New Jersey Legalizes Online Gambling

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Jersey Legalizes Online Gambling

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:14PM from the because-ruining-your-life-should-be-as-easy-as-clicking-a-button dept.

schwit1 writes "New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill Tuesday legalizing Internet gambling. While the bill only allows Atlantic City casino companies to take online bets, the WSJ believes that those casinos will partner with overseas companies that provide services for online gambling, potentially opening up a bigger market. Furthermore, the bill (PDF) will allow bettors from other states to gamble online, so long as regulators determine that the activity isn't prohibited by any federal or state laws. They included setting a 10-year trial period for online betting, and raising the taxes on the Atlantic City casinos' online winnings from 10 to 15 percent. New Jersey became the third state in the nation to legalize gambling over the Internet. Nevada and Delaware have passed laws legalizing Internet betting, which also is going on offshore, untaxed and unregulated."

62 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

remember sim city? by crutchy · 2013-02-26 19:23 · Score: 4, Informative

in sim city (i think 2000 or something) enacting the "legalize gambling" ordinance was usually a sign that you were running out of money
1. Re:remember sim city? by jamesh · 2013-02-26 20:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It ain't gambling unless the odds of winning or losing and equal
  gambling, n - An activity characterised by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance.
  
  What imaginary dictionary have you been consulting? I checked a bunch and none said that the odds of winning and losing must be equal...
  
  I wish Australia would make online gambling legal, for foreigners only.
2. Re:remember sim city? by Chrisq · 2013-02-26 21:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It ain't gambling unless the odds of winning or losing and equal
  From the point of view of the UK gambling commission your definition is completely the wrong way round. Things like workplace sweepstakes and lotteries can be run without registering as gambling as long asall the money collected is paid out in prises, i.e. the organiser cannot make a profit.
3. Re:remember sim city? by MrMickS · 2013-02-26 21:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Balance is not the same as equal. There is balance across the different outcomes, however the chance of each outcome is not equal. The balance is provided by factoring in the odds offered for each outcome. A less likely outcome will offer better odds.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
4. Re:remember sim city? by rtb61 · 2013-02-26 22:04 · Score: 0
  
  So balance is not equal hence imbalance must be equal, let me guess you work in advertising.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
5. Re:remember sim city? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  So balance is not equal hence imbalance must be equal, let me guess you work in advertising.
  Let me guess, you don't have much time for logic or grammar.
6. Re:remember sim city? by DarkOx · 2013-02-26 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  No he just understands balance and equality are not always they same. Sure they can be, but they don't have to be. Imagine a plank on top of a fulcrum at its center. If you put an equal weight on bot ends it will balance and both ends of the plank will be off the ground. Now suppose you move the fulcrum to the left. You will need to put more weight on the left side of the plank for it to wait for it.... Balance.
  Hope that helps
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
7. Re:remember sim city? by MrMickS · 2013-02-26 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  Why the implied insult?
  I tried to provide some context and educate you but you've such a closed and opinionated mind that you aren't able to grasp the different meanings of words in different contexts. Let me guess, your an open-sores advocate and Android fanboi.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
8. Re:remember sim city? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  "They're so desperate they're looking to further tax your addictions.
  Don't worry potheads. Weed will likely be next."
  I can grow weed in my basement by myself, but I can't win at blackjack there alone, I tried.
  This will allow me to gamble while I'm sorting out my clones.
9. Re:remember sim city? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 00:05 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  This definition is so bad that I am compelled to respond.
  What you've described is a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is where each participant expects neither to win nor to lose in the long run, effectively making the game pointless to play from a monetary perspective. An example of such a game would be tossing a fair coin where you win and lose the same amount when your side either comes up or doesn't.
  What you've said, therefore, is that gambling only occurs in games where nobody wins or loses anything. Think about how absurd that sounds for just a moment. Open up street view and check out Vegas if you like, and tell me where all the money for those huge casinos came from - certainly not from zero-sum games. By your definition then, gambling never happens in a casino.
  I think you were trying to say "games in which the casino has a vested interest in the outcome are stacked in the casino's favor and so shouldn't be considered gambling but simply losing", but in a really clever way that makes it sound as though you have some deep insight nobody else has. Unfortunately, you've completely screwed it up.
  You may have been referring to games such as Poker, which is a zero-sum game (if we count the rake as a player), and which the casino has no vested interest in the outcome, as "gambling". While Poker certainly is gambling, it is only zero-sum if we observe the game as a whole. Each individual player within the game will have their own expected values for playing - that is, from an individual player's perspective, the game will not be zero-sum. Each player is either a winning or losing player in each game they sit, and the "odds of winning" between each player are certainly not equal.
  If nothing else, these gambling discussions ably demonstrate exactly why Vegas looks so shiny. Most people are convinced they understand how it works and most of them are wrong.
10. Re:remember sim city? by Rockoon · 2013-02-27 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A zero-sum game is where each participant expects neither to win nor to lose in the long run
  Umm, no.
  
