There was an article at CNN.com today that bothered me a bit.
The crux was that because gambling is addictive, and because people have a problem turning away from gambling, it should be made illegal on the internet.
quote:Online, it has become harder both to monitor gamblers (and perhaps, for gamblers to monitor themselves) and gambling firms that operate largely beyond the reach of regulators.
The U.S. House of Representatives last week resoundingly approved a measure barring banks and credit card companies from making payments to Internet gambling sites. (Full story)
"This is really the worst form of gambling you can have: all the ills that come from gambling without any of the regulation," said Rep. Robert Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican who co-sponsored the bill.
Now, if it becomes illegal, and there is someone with an addiction... you didn't stop the problem, you criminalized the addiction. And if you ban something, there's no way you can regulate it at all. I thought we learned that during the Prohibition.
quote:Previously, people would have had to fly or drive to casinos, generally restricted to a few locales. Now, gamblers can access "online casinos" 24 hours a day, from work or their homes.
"If it is casino gambling, they have had to think about it and ... drive for two hours," said Dot Duda, director of the Prevention and Recovery Center at Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "But online gambling, they don't want to be gamblers. They promised themselves they would get off, and they won't do it again. But there is such a pull."
The far greater accessibility has increased the "health risk" of gambling, Winters said.
They are essentially saying that it's okay to gamble in Atlantic City, but it's not okay to do it from home. That's akin to saying it's okay to drink in a bar, but not to be able to keep beer in your fridge.
So, are they going to ban liquor stores or bars from opening in the same buildings or next door to alcoholics? Will they try to ban the purchase of alcohol to keep in the home? Is proximity really the root of this problem?
The logic for a ban doesn't add up - at least the logic used in this article.
quote:Even though much of the evidence cited is still anecdotal, Winters said the majority of online gamblers seem to be from a younger generation, with college-age students in particular susceptible.
"The increase in Web sites for just gambling has skyrocketed," he said. "Many of them are geared toward young people."
They've restricted use of gambling sites to 18 or 21 years old, so is this really an argument? It's already illegal for kids to gamble online or anywhere, how is making it illegal for everyone else a sensible way to solve the problem? Again, it is like banning alcohol or cigarettes completely because kids are using them.
Am I the only one who thinks this is foolish?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's already illegal to gamble on line. Not only do the state laws at both ends of the bet apply, there is a federal law banning transmission of bets in interstate commerce.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It is not already illegal to gamble online, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a new bill to ban it.
The online gambling sites are offshore, for the most part. I've also read that the WTO is getting involved, saying that the US ban runs counter to the agreements they made for international commerce.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is not already illegal to gamble online, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a new bill to ban it.
Yes, it is illegal.
1.) note that the primary purpose is to ban the acceptance of payments for unlawful gambling, providing a strong clue that there is already online gambling that is unlawful.
2.) Note also that this is aimed at the banks and credit card companies, not consumers.
3.) See
quote:The online gambling sites are offshore, for the most part.
Didn't stop them from convicting at least one person running an online gambling shop in the Caribbean. The second circuit upheld the decision.
Also, state laws apply to the person gambling online in a state where gambling is prohibited, and possibly to the person at the other end of the wire.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
It should be like physical gambling in my opinion, up to individual states. Although, I guess then it would be harder to enforce.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty darn foolish to gamble online, anyway? You're putting an awful lot of trust in the gaming establishment to be fair with your money and the games--a lot more than when you're in a brick & mortar establishment. It seems to me that you're just giving your money away.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think criminalizing the credit card companies will do a fabulous job of shutting down gambling sites. The casino and the gamblers need the banks' cooperation - this will eliminate that.
I think it is a good idea, because I think gambling impovrishes those who can least afford it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty darn foolish to gamble online, anyway? You're putting an awful lot of trust in the gaming establishment to be fair with your money and the games--a lot more than when you're in a brick & mortar establishment.
I don't see how anybody could sustain a buisness which requires the trust of customers if they are in the habit of blatantly ripping off said customers.
If an online gambling site isn't fair, people will realize it and the word will spread.
Of course, by fair, I mean as fair as casinos are supposed to be.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Maybe they only need to rip them off a little at a time, so nobody really notices. Really, you don't know if you're the only one not winning on your big bets.
Besides, they don't need to sustain the business, they just need to make some money from it and then start another one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Really, you don't know if you're the only one not winning on your big bets.
People will talk, and will realize it if nobod is winning on their big bets.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
*shrugs* There is always the possibility of plants.
Really, I still think it's even more foolish than regular gambling, but not by much. If you think it's reasonable to trust them, that's fine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The cheating could be done by changing the house percentage from 1.5% to 3%. The casino would double it's revenue and only someone who compared thousands of individual bets would know.
More likely, they would increase from 1.5% to 1.65%, double their profit (as opposed to revenue) and make it almost impossible to detect without auditing the actual runs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Free markets work as self-correcting entities to root out unscrupulous companies only when there is a free flow of information.
Unless we can see the books and workings of the gambling sites, then claiming the free market will correct them isn't correct.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is such information available for brick-and-mortar casinos?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh look, the government is protecting us from ourselves again. I can't even feign surprise. (well, partially because I'd already read about this...)
Anyway, let's keep people from gambling on line. The majority who do it for fun and in moderation, AND the minority who get addicted and harm themselves with it. Cuz, hey, the government knows best, right?
