Sports Betting Forum: NFL Declares War on Poker
By Dan Boone
(Columnist)
The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling.—Ambrose Bierce
Mark Twain once wrote that nothing needs reforming more than other people's habits.
And the NFL wants to reform your online habits.
The NFL, always a bright beacon of morals in a blighted land, has decided to self-righteously step into the public morals debate. The NFL does not want a bill allowing online gambling, that is a current bill legalizing poker, to pass.
The NFL behemoth is so against people playing online poker that they have hired a high priced Washington Lobbyist, opened a DC office, and set up a PAC Donation committee to help its noble cause.
So that's where ticket increase money goes. That's why the stadium beers are nine bucks and the exhibition games are full priced flops. Perhaps that explains the PSL's. The league needs just craves some spare change to pay some politicos for favors.
Nah, the PSL's are pure greed. Nothing more nothing less.
But give it to Roger Goodell, a senator's son, who knows the Beltway better then the ball field. And he does not want folks wagering on the internet on his football games.
The NFL has thrown its vast wealth and political power into the anti-poker fray.
The old battle cry, of course, is to maintain the integrity of the game. Online Poker will be the straw that breaks the NFL camel's back. Corruption will take hold across our fair land and shame our national game.
But the battle to set the public morals has made some mighty strange bedfellows for the NFL.
Fearing that the evils of online gaming are sapping its failing strength in a fading economy, the NFL has found a strong moral ally in North American and Native American tribal casinos.
Both casino organizations throw a lot of money, and junkets, at the politicos trying desperately block online gaming.
Online poker is, of course, a severe threat to the core values of America.
A sleeper cell buried on the internet.
And everyone knows the boys in Vegas and Atlantic City have always been men highly concerned with the moral makeup of American society...
The last gambling threat to so shake the foundations of the NFL were likely the frogmen who took Baltimore Colts/LA Rams owner Robert Irsay for his last swim or maybe the bookies that took San Francisco 49ers owner Eddie Debartolo's weekly massive 49er bets.
The politicians agree. The integrity of the scared game itself is at stake. It's time for a stand.
It's time for Johnny Unitas to go for six and the cover and skip the easy three and the win.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a friend of the casino boys in Vegas, fights immoral online poker with one hand, and with the other, lobbies hard for a tax payer built Vegas Mob Museum.
The long awaited Vegas Mob Museum!
No poker on the computer in your basement, boys, but for $15, we will show the kids where Bugsy Siegal's brains were scattered in Vegas. Frank Costello says keep your mind off the showgirls, kids.
How about the real story of Tony "the Ant" Spilotro and the Stardust and Circus Circus? Child, did you ever hear of a man monikered Mad Sam DeStefano?
Look kids: This is where the bomb lifted Lefty Rothenstein out of his car. This is the very seat that saved him. Want to sit on it for a $5 picture?
Put in $5, press the play button, and hear the sad song of Sonny Liston.
Charming, eh?
Maybe.
I'd go to it. It certainly is no worse, morally, then online poker. But neither should be monitored or made by the government.
The old ale soaked scribe at the bar once scribbled that the government that governs best governs least.
Another odd NFL poker ban pal is the Christian Coalition.
The congressman most concerned about the effect of poker and football betting on the morals of America is the honorable Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, via Massachusetts.
Congressman Goodlatte, a member of the Christian Coalition, loves his cyber security task force, perhaps because they give him a secret Dick Tracey badge or watch. The congressman is a powerful member of the Agriculture Committee.
Oddly enough, he can combine his pair of politico power toys.
See, Senator Goodlatte also loves the slaughter of horses, but he denounces online poker as a threat to the very soul of America.
I guess he missed Gable and Monroe in The Misfits.
Goodlatte, after securing lots of donations from casino owners and their ilk, raged against internet gambling.
The same folks that sent Senator Bob piles of cash also have a vested interest in some racetracks and thoroughbred operations around the nation.
Some of those folks like selling their used up race horses to slaughter. Some of these same folks also do not want gaming competition for their casinos. Some of those same folks still have some skim and swag to spend to set their agenda.
So Senator Bob also became a key player in supporting horse slaughterhouses around the United States. He actually personally blocked a law banning slaughtering horses, while still leading the fight against internet poker.
And what would the restless ghost of Colonel Mosby think of a carpet-bagging Yankee promoting horse killing and poker slaying in his home state of Old Virginia?
