Forum Moderators: phranque
Republican Senators attached the ban amendment to a bill on port security, ensuring that it would pass. The measure attempts to stop the money flow, by making it illegal for banks to process online gambling transactions. Banks protested that they have no way of knowing whether transactions are gambling-related or not. But that doesn't matter now, the bill now goes to the President, who will sign it.
Gambling affiliates are freaking out, as you might suspect.
Gambling is inherent in all Living things that are still with us today,
Looks like a good bill. As far as I know there is no oversight on mandatory payout ratios for online casinos like there are for physical casinos (at least in Nevada).
There are audits done by reputable companies. Actual payout ratios are well above what they are in Nevada. Imagine... they don't need much of the overhead of a physical casino, and they don't have a ton of politicans reaching into their pockets. They still have to treat players well, or the players would move elsewhere fast.
All the online gaming companies would bend over backwards and agree to just about any regulation to get into the US market, better that than to force it underground.
This has to be a case of "better the devil you know".
Does anyone else get the feeling that a few "specially chosen" companies might suddenly be given agreements to run online gaming under government controlled licenses in the not too distant future?
"Coming soon, Haliburton Family Friendly Poker"
I know many people don't agree with gambling, and they have good reasons. Depending on your point of view, many things should be illegal, many times with good reason. However one must consider the consequences of a law, and not just what ideal a law is protecting.
While there are valid reason to want online gambling stamped out, the fact is stamping it out, with the technology the world has right now is not feasible. By making any considerable market illegal, you just drive it underground. And what good comes out of that?
Take prohibition; sure you can argue that alcohol is addictive, and kills millions of people world wide every year. Tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars are poured into just repairing the damage caused by alcohol, both in untold numbers of medical bills and vehicular accidents. Yet the ban of alcohol in the US didn't help anyone, well, except crime families, and the people who received millions of dollars of tax money to prosecute those crime families.
Regulating online gambling is the way to go. I don't know about you, but if my little girl got a microscope in school, paid for with the tax money from some self-destructive person gambling away their life savings online, it wouldn't keep me up at night. Especially when considering the alternative (that money going to some thug). Self destructive people are always going to find a way to hurt themselves. Be it over-eating, smoking, over-drinking, drinking and driving, under-eating, over-buying, or over/under-whatever.
How can you drive an industry that is totally dependent on banks and credit card companies underground? We’re not talking cash transactions in a backstreet.
Here's an example:
"PartyGaming, the world's largest publicly traded online gaming company, tumbled 56 percent to 47.5 pence."
Source: Bloomberg Europe
I don't know about you, but if my little girl got a microscope in school, paid for with the tax money from some self-destructive person gambling away their life savings online, it wouldn't keep me up at night.
Ok, you might say that the daughter should be punished too for inheriting the genes of her father, but, I'm just guessing of course, I don't think you'll get many people publicly agreeing with you.
Incidentally, if a man gets into debt and then looses his job and ends up on welfare, etc. that is neither good for the economy nor good for tax dollars, so it is rather more likely that education budgets will benefit rather than suffer from this bill.
And then of, of course, the man who wastes his money gambling can't buy that brand new car, etc. so, that's not exactly going to help the economy, is it?
Kaled.
How can you drive an industry that is totally dependent on banks and credit card companies underground? We’re not talking cash transactions in a backstreet.
And if that self-destructive person has a daughter?
Ok, you might say that the daughter should be punished too for inheriting the genes of her father, but, I'm just guessing of course, I don't think you'll get many people publicly agreeing with you.
Incidentally, if a man gets into debt and then looses his job and ends up on welfare, etc. that is neither good for the economy nor good for tax dollars, so it is rather more likely that education budgets will benefit rather than suffer from this bill.
And then of, of course, the man who wastes his money gambling can't buy that brand new car, etc. so, that's not exactly going to help the economy, is it?
Kaled.