What do you do that might become illegal someday?
Eat meat? Eat Chocolate? (too much fat!) Drink Coffee? Drink Alcohol? (They banned it once!) Smoke? (They've been working on it for a while.) Take Sudafed? Drive a gas guzzler? An SUV? Talk on your cellphone in public? Use OTC asthma remedies?
This could be it's own thread...
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I think it is a good idea, because I think gambling impovrishes those who can least afford it.
There was a study that came out last year (I'll see if I can find it) that showed that most people who gamble online (like myself) do so only with expendable income.
quote:Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty darn foolish to gamble online, anyway? You're putting an awful lot of trust in the gaming establishment to be fair with your money and the games--a lot more than when you're in a brick & mortar establishment.
Is it any more foolish to use your credit card online for anything? You're putting an awful lot of trust in the [insert company] to be fair with your money and credit information.
In fact, gambling online (especially in terms of poker) is actually superior in many ways tobrick-and-mortar establishments, as you avoid misdeals, avoid misrakes, avoid misinterpretation of rules by dealers, have true randomization on the shuffle, and have far more safety (no cash on hand means no muggers or pickpockets on the walk to your car, and no backroom games with bad losers who might get violent).
quote:Yes, it is illegal.
If it is, then how has it been going on unchecked for close to five years now? How have they been allowed to advertise? You don't see commercials for buying offshore drugs from Amsterdam, after all.
Wouldn't anyone with online gaming software could be convicted of this crime, then. US consumers constitute more than 50% of all internet gaming business, and US credit card companies and banks have had no problem transfering money to and taking money transfers from online gaming sites.
Could all that have happened if it were illegal?
It seems to me that this new law is trying to tighten older laws that didn't have provisions for the internet, no?
quote:1.) note that the primary purpose is to ban the acceptance of payments for unlawful gambling, providing a strong clue that there is already online gambling that is unlawful.
If you read the bill linked above, you will see that its first provision is to expand current rules of illegality to include the internet, thus making the gambling illegal. It then goes on to call such gambling illegal throughout the rest of the document.
Until that first provision is passed by the Senate, there are no laws governing internet gambling so far as I understand, and US banks and credit card companies can continue to do business with online gaming companies.
quote:2.) Note also that this is aimed at the banks and credit card companies, not consumers.
Again, if you read the bill, it says "any individual" who sends or receives bets or wagers. That is targeted at companies and consumers.
quote:Didn't stop them from convicting at least one person running an online gambling shop in the Caribbean.
If you're talking about the CEO [edit: typo] of the company BetOnSports, he has not been convicted or even tried yet. He's been indicted, and the ruling of the court could determine the legality or illegality of online gaming in his instance, setting greater precedent.
quote:Also, state laws apply to the person gambling online in a state where gambling is prohibited, and possibly to the person at the other end of the wire.
So, living in NJ where gambling is legal, and using a site that is based in a country where gambling is legal, shouldn't that make such transactions legal?
Granted, I can still drive to Atlantic City, but that costs me more money in the long run in gas, hotel bills, food, and the like. While that helps the economy, it still doesn't make any sense on why doing it from my home should be any more or less legal than doing it at a casino an hour and a half away.
[ July 21, 2006, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Maybe they only need to rip them off a little at a time, so nobody really notices. Really, you don't know if you're the only one not winning on your big bets.
Besides, they don't need to sustain the business, they just need to make some money from it and then start another one.
That's the point....the odds are so in their favor that they don't HAVE to cheat. In fact, cheating would LOSE them money in the long run as it would lower the number of people willing to play. Same thing in Vegas these days, and in the Indian casinos. It makes less sense to cheat than to run an honest game.
It has been illegal for years now though. This new law just changes the consequences for the major companies if caught supporting/paying for it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Maybe they only need to rip them off a little at a time, so nobody really notices. Really, you don't know if you're the only one not winning on your big bets.
And what stops amazon from charging an extra $0.10 on every credit card order, would you notice? This is the same paranoia that keeps my mother from doing anything online.
quote:The cheating could be done by changing the house percentage from 1.5% to 3%. The casino would double it's revenue and only someone who compared thousands of individual bets would know.
This is why there are reputable and disreputable companies in any industry. You seek out the longstanding reputable ones, and avoid the fly by night disreputable ones.
Online gaming companies are audited by independent auditors (I know, I know, so was Enron), and many have been around for several years and have some pretty big name backers. They are very upfront with how they make money (you can read it on their site), and it's easy to see how much is being raked on each hand (it's displayed on screen, and is normally 5 cents on every dollar).
The rake in online casinos is considerably less than in brick-and-mortar casinos, which they can get away with because they have something like 20 times the number of hands in an hour at a given table, and several times the number of tables at a time. Plus, you end up spending less because there's no dealer to tip.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It seems to me that this new law is trying to tighten older laws that didn't have provisions for the internet, no?
What the new law is trying to do is go after people with a lot more to lose - the banks - because the existing laws are hard to enforce. Doesn't make it legal now, though.
quote:Until that first provision is passed by the Senate, there are no laws governing internet gambling so far as I understand, and US banks and credit card companies can continue to do business with online gaming companies.