Goodlatte, in these trying economic times, is a man with serious issues on his brain and in his billfold. I mean, in this terrifying economic tempest, it's good to know a stern man of morals in Washington is bravely fighting to stop poker and start horse slaughterhouses.
Someday, likely outside a seedy second rate casino with a rundown sleazy track, someone might build a bird shit-stained statue of the moral law maker.
Then sacrifice a healthy horse under it.
Still, the good senator has formed an odd alliance with the NFL, the Christian Coalition, Casino Owners, Donald Trump, Donald Trump's hair, and the gambling tribes of North America.
Who would have thought the linear descendants of Francis Lightfoot Lee, Cotton Mather, Elmer Layden, George Halas,Tecumseh, Neamathla, PT Barnum, Bugsy Siegel, Frank Costello, and a dead, dyed, rotting raccoon (the closest thing I could think of for Trump's hair) would join hands to battle online poker?
Granted, greed unites, politics have no relation to morals and, of course, the covetous are always in want, but that's still a strange brew to be passing the peace pipe and moaning about the loose morals of online gaming, or of anything for that matter.
Other politicos, with, apparently, not much else on their plate, have also stepped into the fray.
Iowa republican Jim Leach called online gaming "a double-whammy for society. It is so seductively habit-forming that individuals can in short order lose their homes and jobs and, indeed, their families and futures. And the effects on individuals redound into society."
At first I thought Senator Leach meant crack cocaine or the stock market. Somehow I did not know internet poker or a football bet threatened the very fabric of the republic.
Currently, banks must regulate credit card transactions to assure that the money is not being used for online gambling.
Banks can't even regulate the billions of bailout bucks they have ravenously gobbled up, and now they are the online gaming morals cops?
And really, don't banks have enough to worry about besides bets on poker or football?
Sure, sweet Sir J. Allen Stanford, that crooked Texas banker man, stuck a lot of banks in Antigua. Offshore banks that handle a lot of poker and gambling action.
But is that gambling action worse than Wall Street speculation? Surely, Sir J. Allen Stanford dealt with some shady characters with Slavic accents, but perhaps Sir J. Allen will learn the meaning, at long last, of buy the ticket, take the ride.
Why not say good-bye to all that nonsense and legalize it and tax it.
States are desperate for revenue. What's the difference between betting on a horse or a numbers drawing and wagering on football or poker, except that your odds are better?
Sports gambling is accepted throughout Europe, Asia, and exotic Canada.
Why must Americans cling to Puritan morals and make it illegal? Why must we protect the cash flow of a cartel of special interests groups, Vegas, Atlantic City, tribal casinos, the NFL, and corrupt politicians?
Why not legalize it and tax it?
And why outrage over poker, which is the quiescent American pastime?
And why does Roger Goodell care if I play online poker? Why must the NFL interfere with our lives? Why is it using fan generated money against its fan base?
Presidents as diverse as US Grant, Warren Harding, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama enjoyed poker.
At the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, jokes were made about his fondness for his monthly poker games and gambling with the other Supremos and select DC insiders.
The states run various lotteries, rip off tickets, race tracks, casinos, slot parlors, dice games, and keno.
All are worse bets then wagering on sports or playing poker.
Betting lines of NFL games are published in papers nationwide. Betting on NFL games is mentioned on most NFL pregame shows and on countless Web sites.
Poker and football betting are two of the most popular American pastimes. Well, they were anyway, when folks still had jobs.
Each year the Super Bowl is the most highly wagered on event nationwide.
Why not make it all legal?
And again, why doesn't the NFL and Goodell mind their own damn business about people's private poker habits?
Why doesn't a revenue starved state take a wild leap and legalize sports betting?
Delaware: I'm talking to you.
What's Goodell going to do to Delaware, anyway? Take away its NFL Sunday Ticket? Invade and vandalize it with his Visigoth-like Cincinnati Bengals?
Or will the NFL just be outraged?
Folks are very good at outrage these days. But can't they find something else to be outraged about than poker?
And can't Roger Goodell find something better to do with his time and the fan's money?
But most of all, Mister Goodell, why don't you mind your own damn business?
Sports Betting Forum: NFL Declares War on Poker
Monday, May 4, 2009
A New Chance for Online Betting Sports in the U.S.
A New Chance for Online Betting Sports in the U.S.