  Thats called a fair game. To qualify as a zero-sum game, the only requirement is that for every play of the game that the sum of all wins is the same as the sum of all losses.
  
  All casino games are zero-sum, but none of them are fair games.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
11. Re:remember sim city? by mjr167 · 2013-02-27 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  And I give you Emma Stone with "Balance!"
12. Re:remember sim city? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you hadn't enacted it right from the start to help fund your city from the word go.
13. Re:remember sim city? by ffejie · 2013-02-27 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  New Jersey has been running out of money for at least a decade and at least as long as Corzine (the guy before Christie) proved he couldn't manage a budget. If this is a way to raise revenue, why not?
  
  --
  Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
14. Re:remember sim city? by cffrost · 2013-02-27 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  All casino games are zero-sum, but none of them are fair games.
  
  Blackjack and some video poker machines have zero or negative house edge when correctly played.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
15. Re:remember sim city? by FatdogHaiku · 2013-02-27 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  No he just understands balance and equality are not always they same. Sure they can be, but they don't have to be. Imagine a plank on top of a fulcrum at its center. If you put an equal weight on bot ends it will balance and both ends of the plank will be off the ground. Now suppose you move the fulcrum to the left. You will need to put more weight on the left side of the plank for it to wait for it.... Balance.
  Hope that helps
  I agree. In gambling, a good example of this is horse race handicapping. The horses could not possibly be "equal" but by using odds the book makers even out the betting as best they can. Most of the time it works, sometimes a long shot comes in but there should be enough lost wagers on the more favored horses to cover the pay out. Once in a while something astounding happens and the house takes a loss on an event, but most of the time it's the players that pay.
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
16. Re:remember sim city? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  It ain't gambling unless the odds of winning or losing and equal
  From the point of view of the UK gambling commission your definition is completely the wrong way round. Things like workplace sweepstakes and lotteries can be run without registering as gambling as long asall the money collected is paid out in prises, i.e. the organiser cannot make a profit.
  Who cares about the UK anyway this is about NJ in the USA. You guys lost the (revolutionary) war and we had to bail you out in WWII.
17. Re:remember sim city? by crutchy · 2013-02-27 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  it's not gambling for the city... it's a for certain revenue stream. it's not called gambling for that reason; it's called gambling because those that play online are for certain to lose (the money has to come from somewhere), but the sell it based on some small chance of occasionally regaining a small amount of that lost.
18. Re:remember sim city? by crutchy · 2013-02-27 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  i agree with the difference between balance and equal, but...
  
  your an open-sores advocate and Android fanboi
  ... that didn't make much sense (what does open-source have to do with this argument again?)
  unless you're just troll-baiting, in which case let it roll and we'll see what happens :)
19. Re:remember sim city? by crutchy · 2013-02-27 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  With a country trillions in debt, you act like Sim City wasn't modeled after the real world. Things are no different here.
  um, i can't tell if you're being funny, but that was kinda the point of my original post (that nj was running out of money)
20. Re:remember sim city? by rtb61 · 2013-02-27 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting note, they choose not only the weak attempt to insult me but also choose to insult two other whole groups of people they obviously dislike, hmm, the common thread they represent a threat to greed.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
21. Re:remember sim city? by Raenex · 2013-02-27 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  1.7 million views... really?
22. Re:remember sim city? by crutchy · 2013-02-27 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  So balance is not equal hence imbalance must be equal
  that's like saying that light is not bright hence dark must be bright
  light can be bright, but it doesn't have to be
  balance can be equal, but it doesn't have to be
23. Re:remember sim city? by mjr167 · 2013-02-28 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's Sesame Street. Two year olds believe that iPads exist solely so they can watch Sesame Street clips on youtube and it doesn't take them long to figure out how to hit the "replay" button.
All well and good, but... by tmach · 2013-02-26 20:16 · Score: 2