You understand incorrectly. There's been a conviction, upheld in appellate review.
quote:If you're talking about the DEO of the company BetOnSports, he has not been convicted or even tried yet. He's been indicted, and the ruling of the court could determine the legality or illegality of online gaming in his instance, setting greater precedent.
See Cohen, above.
quote:So, living in NJ where gambling is legal, and using a site that is based in a country where gambling is legal, shouldn't that make such transactions legal?
If it's truly legal, then neither the existing law nor the new law seem to apply, although DO NOT rely on this when making any personal decisions regarding the law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The key thing I want to make clear is that this proposed bill does not change what gambling is legal or illegal. Even if you were right about the existing Wire Law not covering internet gambling, at most the new federal law would add a federal offense for gambling that is already illegal.
No bet made in a state becomes illegal by the passage of this act that was not illegal before the passage of the act.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's interesting in Cohen that these bets took place by phone very often, which is covered in the Wire Act more clearly. I'm curious if the nature of the internet fit online wagering into a loophole.
Of course the WTO stepped in in 2004 to rule against US gambling laws with regards to Antigua and international commerce.
It seems more recent WTO developments have been more murky, and I haven't been able to sort through them all.
If the WTO came out against the US on this, would the US need to withdraw from the WTO to continue its ban?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the WTO came out against the US on this, would the US need to withdraw from the WTO to continue its ban?
I doubt it. I'd bet that we'd have to stop going after the overseas suppliers and restrict enforcement to U.S. citizens and people on U.S. soil.
quote:It's interesting in Cohen that these bets took place by phone very often, which is covered in the Wire Act more clearly. I'm curious if the nature of the internet fit online wagering into a loophole.
The Internet is a wire in almost every criminal context I can think of that depends on "wire."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:No bet made in a state becomes illegal by the passage of this act that was not illegal before the passage of the act.
Sure it does. It's legal for me to go to my ATM and get money to go to a friend's house and play a cash poker game, provided my friend doesn't take a raked profit from that game.
It is illegal for my bank to send that money to an internet gaming site if this ban goes through, even though it is legal to gamble in NJ.
Making the funding for the act illegal makes the act illegal.
I'm curious if my UK bank account could be used for offshore online gaming. It's not a US account and therefore is not covered by US laws - still, though, my communication with that bank and with the web could be construed as illegal, especially if my ISP routed through another state.
It all seems like a load of hooey, to me. Regulate it and be done with it. What's all this banning nonsense?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course the WTO stepped in in 2004 to rule against US gambling laws with regards to Antigua and international commerce.
Your link here seems to suggest that online gambling is currently illegal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is illegal for my bank to send that money to an internet gaming site if this ban goes through, even though it is legal to gamble in NJ.
From the bill you linked:
quote: Nothing in this section prohibits-- ... `(2) the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers from a State or foreign country where such betting or wagering is permitted under Federal, State, tribal, or local law into a State or foreign country in which such betting on the same event is permitted under Federal, State, tribal, or local law; or `(3) the interstate transmission of information relating to a State-specific lottery between a State or foreign country where such betting or wagering is permitted under Federal, State, tribal, or local law and an out-of-State data center for the purposes of assisting in the operation of such State-specific lottery.
If it is legal to place the bet in NJ, then it's not illegal under the act.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
I think it is a good idea, because I think gambling impovrishes those who can least afford it.
Gambling impoverishes those who chose to gamble.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Is it any more foolish to use your credit card online for anything? You're putting an awful lot of trust in the [insert company] to be fair with your money and credit information.
I don't use my credit cards for anything online. Actually, I don't have a credit card, but I don't use my debit card either. We do have a paypal account, however, that we keep a $0 balance on it (or close to it) except when we want to buy something online, and then we boot up from a linux operating system that runs from a CD, and run the transactions that way. It's not 100% safe, but it's a lot safer than using the OS we use all the time.
quote:In fact, gambling online (especially in terms of poker) is actually superior in many ways tobrick-and-mortar establishments, as you avoid misdeals, avoid misrakes, avoid misinterpretation of rules by dealers, have true randomization on the shuffle, and have far more safety (no cash on hand means no muggers or pickpockets on the walk to your car, and no backroom games with bad losers who might get violent).
How do you know that the shuffle is really random? Do you ever play against the dealer? How do you know that the computer isn't making sure that the dealer has slightly better odds than normal than you do?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
When I first found out about states (and later, the feds) banning online gambling, I looked into it on a more personal level, talking to a lot of my gambling friends and those few people I know in the industry.
From what I understand, the primary reason that the U.S. is trying to ban online gambling isn't because of lost revenue or because it's a dangerous addiction, etc., etc., but because it makes it incredibly easy to launder money.
quote:Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty darn foolish to gamble online, anyway? You're putting an awful lot of trust in the gaming establishment to be fair with your money and the games--a lot more than when you're in a brick & mortar establishment. It seems to me that you're just giving your money away.
My guess is that this bill is aimed largely at online poker sites rather than generalized online casinos. In an online poker situation, there's very, very little the house can do to "cheat." They could use plants, but at any level of play where the use of plants would be worth it, the players are almost always good enough to either beat them or dodge the bullets.
quote:If it is, then how has it been going on unchecked for close to five years now? How have they been allowed to advertise?
