatass McOffal Eater who dies young is saving you money; the health nut who eats right, execrsizes, dosn't smoke or drink, are going to be a drain on the system far longer. They're the ones hurting you.

If you're not smart enough to choose the right grandparents, you're hurting me.

My friend Linda died of a tumor on her gall bladder. I don't think a different diet or lifestyle would have helped her a bit, but access to health care would have. She won't be using any more health care dollars either.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[TheMidnight]

I can't believe what a bunch of nerds we are that we had to look up money laundering in a dictionary.

/Office space

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Skarecrow77]

I don't know about you, but I've never accrued any debt in a casino. They always made me bring in my own money, and exchange that for their own chips (be they clay chips I hold in my hand or virtual chips I look at on-screen) to be used as playing medium. Do casinos give out loans? I was not aware they did.

I'm sure you can use your credit card to get a cash advance to use in a casino, but that's money you owe mastercard, not the mgm grand.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

If you want choice then you'd better be opposing the current legislation at the top of your lungs

As I said, the current legislation is a clusterfuck that the insurance industry paid for. I'm adamantly against it.

Both are philosophically opposed to the notion of government run health care. You really think that would change if it wasn't for the insurance lobby?

If there were an almost equal number of Ds and Rs I'd agree with you, but the Ds had the votes to completely ignore the Rs.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[icebrain]

Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.

In a similar vein, that's probably true of a lot of the "traditional' religious morals, especially with regard to intimate relations. When you have a relatively short expected lifespan, high infant mortality, a technology level that requires the majority of manual labor to be ivested in agruculture just to sustain the existing population, and neighbors in the smae boat who are fighting the same population and resource pressures (thereby draining large parts of the population from war casualties), you wind up needing lots of people. Any behavior that doesn't further that goal of making more people is rejected because it hurts society as a whole.

Today, with huge advances in agriculture, medicine, technology, and diplomacy, we no longer need to pump out as many people as possible to sustain (or even grow) our society. It doesn't matter if some people don't produce children; others are willingly taking up the slack. Behaviors previously rejected are now acceptable because they are not harming society.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

Not all laundered money comes from victimless crimes

Solve the crime itself and there's no more money to launder.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[jcr]

You really think you could get single payer through the United States Senate or even the House if it wasn't for the insurance companies?

Don't forget the AMA, the trial lawyers, the HMOs, the hospitals, and the drug companies. The status quo was created by decades of bribes for special-interest legislation to prevent competition.

-jcr

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[mcgrew]

* legalise all hard & soft drugs
* legalise suicide
* legalise tattooing on under 18's

Yes, all drugs should be legal. Yes, suicide should be legal. No, tatooing, suicide, drugs, and alcohol should not be legal for minors. What grade are you in, kid?

Some things need to be regulated because they hurt society in general.

Outlawing is not regulating. You cannot regulate an illegal activity. You can be pretty sure that the drugs you buy from Walgreens are free of contaminants, but you can't say the same about street drugs; you can't regulate the purity of heroin or cocaine.

Sure there'll be a few shills arguing that people are responsible for themselves but those people have probably never pulled a poker addict's limp dead baby from a car parked in 50 deg C heat in a casino parking lot.

Or an alcoholic's dead baby from a bar parking lot. Yet you don't seem to advocate outlawing alcohol. In the case of the dead baby, the crime is child neglect/abuse. That is not a victimless crime, the gambling is. An addiction is no excuse for neglecting or abusing a child. And there doesn't need to be any addiction involved for a child to be abused.

Addiction is a mental illness, and it's not the only mental illness that ruins lives; most mental illnesses ruin lives. And those illnesses should be treated as such, not criminalized.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Skarecrow77]

The representatives of the people have voted on this issue in 2006.

Or perhaps it was attached as a rider to a bill called the "safe harbor act" that otherwise had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was virtually guaranteed to pass no matter what?

I'm just saying...

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Not only have you missed the point, but I'm also not sure you know what "moot" means. The point isn't the fraud, it's the fact that in your logic scheme nobody is ever a victim because at some level, everything you do is voluntary.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Shakrai]

but the Ds had the votes to completely ignore the Rs.

Not without the moderates in their own party, whom would oppose a single-payer system.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Hognoxious]

It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.