By ERIC PFANNER
PARIS — Is online gambling coming in from the cold?
When the U.S. Congress cracked down on Internet betting in 2006, the big, publicly traded European companies that had dominated the business closed up shop in the United States. Growth in the booming industry shifted away from these companies, once the darlings of the stock market, to private operators in offshore locations like Antigua and the Isle of Man.
But now, executives of some of the European companies whisper excitedly that they may soon get a second chance in the United States. Meanwhile, a number of European countries that have long maintained barriers are moving, under pressure from regulators, to legalize, and tax, online gambling.
“There’s still a lot of gambling going on, where there’s no revenue coming in to the governments,” said Gavin Kelleher, an analyst at the research firm H2 Gambling Capital in Ireland. “They realize they could use the revenue.”
The biggest potential change would be in the United States, where, perhaps this month, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, is expected to introduce legislation aimed at overturning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
“He supports the repeal and wants to move forward on it,” said Steve Adamske, communications director for the House Financial Services Committee, of which Mr. Frank is chairman.
Mr. Frank tried and failed to do so once before, in 2007. But advocates of liberalization think they might get a friendlier hearing in Washington this time around. President Barack Obama, they note, boasted of his poker prowess during the election campaign. And the Democrats, who are seen as less hostile to Internet gambling than the Republicans, have tightened their grip on Congress.
A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers says the U.S. government could raise more than $50 billion over 10 years from taxes on legalized online gambling.
“I’d be amazed if it didn’t happen over the next two or three years,” said Clive Hawkswood, chief executive of the Remote Gambling Association, a trade group based in London. “It’s just a question of what exactly the regulations will say.”
Some analysts say that may be getting a little bit ahead of the game. Opponents of a repeal, including the Christian Coalition of America and the National Football League, have vowed to fight any new effort to end the ban.
Michele Combs, a spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition, said the group was gearing up for a “massive campaign” of letter-writing and lobbying to try to prevent any loosening of the law.
“We’re not saying people shouldn’t go to Las Vegas,” she said. “But when it’s in your home, it’s too easy. It breaks up families.”
U.S. sports leagues, meanwhile, worry that the ease of online betting increases the chances of game-fixing. Even the most bullish advocates of online gambling acknowledge that Internet sports betting — as opposed to poker or casino games — is highly unlikely to be legalized.
“There’s a better chance now for some sort of gaming legislation to be approved,” said Nick Batram, an analyst at KBC Peel Hunt, a brokerage firm in London. “But it took longer than expected to put anti-gaming legislation in place, and it will probably will take longer than expected to remove it.”
Since the 2006 law was passed, North America, once the biggest market, has been passed by Europe and Asia, according to figures from H2 Gambling Capital. The law makes it illegal for financial institutions to handle payments to online gambling sites. But enough people have found ways around it, some by using overseas payment processors, to ensure that online gambling remains a thriving business. H2 says online gambling generated revenue of $6 billion last year in North America, more than a quarter the global total of $22.6 billion, up from $17.6 billion in 2006.
Pulling out of the United States cost PartyGaming about three-quarters of its business. Its position as the biggest online poker provider has been taken over by PokerStars, a privately held operator based on the Isle of Man.
This month, PartyGaming agreed to a $105 million settlement with the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, involving the period before 2006, when it acknowledged that its activities had been “contrary to certain U.S. laws.” In turn, the U.S. authorities agreed not to prosecute the company, which is listed on the London Stock Exchange, or its executives.
The agreement fueled speculation that PartyGaming might be trying to position itself for a return to the U.S. market, if online gambling were legalized.
Analysts say one possibility for European companies like PartyGaming, should the ban be lifted, would be to form partnerships with American casino operators. That would allow the European companies to share their online expertise. Operating alone, they might struggle to obtain licenses, given their history of run-ins with U.S. law enforcement, analysts said.
“It’s my feeling that even if the market were opened up, the U.S. government, in a palatable way, would probably find a way to give local companies a favorable position,” Mr. Batram said.
So far, Las Vegas executives have maintained a cautious stance about legalization of online gambling. Steve Wynn, chief executive of Wynn Resorts, said in an e-mail message that he thought it would be “impossible to regulate.”
“Even though it would be a benefit to our company, we are strongly opposed,” he said.