Recently (the past year), I've noticed there haven't been any advertisements for online gambling in any medium I've seen in the U.S. The ads are always for the play-money versions of the online gambling sites, e.g. PartyPoker.net.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:How do you know that the shuffle is really random? Do you ever play against the dealer? How do you know that the computer isn't making sure that the dealer has slightly better odds than normal than you do?
1. You never play against the dealer in poker, you play against other players getting dealt to by the same system. It is far less a game of chance than it is a game of long term strategy, skill and mathematics with a chance element.
2. Each site has its software audited independently for its randomness to ensure that cards aren't being stacked one way or the other.
quote:I don't use my credit cards for anything online.
This is exactly the paranoia my mother has. In fact, she has me order things for her rather than signing up for amazon or paypal or the like.
So far as I remember, too, PayPal requires bank verification information these days, so keeping a $0 balance in PayPal shouldn't ease your paranoia unless its linked to an account that also has a $0 balance.
I'm guessing you don't use online banking or bill pay for anything, either.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:I don't use my credit cards for anything online. Actually, I don't have a credit card, but I don't use my debit card either. We do have a paypal account, however, that we keep a $0 balance on it (or close to it) except when we want to buy something online, and then we boot up from a linux operating system that runs from a CD, and run the transactions that way. It's not 100% safe, but it's a lot safer than using the OS we use all the time.
Out of curiousity, do you carry this level of paranoia over to your real world transactions, which are (in my experience) way, way, way, way more vulnerable?
quote:How do you know that the shuffle is really random? Do you ever play against the dealer? How do you know that the computer isn't making sure that the dealer has slightly better odds than normal than you do?
Any major online gambling site has had their RNG software verified by a third party licensed to do so (see Party Poker's Certification's). Whether you trust the authorizing board or not is a matter of personal choice - choice hopefully made after research.
Of course, the third party could just as easily be corruptable...but I doubt any more so than, say, the NGC.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The government should really look to regulate rather than ban. In New Jersey, the state government makes $1.3 million per day in taxes from the 12 Atlantic City casinos. That's about $475 million per year in revenue for the state.
How much would the federal government make from casinos that service several times the amount of customers?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
I think it is a good idea, because I think gambling impovrishes those who can least afford it.
Gambling impoverishes those who chose to gamble.
I think kat's point is that often those who choose to gamble are those who can least afford it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Gambling can impoverish gambling addicts. Drugs can impoverish drug addicts. Alcohol can impoverish alcoholics.
If you are addicted to anything, and choose to spend money on that to the exclusion of life necessities, that addiction will impoverish you.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I think kat's point is that often those who choose to gamble are those who can least afford it.
I don't have facts to back this up, but i'm betting that the casinos make more of their money off high rollers than those who can barely afford to gamble.*
*this is excluding slots. which is the biggest money maker for casinos, and comes mostly from retired folk anyway. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:People who work in the industry are a lot like those playing the games. Both players and employees come from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds. If you find yourself working in Las Vegas, Reno, or Atlantic City, chances are you'll see an international clientele with a staff from nearly every state in the Union. In the smaller gaming centers, such as those in Biloxi, Mississippi, or Laughlin, Nevada, most of the patrons will be from the surrounding area. Yet, employees may have relocated from several nearby states.
According to recent statistics published in U.S. News and World Report, casino players have a median income of $41,000 and a median age of 47. They wager an estimated $25–$100 per casino visit. Forty-five percent of casino players are men, 55 percent are women. Gamblers coming to the casinos during the next decade, however, may be different. Gaming industry leaders have discovered a new trend. They believe casino patrons of the future will have a higher level of college education, and be younger and more carefree. However, one thing will remain the same. All will be looking for that rush of instant gratification found by playing games of chance.
Another site with better demographics, based on surveys completed of Harrah's customers (I believe.)
In general, it seems casino gamblers are a little older and have a little more money than the average american citizen.
Here's another link with some specific information on gambling and the elderly, along with a link to other fact sheets. This is from the American Gaming Association.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hehe...I came across that first link too Flying Cow.
Two points though: 1) Most of the data in several links that I saw indicated that while more gross money came from those with higher incomes, the percentage of income used to gamble with was significantly higher by those in the 0-15,000 income bracket (poverty line is around 13K I think).
2) I think Atlantic City and Vegas provide a poor comparison with online gambling, due to the higher income individuals that would go there (think plane tickets, hotels, meals, vacation time, etc). I would be interested to see the demographics of local small Indian casinos and online gambling. I think in this case, lottery numbers are somewhat telling since everyone has more equal access to them. In state lotteries, minorities and the poor are disproportionately buying into them, leading to many calling the lottery a regressive tax.
Do you have any some somewhat more neutral links, specifically with reference to online gambling? I don't want to say that I don't trust the american gaming association or Harrah's, but it's kind of like getting environmental studies of oil drilling impact from Exxon/Mobil's website.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Most of the data in several links that I saw indicated that while more gross money came from those with higher incomes, the percentage of income used to gamble with was significantly higher by those in the 0-15,000 income bracket (poverty line is around 13K I think).
True, but if two people go to a casino planning to play with $200 - that will be a higher percentage of the income of one than the other, unless they make the same exact money. It will be a significantly higher percentage if thd the disparity of their incomes is different.
Still, though, it's all about freedom v. responsibility, as is almost everything in life. If you have the freedom to do something, it doesn't mean you should do it irresponsibly or at all.
quote:In state lotteries, minorities and the poor are disproportionately buying into them, leading to many calling the lottery a regressive tax.