And yet people who gamble away other people's assets at work get massive bonuses.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[Shakrai]

Too bad the current legislation does nothing more than codify the broken system into law. I knew it was going to stink the minute I heard the White House was cutting back room deals with big pharma. So much for openness and transparency.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[corbettw]

No, you missed the point. You seem to think that if a conman tricks you into giving him $100,000 by posing as a charity for Haiti that you gave that money voluntarily. That can't happen as, by definition, you cannot volunteer to be defrauded. Since every single one of your assertions is predicated on the notion that you can volunteer to be defrauded by taking part in some other activity, they are all bogus assertions.

Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.

[jcr]

Too bad the current legislation does nothing more than codify the broken system into law.

Actually, it's rather worse than that. It also makes it illegal to opt out altogether.

-jcr

Behoove?

[s1lverl0rd]

I'd like to come to this behooving party...

Re:Behoove?

[mcgrew]

But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issue

You need some more coffee, there's nothing whatever wrong with tha sentence, except maybe the dash between "broad" and "minded".

I'm broad-minded; my mind is always on broads.

Gains steam, eh?

[dkleinsc]

Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me (probably with the goal of making the eventual legalization seem like an inevitability rather than the results of bribery).

stock market

[duckintheface]

We already have internet gambling. I gu

Re:stock market

[vlm]

We already have internet gambling. I gu

Well, I can't argue with that.

Two serious problem areas with defining internet gambling:

1) Yahoo, etc, used to have online gaming for various games of chance. If you let people select their opponents, I have no idea how you prevent people from playing for money. Example is a bunch of coworkers figure out how to play each other and settle up the cash later. I have been involved in this general class of activity, more than a decade ago. Major hint: If your screen name is obviously a dude people leave you alone, and if your screen name is obviously a female then people will never leave you alone (constant invites to join game, requests for pics, etc).

2) What about intrade.com? Instead of betting on who has a pair of kings or whatever, you bet on futures contracts for "will avatar (aka dances with smurfs) win an oscar"? This is another area of online gambling I've been involved in. Not much different than financial futures trading, which is legal.

3) I have no idea how to prevent collusion and back channel communication in online gambling. Playing partner-type games online for free my wife and I got several angry accusations about this, because our screen names made it obvious we lived together. We didn't cheat, because why cheat in a "free" game, but everyone else sure thought we did. Of course the real cheaters would not do something that obvious. Even in non-partner games it can be an immense strategic gain to share "secret" data.

Re:At UK sites

[gazbo]

I'll put £10,000 on yes, and £50,000 on no, please.

Why?

[FlyingBishop]

I mean generally, yes, we don't need judges wasting their time with this shit, but this is no time to be legalizing what is essentially a formalized 419 scheme.

If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny. In a real casino they at least have to maintain the appearance that you have a chance of winning something.

Re:Why?

[chrisG23]

You have obviously not done any gambling online. A large percentage, perhaps even the majority of online gambling, is poker. When you go to an online poker site, you are not playing against the house/online gambling site. You are playing against other players, and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee, a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot.

Of course there is no 100% guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table, but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100's or even thousands of tables simultaneously, and getting their little fee from each of them. Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered (there is great competition amongst online poker sites.)

Re:Why?

[neoform]

If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny.

I guess auditing their code would be impossible, after all, they certainly don't do that for banks and casinos..

Re:Why?

[travdaddy]

Why would the house, online or otherwise, bother rigging a game that is already in their favor in the first place? That would be rigging it twice. If anything, an online casino should be able to give you better odds (still bad odds though) because they don't have to pay for a building, dealers, etc.

Re:Why?

[chrisG23]

It is actually a little bit more complicated than that. I learned and played no limit holdem online for about two months, and the dynamics of the game are really intense, really deep, and really complicated. A bot that won every winning hand it was dealt would be easily spotted. Maybe not by the players that aren't that good, but those players generally play at the low stakes table, thus defeating the bot's earnings potential. It is undoubtedly in the interest of the poker site operators to find and eliminate all cheaters, and maintain their good reputation and cash flow, which comes from having people logged in, playing games, as much as possible. If poker site X is cheating, then I will go to poker site Y, which is no different except their table graphics are a little different, and the buttons to bet fold or call are in different spots on my screen.