But speculation that Las Vegas casino operators were looking into the possibilities was fueled by recent reports that Harrah’s Entertainment, which owns Caesars Palace and other casinos, recently hired Mitch Garber, former chief executive of PartyGaming, for an unspecified role. Harrah’s did not return calls.
Mr. Ryan said that PartyGaming planned to focus on acquisition opportunities to increase its market share in Europe and elsewhere, something that was difficult as long as investors were worried about the U.S. litigation. “We think Mr. Frank’s efforts are quite meaningful to the sector,” he said.
Several other online gambling companies whose shares are traded in London, including 888 Holdings and Sportingbet, are still in talks with the U.S. Justice Department. Analysts expect them, along with companies like Bwin International, whose stock is traded in Vienna, to be involved in a round of consolidation in the industry — along with a possible eventual move back into the United States.
As they await developments in Washington, online gambling companies are looking for growth in Europe and Asia. Under pressure from regulators in Brussels, several European Union members, including France, Italy, Spain and Denmark, have been moving to legalize some kinds of online gambling, turning it into a regulated and taxed business. Britain was the first big European country to do so, in 2005.
Other countries, like Germany, Greece and the Netherlands, continue to hold out, though, in what the European Commission sees as an effort to protect government-sponsored gambling monopolies from private competition.
The commission in March published a report arguing that the United States was violating World Trade Organization rules by keeping out European online gambling companies, given that online betting on horse racing is permitted in the United States. But the commission said that it favored negotiations, rather than legal action, to end the dispute.
Also in March, however, the European Parliament adopted a separate measure supporting the right of individual E.U. member states to make their own rules on online gambling.
“It’s interesting that the European Commission is telling the U.S. it’s persecuting European companies when it can’t even get its own house sorted out,” Mr. Batram said.
A New Chance for Online Betting Sports in the U.S.
By ERIC PFANNER
PARIS — Is online gambling coming in from the cold?
When the U.S. Congress cracked down on Internet betting in 2006, the big, publicly traded European companies that had dominated the business closed up shop in the United States. Growth in the booming industry shifted away from these companies, once the darlings of the stock market, to private operators in offshore locations like Antigua and the Isle of Man.
But now, executives of some of the European companies whisper excitedly that they may soon get a second chance in the United States. Meanwhile, a number of European countries that have long maintained barriers are moving, under pressure from regulators, to legalize, and tax, online gambling.
“There’s still a lot of gambling going on, where there’s no revenue coming in to the governments,” said Gavin Kelleher, an analyst at the research firm H2 Gambling Capital in Ireland. “They realize they could use the revenue.”
The biggest potential change would be in the United States, where, perhaps this month, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, is expected to introduce legislation aimed at overturning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
“He supports the repeal and wants to move forward on it,” said Steve Adamske, communications director for the House Financial Services Committee, of which Mr. Frank is chairman.
Mr. Frank tried and failed to do so once before, in 2007. But advocates of liberalization think they might get a friendlier hearing in Washington this time around. President Barack Obama, they note, boasted of his poker prowess during the election campaign. And the Democrats, who are seen as less hostile to Internet gambling than the Republicans, have tightened their grip on Congress.
A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers says the U.S. government could raise more than $50 billion over 10 years from taxes on legalized online gambling.
“I’d be amazed if it didn’t happen over the next two or three years,” said Clive Hawkswood, chief executive of the Remote Gambling Association, a trade group based in London. “It’s just a question of what exactly the regulations will say.”
Some analysts say that may be getting a little bit ahead of the game. Opponents of a repeal, including the Christian Coalition of America and the National Football League, have vowed to fight any new effort to end the ban.
Michele Combs, a spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition, said the group was gearing up for a “massive campaign” of letter-writing and lobbying to try to prevent any loosening of the law.
“We’re not saying people shouldn’t go to Las Vegas,” she said. “But when it’s in your home, it’s too easy. It breaks up families.”
U.S. sports leagues, meanwhile, worry that the ease of online betting increases the chances of game-fixing. Even the most bullish advocates of online gambling acknowledge that Internet sports betting — as opposed to poker or casino games — is highly unlikely to be legalized.
“There’s a better chance now for some sort of gaming legislation to be approved,” said Nick Batram, an analyst at KBC Peel Hunt, a brokerage firm in London. “But it took longer than expected to put anti-gaming legislation in place, and it will probably will take longer than expected to remove it.”