As I've always called the lottery a "tax on people who didn't pay attention in middle school math", I'm sure there's also a strong correlation between education level and lottery purchases. Since there's a correlation between income and race and education, it's tough to say which correlations are causative.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
To be honest, I'm not really for or against online gambling. I was just trying to explore the issue a bit.
Hehe....that's more PC than what I call it: the stupid tax. I saw this cartoon once that always stuck with me. There were two frames. The first with a couple of IRS looking folk at a deserted building with a sign that said "Stupid Tax" above it. The next frame showed the same people who crossed out Stupid Tax and wrote in "State Lottery." There was a line clear down the street. Kind of made me chuckle in a guilty way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I went to a Photoshop conference at a casino in Law Vegas once. The week before, there was a national convention of scientists of some sort. Somehow, we got a casino employee to talk: the casino planned on never hosting another convention of scientists.
Because they don't gamble.
They drink, they go to shows, and they eat, but for the amount of gambling they did it might as well been an empty hotel.
I freely admit that this is paternalistic and more than a little condescending, but I think gambling takes advantage of people who don't understand the math. I think penalizing the credit card companies who take a cut out of this exploitation is a great idea.
I also support helmet and seat belt laws. I don't support bans on alcohol or tobacco for adults, and if there was a way test if someone was high (to be able to prosecture those who drive while their judgement is impaired), I might not have a problem with legalizing marijuana. Don't get any Libertarian panties in a bunch: it's not all or nothing.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not comfortable with online gambling because the casinos are overseas and not regulated the way US casinos are.
I don't agree with the characterization that all people who gamble are stupid. I am a hell of a good blackjack player, and am ahead over the course of the years I have been playing. But I know some people who don't gamble like to feel all smug and superior, and are unlikely to change in that regard, so whatever. Have fun.
(I'm reasonably good at math, by the way.)
EDIT: To be clear, I typed my post before I saw yours, Kat. It's not a direct response to you. Just a generic rant at people who are smug about how much smarter they are than anyone who gambles.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Actually from what I understand Icarus, blackjack is one of the the smartest games to play for return on your investment.
All joking about the Stupid Tax aside, I don't really think most people that gamble are stupid. Honestly, most people say they do it for fun & entertainment (and I live in Nevada so I see more than my share of gamers). If they're doing it with the thought that they'll be making a bunch of money though, I guess my opinion of their intelligence goes down.
The thing that someone said that most stuck with me about the lottery was my Math 4310 professor--Probability. We went through lottery winning probabilities the first week of class. After we saw how small the chances were, he told us that he makes a run across the Idaho border and buys one ticket a week for the state powerball. With one ticket, the dream is alive he explained. Any more just doesn't have any return. Anyway, sounds stupid now that I typed it, but it seemed cool to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, it would not be out of the question for me to make a living playing blackjack, except for the facts that I live in Florida, where I have to drive to Port Canaveral and get on a casino boat to play, and also because I'd probably have to play forty hours a week to match my salary, and suddenly it seems like a bit less fun. (At least at my real job, I can surf the internet! )
(I've oversimplified things there, but the point is while I do think it's possible, I don't think it's practical at this time.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do not think that not understanding the numbers = stupid. I think that the way gambling is advertised and percieved is a far cry from the experience of most gamblers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I've always called the lottery a "tax on people who didn't pay attention in middle school math", I'm sure there's also a strong correlation between education level and lottery purchases. Since there's a correlation between income and race and education, it's tough to say which correlations are causative.
Middle school math tells us it's a tax. Freshman Econ tells us that the lottery can be worthwhile to play.
Not all dollars are "worth" the same to the person spending/receiving them. If I were to buy one lottery ticket a week, my lifestyle would essentially not change at all - the marginal cost of that $1 is zero to me.
Were I to win a $20 million payout, the benefit would be worth far more than 20,000,000 times the worth of that $1. So, for me, there's no house percentage on the lottery if I only play once a week.
Of course, I don't generally play the lottery.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
kat, for the most part you're right. I will never play any game where I play against the house. By their very nature, the house only offers games in which the odds are in their favor. And if you play slots, you might as well go skip your quarters out over the ocean. You'll get more exercise, and it will take longer.
However, poker and other "player vs. player" games are different. The house takes a cut (called the "rake") of each hand, but otherwise has no role except to deal the cards and provide the chips. In fact, those that are good at math tend to be better poker players, as they understand the odds involved at every step of the way.
Calculations are made on every hand, based on the number of cards seen, the number left in the deck, the number of cards that will result in winning, the amount of money in the pot, etc.
Those who ignore the math involved in poker do so to their detriment.
quote:I think penalizing the credit card companies who take a cut out of this exploitation is a great idea.
It's not penalizing people taking a cut, it's stopping people from doing business utterly. If the income was taxed, that makes sense - I declare my poker winnings on my tax return anyway.
This is not penalizing credit card companies or banks at all. They don't care what you use their money or credit for, so long as you pay them back )with interest if it accrues). This penalizes people who enjoy online gaming and those providing that service.
Regulation, sure. Banning is unnecessary.