Of course, at the present time, only a limited number of online poker sites offer accounts to people residing in the US, presumably because of the laws the US has in place. Meaning if you sign up for an account with one, you cannot cash out to a US bank account. You would have to have a foreign bank account or work with a friend, and then we get into the issue of money laundering and even bigger crimes and punishments.

Re:Why?

[FlyingBishop]

Obviously you don't want the bot to win 100% of the time, but making it win at a much higher than average rate is child's play. And the point is you won't be able to distinguish between a bot and a good player if there was a person doing some orchestration.

Re:Why?

[alexo]

You have obviously not done any gambling online. A large percentage, perhaps even the majority of online gambling, is poker. When you go to an online poker site, you are not playing against the house/online gambling site. You are playing against other players, and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee, a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot.

I wouldn't even put poker in the same "gambling" category as casino games (online or otherwise), as it was clearly demonstrated that in poker skill dominates luck.
Sure, there is the element of chance but then, it is also present in contract bridge and in backgammon and you don't hear those referred to as gambling.

Of course there is no 100% guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table, but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100's or even thousands of tables simultaneously, and getting their little fee from each of them. Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered (there is great competition amongst online poker sites.)

There can be no 100% guarantees but, given the large number of people analyzing the games for statistical and behavioral discrepancies, it will be hard to pull something like that off. The Absolute Poker scandal shows that cheating will be detected.

Also, the major online poker sites do their best to detect bots, collusions and other forms of cheating using their own server-side analysis. After all, nobody in their right mind wants to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

Re:Why?

[OnioOnio]

Meaning if you sign up for an account with one, you cannot cash out to a US bank account. You would have to have a foreign bank account or work with a friend, and then we get into the issue of money laundering and even bigger crimes and punishments.

Wrong. For example, Pokerstars will send you a personal check that will have no problem clearing in any bank (it's from some non-descript LLC). If you win a large amount of money, you can have them wire the money directly to your bank. And I bank at Wells Fargo, the most hard-line opponent of working with the online poker sites.

Re:Why?

[dominious]

Obviously you don't want the bot to win 100% of the time, but making it win at a much higher than average rate is child's play

If you are talking about poker, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Some opponent could re-raise the bet forcing the bot to fold while he was bluffing or re-raise while he actually got a very good hand. How the bot can read a bluff? I'm not saying it cannot be done using some machine learning methods, but it's not easy as you make it sound. And sure you cannot make 100% winnings. Especially if your opponents are good players. Moreover, if your opponents can find a pattern in the decisions of the bot then they will exploit it to the bot's lost. The theory of poker says the more mistakes the opponent makes the more he loses his value, and therefore the more you gain value.

Re:Why?

[FlyingBishop]

You just make it so that the bot only bets when it knows it can win. Furthermore, you make it bet conservatively, so sometimes it lets you win. This "bluff" makes no sense when the bot has perfect information.

Re:Why?

[chrisG23]

Pokerstars, Full Tilt Poker and one or two others were the only ones accepting accounts from US peoples the last I checked.

Re:Why?

[Skarecrow77]

That's the easiest bot in the world to beat. That's the type that is on the "easy" setting on poker games for your game boy or psp. You fold if he bets, you raise otherwise. Any poker player worth his salt would spot that "guy's" tendencies in a heartbeat.

What would las vegas look online?

[leuk_he]

woudl the online version of vegas look like a one big Amusement park how vegas looks on the outside, where people loose a lot of money or like a lot of web 1.0 pages where it is all bout blinking lights, different colors and greens.

Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[RaigetheFury]

I'm not a democrat or a republican so lets clear that political nonsense up right now. I'm so sick and tired of having to protect people from themselves when it's something that THEY can control. Sure some people may need help but it shouldn't be the governments job to prevent this.

If someone doesn't do research on something they put money into... well... that's their loss. If they are STUPID enough to think that gambling will eventually pay off then they deserve to lose everything they bet. That's why it's called gambling.

There HAS to be a point where responsibility is the burden of the risk taker. "I didn't know" or "I'm addicted" just won't cut it. You pay the price for the decisions you make in life.

This isn't like insider trading, or drug testing. You know exactly what you are getting into simply via the title of what you're doing. I'm so sick and tired of hearing people complain about gambling addiction and then blaming the Casino's or online companies. NOONE forced you to bet the money, you did it.