Since the 2006 law was passed, North America, once the biggest market, has been passed by Europe and Asia, according to figures from H2 Gambling Capital. The law makes it illegal for financial institutions to handle payments to online gambling sites. But enough people have found ways around it, some by using overseas payment processors, to ensure that online gambling remains a thriving business. H2 says online gambling generated revenue of $6 billion last year in North America, more than a quarter the global total of $22.6 billion, up from $17.6 billion in 2006.
Pulling out of the United States cost PartyGaming about three-quarters of its business. Its position as the biggest online poker provider has been taken over by PokerStars, a privately held operator based on the Isle of Man.
This month, PartyGaming agreed to a $105 million settlement with the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, involving the period before 2006, when it acknowledged that its activities had been “contrary to certain U.S. laws.” In turn, the U.S. authorities agreed not to prosecute the company, which is listed on the London Stock Exchange, or its executives.
The agreement fueled speculation that PartyGaming might be trying to position itself for a return to the U.S. market, if online gambling were legalized.
Analysts say one possibility for European companies like PartyGaming, should the ban be lifted, would be to form partnerships with American casino operators. That would allow the European companies to share their online expertise. Operating alone, they might struggle to obtain licenses, given their history of run-ins with U.S. law enforcement, analysts said.
“It’s my feeling that even if the market were opened up, the U.S. government, in a palatable way, would probably find a way to give local companies a favorable position,” Mr. Batram said.
So far, Las Vegas executives have maintained a cautious stance about legalization of online gambling. Steve Wynn, chief executive of Wynn Resorts, said in an e-mail message that he thought it would be “impossible to regulate.”
“Even though it would be a benefit to our company, we are strongly opposed,” he said.
But speculation that Las Vegas casino operators were looking into the possibilities was fueled by recent reports that Harrah’s Entertainment, which owns Caesars Palace and other casinos, recently hired Mitch Garber, former chief executive of PartyGaming, for an unspecified role. Harrah’s did not return calls.
Mr. Ryan said that PartyGaming planned to focus on acquisition opportunities to increase its market share in Europe and elsewhere, something that was difficult as long as investors were worried about the U.S. litigation. “We think Mr. Frank’s efforts are quite meaningful to the sector,” he said.
Several other online gambling companies whose shares are traded in London, including 888 Holdings and Sportingbet, are still in talks with the U.S. Justice Department. Analysts expect them, along with companies like Bwin International, whose stock is traded in Vienna, to be involved in a round of consolidation in the industry — along with a possible eventual move back into the United States.
As they await developments in Washington, online gambling companies are looking for growth in Europe and Asia. Under pressure from regulators in Brussels, several European Union members, including France, Italy, Spain and Denmark, have been moving to legalize some kinds of online gambling, turning it into a regulated and taxed business. Britain was the first big European country to do so, in 2005.
Other countries, like Germany, Greece and the Netherlands, continue to hold out, though, in what the European Commission sees as an effort to protect government-sponsored gambling monopolies from private competition.
The commission in March published a report arguing that the United States was violating World Trade Organization rules by keeping out European online gambling companies, given that online betting on horse racing is permitted in the United States. But the commission said that it favored negotiations, rather than legal action, to end the dispute.
Also in March, however, the European Parliament adopted a separate measure supporting the right of individual E.U. member states to make their own rules on online gambling.
“It’s interesting that the European Commission is telling the U.S. it’s persecuting European companies when it can’t even get its own house sorted out,” Mr. Batram said.
A New Chance for Online Betting Sports in the U.S.
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
By David Stratton
Although it can hardly be called a groundswell, the movement to legalize online gambling in the U.S. seems to be gaining momentum.
Harrah’s Entertainment reportedly has hired the former top executive of an online poker company, apparently in anticipation of the possible repeal of the current ban on Internet gambling.
According to published reports, Mitch Garber, the former CEO of Party Poker, was hired to head Harrah’s Internet Operations and World Series of Poker Division.
Before the current crackdown on Internet gambling, Party Poker was a title sponsor of the World Series of Poker.
In the U.S. Congress, Rep. Barney Frank this month may introduce legislation that would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and create a complete licensing and regulatory framework for the online gambling industry.
The UIGEA was passed in late 2006 and requires U.S. financial institutions to block payments from U.S. citizens to Internet gambling companies. It didn’t go into effect until this year.