I feel the same about marijuana, too, btw, as well as gun control. Freedom and responsibility are key. Don't take away freedom, but instead promote responsibility.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If I were to buy one lottery ticket a week, my lifestyle would essentially not change at all - the marginal cost of that $1 is zero to me.
It's marginal, but it's still a cost, especially when looked at long term. That $52 per year could be used for a lot of other things, and the $2600 over the course of a 50 year adult lifetime can be used for even more. All that is based on a $1 ticket once per week.
But most people who play the lottery don't just buy one ticket a week. That's not where the lottery gets its money.
A $1 ticket once per day is $365 dollars a year, and $18,250 over a 50 year adult lifetime. And the odds of winning a game with greater than 1 in 1,000,000 chance is tiny compared to the outlay.
And then there are people who buy 5 tickets or more a day, approaching $100,000 over the course of their lifetimes with little to no hope of seeing any return.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I use online casinos almost exclusively for poker playing. As I do brick and morter casinos also, though i venture out to blackjack or maybe even craps if i've had a good night or am with friends. As a pretty good poker player, online play is a really good way to make some extra money. Much more so than the casino. The travel time is cut down. No tips for hands, i can make my own drinks. I can play multible tables at once if i want to. There's always a game at whatever stake i want. I can play lower limit games than at the casino if I want to(which is balanced out by the outrageous betting that seems to occur online). People are generally more carefree with their money online(see previous point). And I can listen to music, surf the web during downtime, and play in my boxers if i want.
I mostly trust the online casinos(I use partypoker), though I do have a friend who is a pretty amazing poker player who is really paranoid about the online casinos, even though he takes out probably 15-20k a year just online. He thinks that not only does the software reward dogs(fish, river rats, etc...), but that players have software that lets them see their opponents cards and/or see what cards are coming next. Then there is also the fear that other players are playing together.
I don't know how founded any of his fears are, though i do believe there are many people playing together, which the casinos do try to cut down on, but it's hard to get rid of it alltogether.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Actually, it would not be out of the question for me to make a living playing blackjack, except for the facts that I live in Florida, where I have to drive to Port Canaveral and get on a casino boat to play, and also because I'd probably have to play forty hours a week to match my salary, and suddenly it seems like a bit less fun. (At least at my real job, I can surf the internet! )
(I've oversimplified things there, but the point is while I do think it's possible, I don't think it's practical at this time.)
Not to mention that once the casino notices you're on a winning trend, they change the rules on you. They start shuffling after every hand, using unscrupulous dealers, increasing shoe size and generally making it impossible for you to win any money short of luck.
Or at least, they started doing that to me. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If I were in charge of a gaming board, I'd ban this "private club" paradigm that allows casinos to ban card counters. I'd also make them publish, up front, the shuffling schedule and number of decks. Let them find the right balance between 1 hand dealt from 1 deck per shuffle, which will have fewer players and fewer hands per hour, and 8 card shoes where some players will manage a 5% take while most think they can manage a 5% take but screw it up.
Card counting is not cheating.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BQT wrote: -- With one ticket, the dream is alive he explained. Any more just doesn't have any return. Anyway, sounds stupid now that I typed it, but it seemed cool to me. --
The odds of winning is infinately more with 1 ticket than with 0 tickets
The odds of winning is only double with 2 tickets than 1 ticket.
1 ticket is the sweet spot.
I still don't play the lottery.
Pix
Posted by Procrastination (Member # 4821) on :
quote:The odds of winning is infinately more with 1 ticket than with 0 tickets
The odds of winning is only double with 2 tickets than 1 ticket.
1 ticket is the sweet spot.
I still don't play the lottery.
LOL
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think that was pretty much the point my professor was making Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Actually, it would not be out of the question for me to make a living playing blackjack, except for the facts that I live in Florida, where I have to drive to Port Canaveral and get on a casino boat to play, and also because I'd probably have to play forty hours a week to match my salary, and suddenly it seems like a bit less fun. (At least at my real job, I can surf the internet! )
(I've oversimplified things there, but the point is while I do think it's possible, I don't think it's practical at this time.)
Not to mention that once the casino notices you're on a winning trend, they change the rules on you. They start shuffling after every hand, using unscrupulous dealers, increasing shoe size and generally making it impossible for you to win any money short of luck.
Or at least, they started doing that to me.
That's why I said I was oversimplifying.
I have found that at the stakes I play, I pretty much don't attract attention. I have no doubt that people in a control room somewhere know precisely what I'm doing, but since my base bet is $10 at a $5 table, and since it takes forever to build up your winnings, I really don't think anyone is interested in stopping me. In a gambling town like AC (where I have had very good results) there are enough casinos that somebody like me could, by switching casinos often enough, slide by almost under the radar. On a little casino boat probably not so much.
Dag, in AC they cannot throw you out. The only place they can do that in the US is Las Vegas. In AC, what they will eventually do is put their fastest dealer on the table. But their fastest dealer can only be on one table at a time, neh? If you're big time enough (in your base bets, and, therefore, your profits), you'll be a priority, which leads to my point about it basically being just like . . . work.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
BTW, I've never seen them shuffle after every hand or change the shoe size. Both would be pretty dang impractical. What they can do is sneak down the shoe penetration (i.e., put that little red or yellow card closer to the front of the shoe), deal faster, distract you with waitresses or dealer chitchat, etc.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yeah, Icarus is right. The shoe size is standard and they never ever shuffle till the shoe is through(well, till the yellow card that is). Not sure where you were playing Demonstrocity where they were able to mess with you like that.