Online gambling (with maybe the exception of a couple of states) has never been illegal in the US. However, it IS illegal for US banks to do business with online casinos under a law passed nearly ten years ago. That's a federal law that hasn't been repealed, so how are people supposed to deposit money in accounts with these Jersey casinos?
1. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 20:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Bitcoins
2. Re:All well and good, but... by SeaFox · 2013-02-26 21:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Online gambling (with maybe the exception of a couple of states) has never been illegal in the US. However, it IS illegal for US banks to do business with online casinos under a law passed nearly ten years ago. That's a federal law that hasn't been repealed, so how are people supposed to deposit money in accounts with these Jersey casinos?
  Easy. The banks do business with the actual Jersey brick and mortar casino, which then transfers the money to the online casino (taking their small cut along the way). That's the whole reason the Atlantic City casinos are partnering with the foreign online casinos to start with, instead of wanting to take advantage of the lockout on the foreign groups and having the entire U.S. online gambling market to divide up with the Nevada and Delaware operators.
3. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  FTA...
  Gamblers would have to set up online accounts with a particular casino, and could set daily limits on their play.
  They also would be subject to the same per-hand limits as gamblers physically present in the casino. Casino executives say final rules have to be approved by the gambling enforcement division, but they expect the state to require gamblers to have to appear in person at a casino to open their accounts and verify their age, identity and other personal information. Payouts could be made remotely to a credit card account or bank account when a player cashes out, if the state approves such an arrangement, the executives said.
  emphasis my own. It seems like they can overcome this limitation simply by having money change hands, in person, at the casino.
4. Re:All well and good, but... by rahvin112 · 2013-02-26 21:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  People keep saying this. If there was no legal uncertainty Wynn Corporation, MGM and all the other big gaming companies would have been doing it 10 year ago. Gaming over state lines was made illegal in the days of Al Capone. People keep arguing that those statues don't apply because it's the internet rather than telephones (which is frankly an asinine argument). Personally I think the fact that every major gaming house refuses to bet across state lines as better evidence of the reality.
  Nevada legalized online gaming, but only in the state of Nevada (you have to be in the state of Nevada to place a wager online and they check it rigorously). I wouldn't be surprised if Jersey does the same thing because frankly they start taking bets online (across state lines) and they are going to have warrants issued in the states that don't allow it and I can guarantee that Utah will be one of them. Any corporation willing to game across state lines better be prepared to have their executives spend some time in jail.
  I'm certain that the probability of legal online gambling in the US across state lines is zero. It's been illegal and will continue to be illegal because the states that don't allow gambling will always have the number of votes they need in congress to prevent it. I personally believe this is nothing more Cristie trying to save Atlantic City from collapse by trying to milk gaming addicts across state lines and he's going to fail when the feds come down and say you can't do it across state lines. And if he pushes it this will end any national political career chances. People in states with legal gaming have NO idea big of an issue this is in states that don't allow gaming.
5. Re:All well and good, but... by captainpanic · 2013-02-26 21:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  However, it IS illegal for US banks to do business with online casinos under a law passed nearly ten years ago.
  Ironic that the biggest gamblers are not allowed to do business with legalized gambling institutions.
6. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  "you have to be in the state of Nevada to place a wager online and they check it rigorously"
  We know, as 'rigorously' as Netflix and Hulu.
7. Re:All well and good, but... by Rockoon · 2013-02-27 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  If there was no legal uncertainty Wynn Corporation, MGM and all the other big gaming companies would have been doing it 10 year ago.
  There are different kinds of uncertainty. Something can be completely legal now but risky to invest in because it may not be legal later.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
8. Re:All well and good, but... by greg1104 · 2013-02-27 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  US banks don't gamble. When their trades pay off, they pay executives with the proceeds. When they don't, they get a government bailout. Gamble implies some possibility of a loss.
9. Re:All well and good, but... by Bigby · 2013-02-27 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  What if they have controls in place that verify that state of origin? Most states have legal gambling...albeit with sanctioned monopolies. To take it a step further, could a State argue against online gambling in Atlantic City, yet allow PowerBall? A good lawyer can argue in Federal court that gambling isn't illegal in most States/Commonwealths.
  For states that don't have monopolistic gambling (like OH) or a lottery, their people can be blocked with the appropriate measures.
10. Re:All well and good, but... by way2trivial · 2013-02-27 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  "Cristie trying to save Atlantic City from collapse"
  edit mine,
  Christie is trying to save the casinos,
  this should kill the town....
  Being first, Atlantic City had a lot of business, and it came hand in hand with a lot of stranglehold regulation......
  now that it's much more commonplace regionally, and the regulation is not so onerous say, in Philadelphia.. those locales are both 'newer' and not so stodgy.. The margin left over after the governmental regulations in place makes other areas a lot more profitable, edgy, and appealing.
  Having to build a 500 room hotel (AC), vs a poker & slot room only... (PA)
  When AC was it, short of Nevada or international venues, of course people flocked here...
  when they didn't have to travel as far, people didn't...
  I live 10 miles away... I go out (sans gambling) in the casinos.. it's different than it was 20 years ago.
  A casino just sold for 20 million..
  gads-- I could buy 10 decent hotels for that....
  