That is the thing, self destructive people are exactly that; self destructive. If he/she wouldn't gamble irresponsibly, they would drink irresponsible, or smoke irresponsibly, take illegal drugs or they would eat themselves to death. Drinking, gambling, eating, can all be enjoyed if done RESPONSABLY. Gambling is going to happen online, the government can choose to look the other way and get nothing (which is what has happened up to now), ban it and get nothing (what they are trying) or tax it and get something.
Also, what’s next? Ban drinking because there are drunks? Ban smoking (this one actually kills)? Or make eating over a certain amount of calories per day illegal? I mean, after all, someone who becomes morbidly obese also goes on well fair and cannot work.
[news.yahoo.com...]
PartyGaming's shares fell 59 percent by 0725 GMT, while Sportingbet lost 64 percent, 888 was down 45 percent and gaming software provider Playtech fell 55 percent. Austria's bwin.com Interactive Entertainment fell as much as 22 percent in the first few minutes of trading.PartyGaming generates about 78 percent of its revenue from the United States, while Sportingbet gets about 62 percent there.
[news.yahoo.com...]
Shares of Harrah's rivals MGM Mirage (NYSE:MGM - news) and Boyd Gaming Corp. (NYSE:BYD - news) rose more than 3 percent, possibly boosted further by the U.S. Congress passing a bill on Saturday that would ban most forms of Internet gambling.
Remember who built Vegas?
Remember that gambling is just a game, condemn the sinners (i.e.- overzealous gamblers that bet their last dollar) if you want but not the sin.
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
Granted, the US is protectionist, and granted its motives may be questionable, but this action is still sensible.
Kaled.
Mr Payne said the bill would only hit non-US operators, as it would make it legal for US firms to take bets on the internet in the US.
Can somebody shed some light on this? How does this bill make it legal for US firms to take bets on the internet in the US?
Previous US law meant Americans could gamble online, but the huge profits mostly went to non-American companies.
Rather than sort that out, this law tries to stop Americans from online gambling by making credit difficult. That is causing 'honest' offshore companies to pull out of the US.
So now Americans will still be able to gamble online (with a little effort), but not with US companies, and not with reputable offshore companies.
Looks like Christmas has come early for the sharks and scammers.
[edited by: Quadrille at 5:14 pm (utc) on Oct. 3, 2006]
I ask this because computerized poker was partially behind the financial downfall of my (now passed) brother-in-law.
When the casinos first went into Windsor, Ontario, and then Detroit (across the river) they put in these evil video poker games. You don't play against other humans - you play against a computer.
My brother-in-law was a good poker player with a modest habit - he'd go to Vegas on a junket a couple of times a year "with the boys" and my sister would go on a seperate vacation.
That changed when the casinos went in locally. My sister said that he would go out on a Sunday morning for a N.Y. Times, and somehow wind-up in Windsor for the day. :)
He dind't grasp the difference between playing against a computer and playing against a person. All the skills of the game that have to do with human interaction are lost. (As well, some are lost when playing another human via computer.) He was used to playing "real" poker with real people.
The edge that he had when playing a human was not there, and in frustration he went further and further into debt. Fortunately, he sought help, but not before wiping out his savings. At that point, he had himself banned from the casinos and turned over legal control of his financial affairs to my sister.
I hate to think of how many others are having their lives ruined in this way.
A generous casino, thats a new one. People who believe they can win more then they pay in may buy this one. Its not about treating anyone well, its about building the illusion that you are going to win and become rich.
This is a subject close to my heart, I use the betting exchanges for horse racing, I have plenty of control and discipline over what I do and how I bet. I dont use the mortgage money etc.
Now every month on the forums theres a post saying I lost £#*$!XX what do I do now? One guy who'd been hanging around the forums for a few years claimed to have lost £30K and now was in danger of losing his flat etc.
So I can understand the logic of the American govt in doing what they have done although people being people will still gamble, its just harder which is what the US Govt want.
And yes I am against the introduction of super casinos in the UK.