Icarus, I'll practice up my counting skills for next time you hit up AC. Or even better. YOU practice up your counting skills. Then just give me a little nudge when the count is right for some big bets. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Actually, i never seen anything but an 8 deck shoe anywhere i've played(is it 8 or 6?). Except for in Vegas where certain casinos will have single deck blackjack.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You could just watch my bet.
I've settled into a slightly less aggressive system of bet upping than I was using when we last gambled together. It seems to work, but puts less at risk in case things go badly. I've also made powerpoint flashcards for all the major variations of casino rules (shoe size, soft seventeen rules, and splitting and doubling rules), which has helped me speed up my decision-making considerably. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've seen 8 and 6 and occasionally 1. Most casinos I've been in use six, but Carnival, for instance, uses 8. I don't remember AC well enough. I thought it was 6, but it could be 8. (How many it is ought to have a subtle influence on your strategy, if you're really serious.)
EDIT TO ADD: It's not a secret. You can watch a table before it opens, as they are shuffling the decks. Or you can learn to tell by the size of the plastic compartment they put the played cards in.
SECOND EDIT: I've never adapted since they replaced the Edit link with a word-less icon. My brain doesn't process images as well as written words, and I routinely hit the quote button instead of the edit button. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well don't you just divide whatever the count is by the number of decks to get your true count(is that the correct term?).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah, that's for true count. (And it's divide by the number of decks still in the shoe.) But there are a variety of strategies for then deciding what your bet should be. (And a variety of counting strategies, though most people pretty much just use the same one.) I'm familiar with about four strategies for setting your bet.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
do you surrender much? and is there a method for determining whether to buy insurance or not?
oh, just checked, AC uses 8 deck shoes mostly.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I always find it amusing when 'scientists' or statisticians say that people who gamble don't understand math/statistics. My response is that statisticians don't know how to have fun.
I play poker online sometimes (though I play it with friends more often). Sure, there is luck involved...though there is actually more skill than luck. You have to know what to do with the hand you are dealt...and what to bet. Of course, when you play online the amount of luck involved increases...and the level of skill required decreases.
Though for me, I don't play to win money...I play for fun. I know people who spend 10-15 bucks a week going out to bars and such. How is it different than sitting down with some friends at a poker game with a 15-20 buck buy in for a night of fun.
Sure there are people who get addicted, but then again I have known people who were addicted to everquest or WoW.
It is not the job of the government to babysit us. Decide what you can afford to spend on entertainment, and don't spend more. I don't need a government official to stand over my shoulder telling me that I can't spend my money how I want because some moron spent his rent/food money gambling.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: yeah, Icarus is right. The shoe size is standard and they never ever shuffle till the shoe is through(well, till the yellow card that is). Not sure where you were playing Demonstrocity where they were able to mess with you like that.
Icarus, I'll practice up my counting skills for next time you hit up AC. Or even better. YOU practice up your counting skills. Then just give me a little nudge when the count is right for some big bets.
Seattle, Vegas, Reno, Niagra, and a couple reservation casinos in California.
Because the shuffling patterns are not official rules in almost all casinos, they're allowed to do basically whatever they want. They tend to do this to staticians, because the easiest way for staticians to make money is to bet the minimum until the odds are extraordinarily in their favor, then bet the maximum. Variance, obviously, is prudent.
The infamous MIT blackjack teams have much more complicated strategies than that, like shuffle tracking, team play, complicated acting routines, etc., but they also make a ton more money and incur the wrath of private investigators, casino officials and crime syndicates.
quote:Actually, i never seen anything but an 8 deck shoe anywhere i've played(is it 8 or 6?). Except for in Vegas where certain casinos will have single deck blackjack.
This varies by casino, but most Vegas & Reno casinos have 2 deck and single deck blackjack. Most small casinos (like the ones here in Seattle, except on reservations) don't. No clue about AC, having never been there.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I know people who spend 10-15 bucks a week going out to bars and such.
man...i'd like to know what bars those are. I can't make it out of NYC without spending at least $100 for a night out at the bars. And that's just one night! Needless to say I don't drink in the city all that often.
Granted I go to Atlantic City willing to gamble upwards of $500, and even our home poker game you have to be willing to risk $100-$200 to play. Didn't all happen at once though. 8 years ago when we all started playing we used to buy in for $10 or $20. And it's slowly progressed throughout the years.
[ July 21, 2006, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I'm more concerned about the privacy issues.
This bill by itself will have little effect on most people who play casino games online. You can easily transfer money into your online gambling accounts by using a legitimate third party payment service like Neteller. Sure, it costs a bit more than using Paypal, but it is a legitimate service.
Once legislators figure that out, what other measures will they take to prevent Americans from gambling online? Random audits of our bank transactions? Detailed monitoring of our ISP's IP access records?
Are there less intrusive ways to stop Americans from gambling online? Is there a way, for example, to prevent Americans from accessing any of the gambling websites by blocking specific IP addresses? That seems less intrusive.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Or maybe find a way to regulate it instead of banning it. Regulating something above board is always safer than forcing something underground.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I've heard rumors that the corporations that own the big Vegas casinos are the ones behind this bill. Supposedly, they are tired of losing business to online casinos.