In California, elected officials aren’t waiting on Congress to act. They’re putting together a rough draft of a bill, The California Online Poker Law Enforcement Compliance and Consumer Protection Act, which would establish an intrastate, online poker network for California players.
But the critical legislation is Barney Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which he originally introduced in 2007, but it was never acted upon.
In an interview with The Hill, Frank said he planned to re-introduce the bill "definitely" in April. Frank is chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, whose industry members are banks and credit card companies that have been charged with the nearly impossible task of interpreting how to enforce the UIGEA.
Although a final text of Frank’s bill has yet to be released, political insiders have said his bill would remove the ban on Internet gambling, and would regulate the practice as well as tax it, providing new revenues for the federal government.
A recent study released by PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed that taxing and regulating the Internet gambling industry could bring up to $52 billion in revenue for the U.S. government over a 10 year period.
The amount, however, would be contingent on whether professional sports leagues choose to allow betting on their games. Historically, the NFL, NBA and NCAA have been vehemently opposed to any form of betting on their contests.
Because of the opposition from college and most professional sports, some have argued that a bill that legalizes only online poker would stand a better chance of being passed than blanket legislation like Frank’s bill.
In 2007, Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida introduced the Skill Game Protection Act, which would have exempted poker, bridge, chess, mah jong and other player versus player games from the UIGEA and the Wire Act.
The bill underscored a key distinction between online casinos, in which the betting is mostly the player versus the house, and online poker, where contestants battle each other. Like Frank’s bill that year, Wexler’s bill was not acted upon.
The regulations of the UIGEA went into effect on Jan. 19, 2009, but the banks and other financial institutions have until Dec.1 to come into compliance.
Some members of the banking and credit card industry have complained that they’re not equipped to serve as a law enforcement agency, and that it’s nearly an impossible task determining which payments are legal and which aren’t.
For instance, the blocking of Visa and MasterCard payments has led to complications for state lotteries in North Dakota and New Hampshire, where customers trying to buy lottery tickets are often declined.
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
By David Stratton
Although it can hardly be called a groundswell, the movement to legalize online gambling in the U.S. seems to be gaining momentum.
Harrah’s Entertainment reportedly has hired the former top executive of an online poker company, apparently in anticipation of the possible repeal of the current ban on Internet gambling.
According to published reports, Mitch Garber, the former CEO of Party Poker, was hired to head Harrah’s Internet Operations and World Series of Poker Division.
Before the current crackdown on Internet gambling, Party Poker was a title sponsor of the World Series of Poker.
In the U.S. Congress, Rep. Barney Frank this month may introduce legislation that would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and create a complete licensing and regulatory framework for the online gambling industry.
The UIGEA was passed in late 2006 and requires U.S. financial institutions to block payments from U.S. citizens to Internet gambling companies. It didn’t go into effect until this year.
In California, elected officials aren’t waiting on Congress to act. They’re putting together a rough draft of a bill, The California Online Poker Law Enforcement Compliance and Consumer Protection Act, which would establish an intrastate, online poker network for California players.
But the critical legislation is Barney Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which he originally introduced in 2007, but it was never acted upon.
In an interview with The Hill, Frank said he planned to re-introduce the bill "definitely" in April. Frank is chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, whose industry members are banks and credit card companies that have been charged with the nearly impossible task of interpreting how to enforce the UIGEA.
Although a final text of Frank’s bill has yet to be released, political insiders have said his bill would remove the ban on Internet gambling, and would regulate the practice as well as tax it, providing new revenues for the federal government.
A recent study released by PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed that taxing and regulating the Internet gambling industry could bring up to $52 billion in revenue for the U.S. government over a 10 year period.
The amount, however, would be contingent on whether professional sports leagues choose to allow betting on their games. Historically, the NFL, NBA and NCAA have been vehemently opposed to any form of betting on their contests.
Because of the opposition from college and most professional sports, some have argued that a bill that legalizes only online poker would stand a better chance of being passed than blanket legislation like Frank’s bill.
In 2007, Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida introduced the Skill Game Protection Act, which would have exempted poker, bridge, chess, mah jong and other player versus player games from the UIGEA and the Wire Act.
The bill underscored a key distinction between online casinos, in which the betting is mostly the player versus the house, and online poker, where contestants battle each other. Like Frank’s bill that year, Wexler’s bill was not acted upon.