I do not want this great country to start managing my life choices. If I want to be an idiot and gamble away something I can't afford... then that's MY responsibility.

If you want to have a chance at monitoring things like this then you need to set ground rules that CAN be enforced.

1) Anything over $10,000 must be claimed (just like current customs rules) and taxes applied. If caught not doing so, the penalty is severe (20% of amount brought in) + jailtime/community service

2) Gambling income is considered just like typical earnings. You have to pay appropriate taxes on income. Some people are good enough to make this profitable. Why stop them if they are willing to pay taxes on it.

There is ZERO need to regulate this. People go to Vegas for the experience. There is a world of difference between betting $1000 online and sitting at a table with a crowd around you as you bed $1000 and win. I'd know.

Re:Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[mcgrew]

NOONE forced you to bet the money, you did it.

Dude, Peter Noone is SO going to sue you for slander!

Re:Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[jcr]

I do not want this great country to start managing my life choices.

You're about a century late on that. This business of government trying to make us better people goes back a loooong way.

-jcr

Re:Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to be more cynical than necessary but stories like this are simply deliberate leaks from Congress to stimulate contributions from both sides of an issue. In fact keeping the status quo is clearly the outcome here. Whenever politicians see their coffers running low they talk up issues that affect those with deep pockets and just reap the resulting avalanche of money.

Re:Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[AGMW]

It's similar to saying that every person would be able to control what they're eating, if everything were printed on the label. However, as we already see today, you can put processed crap into food, put it on the label, and people will still buy and eat it, if it's cheap.

So why don't the Gov ban unhealthy foods then? Could it be that there's no money in it for them? If they were serious about trying to protect the population from their own stupidity they'd do it. And make tobacco illegal. etc.

All the (US) Gov has to do is specify a bunch of rules for any US citizen signing up to some online gambling site: A welcome page that explains the rules and shows the percentages (eg for slot/fruit machines, black jack, etc) and perhaps even a cooling off period - you'll get your login info in 24 hrs which will allow you to watch games, then a further 24hrs before you can actually play, but with some limit to bets that could maybe increase as you remain a member.

Really, after that if you still gamble away your house it's your own fault!
Actually, what's the likelihood of a numb-nuts like that having a damn house in the first place?

Really, it's all about money. Money money money. All that's required is some way to guarantee the US Gov a slice of the action ...

Re:Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[AGMW]

I don't want to be more cynical than necessary but stories like this are simply deliberate leaks from Congress to stimulate contributions from both sides of an issue. ...

I can understand people lobbying to make it legal but who the hell is throwing money at Congress trying to keep it illegal, and why?
The pro-internet gambling side have an obvious 'side' here. If it becomes legal they are likely to make more money. Simples.
The anti-internet gambling folks though ... what do they gain? What's in it for them?
Are they also making money out of it, 'cos that then sounds like some sort of Congress sponsored protection racket ... No Thanks!
Are they agin it for some other reason? Morally opposed perhaps, 'cos that's none of your damn business ... No Thank You Very Much!!

So, who's funding the anti-internet gambling side and WHY?

Re:Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[Zephyn]

"So, who's funding the anti-internet gambling side and WHY?"

The brick and mortar casinos. If people have the convenience of being able to go across the living room to gamble for actual cash, they're not going to arrange trips across the country to do so.

It's no coincidence that the prohibition excludes fantasy sports, online lotteries, and horse racing. The brick and mortars have had those forms of remote wagering available for some time. If this was purely a morality and citizen protection issue, why the exceptions?

Re:Stop protecting people from themselves!!!!

[bjk002]

Why is this not modded up?

we need more sports books like the race books then

[Joe The Dragon]

we need more sports books like the race books then and some states now have online Horse betting.

Re:we need more sports books like the race books t

[Rockoon]

Vegas has an exclusive on sports betting. Its actually a federal law, believe it or not.

Online gambling on Steam?

[argent]

What the Hell is Valve thinking...

Oh, what?

Nevermind...

Re:Online gambling on Steam?

[Ihmhi]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/4100/

Online gambling legal

[zogger]

Buncha hypocrites. The whole dispute over online gaming is similar to the war on some drugs. Legal online gambling

Some people make money, others lose a lot. Some can get quite addicted to it and go really bust, and suffer all the social ills they worry about with online poker or whatever other game.