This theory get passed around a lot at poker forums, but it doesn't quite make sense. Wouldn't MGM and Harrah's rather legalize (and get good regulation of) online gambling so that they can jump in and compete?
I'm sure people would rather play at a poker site with the Harrah's name than at PartyPoker.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, but if the big casinos reason that US legalization of online gambling is very unlikely at this point, better to quash their competition than try for something unlikely.
[ July 22, 2006, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I thought it was illegal to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes, as long as it doesn't affect someone outside the premises.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:I've heard rumors that the corporations that own the big Vegas casinos are the ones behind this bill. Supposedly, they are tired of losing business to online casinos.
Simplify "business" to "money" and you can add homeless people to that list.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Here is an interesting op ed piece I read regarding online gambling today, which made a lot of good points. Granted, it's from Slate, but it touched on some worthwhile things.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Why can't the government stay out of the bedroom. Sheesh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Online gambling will go underground. People will find a way to get the funds to the source they need to get it to, and they'll still play.
You know you can't be arrested for playing poker in your own home so long as no money is in sight. Other than that, playing with chips is fine.
So I'll buy 20 dollars worth of goods and services from a third party, who will then transfer that money to the gambling site, and then back through the third party again back to me when I win. That't still illegal, but if it's all overseas companies doing it, and millions of American online poker players are forced into the underground, I don't really think the US government has the time or manpower, let alone the resolve to really track down thousands or millions of 20 and 30 dollar fraud here and there. They'll let it go, and brush it under a rug.
The only people who'll be hurt by illegalizing it and upping the punishment for it, are the gamblers. With it being driven underground, they'll have no protection against fraud, identity theft, and a myriad array of other problems that can, and most likely will crop up as a result of doing this. Not to mention the millions, and over time billions in lost revenue to the state and federal governments.
This isn't a well thought out law at all.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
I don't like gambling, as it can destroy families and lives. It's a great redistrobution of wealth, from the poor & middle class (mostly) to the very rich.
With that in mind, I think it's silly for the US Gov to think it can control the Internet. It's stupid! Not going to happen.
Instead of going after the credit card companies, why not focus on educating people on the math and stats behind gambling? Of course state gov that allow casinos and have lotteries have an interest in keeping their residents gambling. Think of the lost tax revenue!
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: I thought it was illegal to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes, as long as it doesn't affect someone outside the premises.
Prostitution is illegal. So is smoking pot in your house.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
Notice that legal forms of gambling are all taxable.
So if Uncle Sam can profit then it's fine, otherwise it's morally wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Funny I played blackjack and got screwed 4 times in a row and lost $30, screwed as in no matter how I had played my cards I would have lost to the dealer,(I promptly left) and went to the roulette table.
I made $100 at the table playing my chips on black and red, took my winnings and left. I swore I'd never gamble again because I don't have the personality to control myself, (I had my friend basically hold my money and he promised to make me leave the roulette table if I lost another $30 or if I gained $100).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I find Hold 'em to be a lot more fun than most casino games. My brother played War for awhile at the casino, which I thought was a wretched idea, but he seemed to enjoy it, but then he usually leaves the casino with a couple hundred more than he came into it with.
I make enough playing Hold 'em to almost always break even, and usually come out slightly on top. But then, I always know when to stop.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:But then, I always know when to stop.
Congratulations, you're in the majority. Just like most people who use alcohol - they know when to stop.
There are those that do not, who become addicted. However, potential for addiction is no reason to make something illegal. You can get addicted to all manner of things - sex for instance - but that's a matter for therapy, not legal action.
Gambling will not be stamped out, and it's growing rapidly. Poker players have moved out of smoky back rooms and into the limelight, some becoming as recognizable as sports stars or celebrities. They get money from endorsements, television companies get money from advertisers when broadcasting poker tournaments, and celebrities have used the increased interest to make money for charities.
Beyond all the various state sponsored outlets, every reservation in the country has at least contemplated building a casino, and many have. The government doesn't get any tax cut off of these either.
Limiting the viable outlets does not curtail interest. They should open US borders to online gambling sites and install regulators to oversee and tax the industry.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: Poker players have moved out of smoky back rooms and into the limelight, some becoming as recognizable as sports stars or celebrities. They get money from endorsements, television companies get money from advertisers when broadcasting poker tournaments, and celebrities have used the increased interest to make money for charities.
Now you've got me waiting in anticipation for a Olympic event in poker to be announced. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It already has a World Series - I think that's enough.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well, I figured the U.S. has been sucking it up at everything from basketball to baseball to soccer so maybe introducing some less athletic events into the Olympics might give us a fair chance. I was going to suggest adding video gaming too, but then I remembered South Korea.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We didn't suck at baseball, I think the fact that no one outside of the Americas and Japan really play the sport is what led to it being removed as a sport.
And as far as basketball goes, it wasn't the best we had to offer, which I think still isn't a good excuse, but I don't think they were playing for America, I've seen all-star games where the players played better than that.
Third, we've never really been a soccer powerhouse. I'm glad we're finally starting to really rock it out, especially considering there's more soccer players in America than any other single country in the world.
I can't remember a time when we weren't in the top three in the medal count.
Ironically, we seem to do much better in individual events than in team events. I wonder what that says about the people really representing the nation they compete for.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)