  --
  every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
11. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like we should have a few Powerball lockups eh?
12. Re:All well and good, but... by helix2301 · 2013-02-27 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  New Jersey had to do something Atlantic City took a huge hit when Pennsylvania opened casinos. The state has to let these casinos make up the loss some how and everything is going online now a days.
  
  --
  http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
The sharks are circling ... by MrMickS · 2013-02-26 21:35 · Score: 1

... and have been for a while.
I used to work for a large UK gaming company that now has a presence in Nevada and Delaware. They are buying up local US companies so as to expand into that market. They are very good at parting people from their money online I'd expect them to be looking to at least a partnership with, if not an outright purchase of, an Atlantic City casino. This will lead to minimal job creation in the US and funds to be siphoned off into their operation in Gibraltar.
Its the wild west all over again, as each state approves this sort of operation, the existing online gambling companies will be there to try and get a share of the action.

--
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
This NJ libertarian says... meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 21:52 · Score: 1

Governments should be completely powerless to do anything about online gambling.
Legalizing it is obviously "a step in the right direction", which will make govt a bit more popular and bring it a bit more tax revenue... Now people will be more likely to gamble in USD's instead of Bitcoins. NJ bureaucrats will pass a zillion laws "regulating" this online activity, as always benefiting their friends. Political kudos from this will be used to distract from some newly-growing tentacle of govt force. Etc.
This is like learning that alt-hist Hitler was smart enough not to start a war on two fronts - good for Hitler, but not particularly good for those who wish his demise...
--libman
Let me guess: he was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 23:20 · Score: 0

n/t
Re:New Jersey? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 01:07 · Score: 0

I've heard that it's the seedy underbelly of the east coast.
That's the nicest thing that's been said about us in New Jersey for quite some time. Things are finally comin' up Jersey!
I always thought online gambling was dumb... by apcullen · 2013-02-27 01:26 · Score: 2

After all, since everything is virtual, it's impossible to tell if the game is fair!