    And we have never had any big economic meltdown from online poker or blackjack, but we sure as heck had a major problem with credit default swaps and so on "gaming", including the use of bots for gambling with massive bets that are large enough to move the markets themselves, plus crony gambling insiders being shuffled into and out of the official currency creation/interest setting and so called "regulation" part of that scene.

Re:Online gambling legal

[pretygrrl]

im so sick of this fallacious comparison of derivatives to gambling. just because YOU are TOO STUPID to understand what derivatives are, or how they work, or how to make money using them, doesnt mean that "derivates are gambling"

Re:Online gambling legal

[Deosyne]

Not gambling at all. Derivatives are a sure thing. You trade and trade and trade until the value of the underlying goes to shit and then let the government backstop the otherwise-worthless paper so that it doesn't get marked to market. All profit, no risk. Of course, you have to be a multi-billion dollar financial institution to play, so start saving your pennies and get ready to write those checks to your favorite, and not-so-favorite, politicians.

Re:Online gambling legal

[zogger]

It's not fallacious at all, and even the people who design them and play them call them "bets", and you can find a million articles probably where they are called bets.

I know how they work and the other markets, I read and study on economics all the time, I just have always chose to invest elsewhere. I have my own sort of stock and investments, thanks, never wanted much to do with the other sorts, because I think they are crooked by design and a form of leeching. Had too many conversations with my direct generation before me relatives about the great depression.

Wall street crooks then, they corrupted government, bankrupted the nation, caused untold pain and misery, and we got the same sort of crooks today, with government even more corrupted. I want naught to do with it. The technicals of being in that system are not hard, it's like any other skill really, the will to be in the system requires-for me-rather severe integrity compromise, so I'll just pass, thanks anyway.

The phrase "make a killing" is in common parlance in money making circles. Well, that means, someone got murdered.....I have never sought, desired, or tried to "make a killing", I just don't want to do that.

It's gambling, pure and simple, and has near collapsed the economy, and is run primarily to extract wealth from productive people. Maybe 1% of them are even marginally useful, the rest are just high stakes gambling masquerading as productive business. And as others pointed out, socialized risk, and private profits, and even if there are no profits, get the tax payers to cover your markers.

That just sucks. You should be ashamed to support such nonsense. It would be fine if it really was run by some gaming commission, regulated like all other gambling, and treated as such, but it isn't, and basing an economy at the highest levels on gambling and credit and promises is rather foolish for a nation this size. As we have seen, or perhaps you haven't noticed any of the headlines the past two years now...

Anyway, no offense intended, but I'll take this dude's reasoning and warning and advice over your's on this subject..

"All the capital employed in paper speculation is barren and useless, producing, like that on a gaming table, no accession to itself, and is withdrawn from commerce and agriculture where it would have produced addition to the common mass... It nourishes in our citizens habits of vice and idleness instead of industry and morality... It has furnished effectual means of corrupting such a portion of the legislature as turns the balance between the honest voters whichever way it is directed." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792.

A solution

[davidwr]

Online gambling from American computers should only be allowed in places where that type of gambling would be allowed in person.

In many states, this means not at all.

In some states, this means race tracks, off-track betting facilities, bingo halls, casinos, and the like.

In states that allow gambling without a "house take" this means anywhere provided there is no fee to use the service, which in practice means not in people's homes.

In states that have unrestricted in-home gambling, this means basically anywhere.

I'm not sure how this would work in practice, but where there is money to be made, industry will figure out a politically feasible solution.

Re:A solution

[mcgrew]

Online gambling from American computers should only be allowed in places where that type of gambling would be allowed in person.

IMO there should be no laws against gambling, period. If I want to waste my money on gambling, dope, and hookers why is that anybody's business but my own?

Re:A solution

[ginbot462]

You know what, forget about the gambling and the dope.

Let Vegas compete with the Cayman Islands

[drumcat]

I think the sooner, the better. Solid competition from USA-based casinos would allow for a well-regulated, well-run environment. Even Reservation Casinos would do well. Why? Only US-based casinos could offer incentives to players to come to their hotels and restaurants. If Caesar's offered their player-points to players away from the casino, they'd be able to make money without a customer there, but then when they have some points, they can come in and take care of them. Customers will want to go, and will inherently trust domestic bookmakers more than offshore. Just ensure that all online-gambling is FEDERALLY taxed. Get something out of it, please. Tax the stupid.