Is anyone gonna tell me that people haven't lost all their money on the horses? Of course not because it happens with the horses as much as it does anything else, but the govt gets their cut of the horses so that is suddenly deemed ok.
[edited by: Philosopher at 3:59 pm (utc) on Oct. 4, 2006]
Another consideration is that gambling contributes significantly to the horse-racing industry which employs a great many people.
Let's be honest here, this bill is not going to put many people out of work but it may help save a lot of marriages, etc.
Kaled.
The end result will be gambling will still happen just most likely with less reputable companies.
Again..this has nothing to do with helping americans. Just greed.
Horseracing can be very interactive (At least as interactive as slot machines, roulette, craps, etc.) and just as addictive as any other type of gambling. Most of the addictions stem not from the interactivity, but form the high from winning and chasing the big payoff.
You may be happy with the bill and that's fine, but don't kid yourself as to why it's being done. If it was about helping american's, then get rid of the cigarettes that KILL hundreds of thousands of americans every year.
Oh...that's right, the tobacco industry gives huge amounts of money to the govt every year for the right to kill americans. Forgot about that.
See the hypocrisy?
It's not about gamblers, it's about gambling profits.
Find out who lobbied for this clause, and my bet ;) is that the horseracing industry - and other offline US-owned gambling owners - will be on that list.
Gambling on the horses is somewhat less interactive than, for instance, playing poker. I do not have any qualifications in psychology, but my instinct is that this makes it somewhat less addictive.
Another consideration is that gambling contributes significantly to the horse-racing industry which employs a great many people.Let's be honest here, this bill is not going to put many people out of work but it may help save a lot of marriages, etc.
Kaled.
What utter nonsense. I have read your posts throughtout this thread and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. It's obvious you don't approve of gambling, but please, get a reality check!
How is betting on horses less addictive than poker? I'm willing to bet (no pun intended) it's the opposite. Of course poker is more interactive - it is 100% interactive (aside from video poker - a totally different game). Unless your the jockey, you have no interaction in horse racing other than to watch. I have a degree in psychology, but what has this got to do with anything?
When are you going to realise that this bill isn't going to save marriages? People who lose lots of money - be it online or offline - are self destructive people. Do you seriously think they won't get their gambling fix somewhere else? Take a moment to think about it seriously. You don't like gambling, that is clear. But why should thousands of people who enjoy the odd bet be denied due to a minority of people who can't control themselves? Where does it all end!
but don't kid yourself as to why it's being done.
But why should thousands of people who enjoy the odd bet be denied due to a minority of people who can't control themselves? Where does it all end!
Even if I were to agree that only self-destructive people fall victim directly, they have families, and just like drug addicts, often steal to get their fix.
It's obvious you don't approve of gambling, but please, get a reality check!
Kaled.
this law makes no sense at all & I can't belive there are actually people out there who belive this is good. That's complete madness!
No reason there is so much crazy #*$! happening in the world! The US is now trying to censor the Internet. Does that sound like anyone else (Hmm...China) - sounds like communist thinking to me.
Bit off-topic, but Karl Marx was never into censorship; that's always been much more a 'paranoid government' thing, of the right or the left.
All governments do it, ask anyone who doesn't like their government :)
And censoring the Internet really isn't unique to China; it happens in parts of Europe, as well as the MId-East and Asia; mostly in countries that would choke if you called them communist.
And it's way too far off topic to start on why 'communist China' isn't communist at all ... ;)
I take it then that you believe that cocaine, heroine, cannabis, ecstacy, speed, etc. should all be legalised.
No, not really. But I have a couple of questions for you...
I know someone who got addicted to shopping and drew up massive debts on their credit cards. Should we ban people from shopping? Or ban the use of credit cards?
I know someone else with an addiction to coffee. Should we ban people from drinking coffee?
I could go on.
dude - just because some people can't control their habbits doesn't mean that something should be made illegal for everyone...
Kaled.