I'm not sure legal and regulated will translate into fair, but it's gotta be closer to it than the offshore sites. Right?
1. Re:I always thought online gambling was dumb... by Bigby · 2013-02-27 03:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I agree. However, online gambling with Atlantic City will fall under a gaming regulation organization. That doesn't mean it will be a fair, as in free from fraud. But at least there are measures and penalties with teeth if there is fraud. There is a major disincentive for an Atlantic City casino to not monitor their own online gambling applications.
  That said, I would never gamble online outside of results that are determined outside the computer...like sports betting. In a casino, I never gamble with machines. Even then, I am subject to potential fraud. But in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, I am not worried about fraud on table games. The game is in their favor and with the penalties of try to make it MORE in their favor are just not worth it to them.
2. Re:I always thought online gambling was dumb... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  There's provably fair online gambling too:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling#Provably_fair_gambling
  Last I saw, someone was working on a provably fair casino using Minecraft and Bitcoin called "BitVegas". All of the financial stuff is done on a secure server separate from the Minecraft server.
3. Re:I always thought online gambling was dumb... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Posting AC since I'm in the industry.
  
  After all, since everything is virtual, it's impossible to tell if the game is fair!
  I'm not sure legal and regulated will translate into fair, but it's gotta be closer to it than the offshore sites. Right?
  "Fair" is an ambiguous concept, so I'll assume you're talking about "fixing" games in ways unknown to the players rather than the "house advantage" inherent in casino games, or the amount of rake, etc. for poker and friends.
  Regulation often involves sending everything (in real time) to the regulators. I am not saying that the regulators have the resources to examine every poker hand or slot machine game that was played, but they have the data, which can be pulled if the slightest suspicion arises, or aggregated to look for statistical discrepancies with test suites similar to those used to certify PRNGs.
  Generally, the more strict the regulation requirements, the less chances of foul play. I believe that companies that are licensed to operate in multiple jurisdictions, should be safer than B&M establishments, due to the data collection outlined above.
Re:This NJ libertarian says... meh... by Hatta · 2013-02-27 03:56 · Score: 1

You NJ Libertarians should take a close look at what Christie says about legalizing online gambling, and then compare it to what he says about legalizing Cannabis.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Antigua by CanEHdian · 2013-02-27 03:58 · Score: 1

Doesn't this strengthen Antigua's position in the WTO case suspending US copyrights?
Speaking of which... any sign yet of a cheap legal music store??

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
1. Re:Antigua by manu0601 · 2013-02-27 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  I understand Antigua already won their case, but indeed I wonder how such decision would have played in it.
Re:New Jersey? by Bigby · 2013-02-27 03:58 · Score: 1

It is classified as the armpit of America; I am in NJ
Re:This NJ libertarian says... meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 05:08 · Score: 0

Governments should be completely powerless to do anything about online gambling.
I can't imagine why anyone would want that. If you like online gambling, then you want it to be regulated. There's no point in gambling online if you know the game is fixed, which is a sure thing with a powerless government. Yes, it's pretty likely even with government regulation, which is why I think it's better not to allow it at all.
Re:New Jersey? by cyberchondriac · 2013-02-27 05:34 · Score: 1

Me too, and I'd characterize a good chunk of NJ the same. Though, not all NJ is like north-east NJ, which is an over industrialized hell hole. North-west and central jersey are actually quite nice (Princeton, anyone?), and a good chunk of the south as well (not all though.. Camden comes to mind)

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:This NJ libertarian says... meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 07:56 · Score: 0

Yes, it's pretty likely even with government regulation, which is why I think it's better not to allow it at all.
How does it feel to be anti-freedom? Go out and support the Patriot Act, too, sheep. Better safe than sorry!
Re:This NJ libertarian says... meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 13:02 · Score: 0

If you like online gambling, then you want it to be regulated.
Businesses should be controlled by consumer interest and competition. Clicking onto a different online casino is very easy, and the barrier to someone somewhere in the world starting a new casino site is pretty low. Reputation for honesty and being able to objectively prove that "our scales are square" will be the life or death of any casino. Free market evolves instruments of independent oversight, with each watcher watching all other watchers.
If this seems complex or counter-intuitive to you, it's only because you grew up in a world where people have blind faith in government doing all the thinking for them. But humanity must evolve. Beyond a certain point, coercive monopolies are only holding us back.
(Personally I never play games or gamble.)
--libman