Re:At UK sites

[RulerOf]

I wager that this is supposed to be funny, but could a soul more well versed in betting explain why?

Re:At UK sites

[takev]

If you don't play:
10,000 + 50,000 = 60,000

If the result is "yes":
10,000 + 10,000 * 6/1 = 70,000 (original stake + winnings)

If the result is "no":
50,000 + 50,000 * 2/5 = 70,000 (original stake + winnings)

In this case it is always good to bet, because you will always win 10,000.

Re:At UK sites

[gazbo]

"Funny" may be pushing it a bit. The odds he offered were 6/1 for yes, and 2/5 for no. If I bet £10 on yes and win, I get 6 times my stake in winnings, plus my stake returned for a total of £70. If I bet £50 on no and win, I get 2/5 times my stake in winnings, plus my stake returned, also for a total of £70. So if I bet on both yes and no, then I'm guaranteed to get £70 back, despite only having staked £60. Obviously this scales linearly with a higher stake.

This does (very) occasionally happen in real life - two different bookmakers set their own odds, so by betting yes with one bookie, and no with the other, you can guarantee a profit. Usually much smaller than the percentage offered here. It's known as arbitrage betting.

Re:At UK sites

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'd put the whole 60k each way on yes.

If it comes second, you still get 180k! (Based on the underneath "Yes pays 6-1" AC post below.)

Re:Stop protecting people from being scammed!!!!!

[Quiet_Desperation]

"'m not a democrat or a republican" yeah, I bet you don't have any principles at all.

[50 GALLON SPITTAKE] Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!

So only people who identify with a corrupt, broken political entity full of hypocrites and sociopaths are people with principles?

[head explodes]

reason

[jackie cheung]

I bet OBAMA must lost money on gambling.

huh? does not compute

[BitterAndDrunk]

Legal online gambling is a bad idea. When casino's open theft crimes go up. With the rise of indian gaming casino's we've done this experiment over and over. It's not arguable that casino's drain money out of a community in a way that is harmful. The only people who gain, are the big mecca casino's that get money from people outside of their local community. If you legalize it on-line, it will flow over seas. Which direction will if flow? it doesn't matter. All it does is hurt most communities.

These two paragraphs are at odds. Do casinos help communities and now that money will be gone (flowing overseas) or do casinos fuck everything and everyone around them and don't give back?

Re:Totally wrong

[mcgrew]

Nobody's forcing you to gamble. By your logic they should outlaw Rent-A-Center.

Oldest protectionist trick in the book

[xcut]

So, let's see. The US wiped billions of the share price of Partygaming (registered in Gibraltar), the most successful online poker company, almost overnight when it, effectively, outlawed credit card payments for internet gambling.

What are the chances that the law is now repealed, and "carefully regulated US companies" will be able to provide internet gambling? It's nothing but good old protectionism at work, we shall see..

Re:Totally wrong

[tjstork]

Nobody's forcing you to gamble. By your logic they should outlaw Rent-A-Center.

They probably should. I mean, is it so reasonable to ask that investors create companies that have some social redeeming value?

Re:Totally wrong

[mcgrew]

It's not too much to ask, but it's far too much to expect.

VAC

[The MAZZTer]

Anyone else read the title and think it was about Steam VAC bans? :)

Incentive not to cheat

[xswl0931]

Online poker, for example, the casino makes money on every hand played. They don't care if the players win or lose, they just take out their "rake". Since this is guaranteed money, why would they cheat and risk losing their players?

This doesn't mean that employees of an online casino won't cheat. AbsolutePoker and UltimateBet both had occurrences of cheating and this was detected by players and "proven" through statistical analysis and hand analysis.

Most of these transactions were fraudulent anyway

[mykos]

Ugh...I work for a credit card issuer. I guess it may roll in more revenue for us, but before the ban, the majority of these transactions were fraudulent anyway
The more serious gambling addicts will stop at nothing to get their fix, including stealing card info from family members, friends, and strangers. If this law passes, get ready for a flurry of chargebacks, followed by charge-offs, followed by increased rates and fees on cash advances since they will be such high-risk transactions.