The regulations of the UIGEA went into effect on Jan. 19, 2009, but the banks and other financial institutions have until Dec.1 to come into compliance.
Some members of the banking and credit card industry have complained that they’re not equipped to serve as a law enforcement agency, and that it’s nearly an impossible task determining which payments are legal and which aren’t.
For instance, the blocking of Visa and MasterCard payments has led to complications for state lotteries in North Dakota and New Hampshire, where customers trying to buy lottery tickets are often declined.
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
By Greg Couch
The NCAA will tell you that college students are in trouble. On campuses across the country, they are subject to a dangerous gambling culture.
Student bookies, gamblers and fixers are everywhere, knowing just how to tap into a poor victim. So college athletes can find themselves in trouble, and asked to shave points or throw games for money. It's not just a sports issue regarding the integrity of games, but also the NCAA will tell you it's a human issue.
So it's no shock, really, to see the point-shaving scandal at Toledo.
We've seen them in campuses everywhere, from Boston College to Northwestern, from Arizona State to Fresno State. From Maryland to Toledo. Big, small, east, west, north, south.
The FBI has been looking into point-shaving allegations at Toledo for at least four years. It now alleges that former running back Adam Cuomo, with the help of a Detroit-area gambler in 2003, recruited teammates to take part in a point-shaving scheme over a three-year period. He also is said to have recruited basketball players to fix Toledo hoops games.
Years ago, the NCAA started talking tough about the scourge of gambling. And years later, it's still talking, talking, talking, even putting up occasional fliers. At the same time, the latest trend at colleges across the country is to sell ads to casinos and place them in stadiums.
So the NCAA will tell you that kids are getting hurt from a gambling environment, but at the same time NCAA schools are in business with the gamblers.
Right side of mouth, meet left side. This is the NCAA's little con, arguing one point for the good of humanity and profiting from the opposite side.
How does this work? I asked Rachel Newman Baker, the NCAAs gambling czar, who passed my request onto a spokesperson, who answered this way in an email:
"Our position on sports wagering has not softened at all; we continue to be stridently opposed to any type of sports wagering. You are not likely to find anyone in the membership who doesn't agree.
"But we have come to understand that there are different perspectives within the membership about commercial activities, including the appropriateness of accepting casino advertising. What some institutions may see as acceptable, other may not. This is an evolving process.
"The NCAA does not interfere in the financial relationships/agreements of its institutions, as long as they do not violate NCAA legislation."
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS here. The NCAA is notorious for this type of doublespeak, a crafty way, basically, of blowing smoke when no legitimate explanation exists.
So the NCAA makes a moral argument, but then polices its morals with economics.
There is money to be made, so ethics are gone?
These are the people educating our kids.
Murray Sperber, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, who has written several books on the excesses of the NCAA, talks about the uncomfortable relationship the NCAA has with gambling.
"A huge part of the NCAA Tournament is the gambling, the office pools, or much-larger pools that [former Washington football coach] Rick Neuheisel was in. Because of gambling, they get good ratings. Who would watch first-round games if, in fact, gambling were outlawed on college basketball. What would happen to the $6 billion they get from CBS?
"At the very core of the NCAA, the mother's milk they live on, the March Madness money, is this deep, deep hypocrisy. I remember their own poll showed that one in five athletes had bet on college sports.
"Should they encourage gambling? Especially when one of the problem groups of gamblers, people who can't control their gambling, are college kids? They get in over their heads."
Meanwhile, last year, the University of New Mexico took $2.5 million for a five-year deal that made the Route 66 Casino Hotel its "exclusive gaming sponsor."
Whatever that means.
"Corporate sponsorships," UNM president David Schmidly said at the time, "are very important to the future growth and success of our athletic department."
Those vulnerable college students the NCAA will tell you about? Not as important.
Some schools have played sporting events in casinos.
And seven of the Pac-10 Conference's 10 schools take casino or lottery advertising, according to the Oregonian, Portland's newspaper. How prevalent is this nationally?
"I would say there are more schools that do have them now than don't," Tim Roberts, president of Oregon Sports Network, part owner of the University of Oregon's media rights, told the paper.
And here comes another problem with gambling and college sports, this time at Toledo.
Yet the NCAA tries to have it all ways at once. It did the same thing with the American Indian mascot issue, saying such images were "hostile and abusive," and basically forcing schools, such as Illinois, to drop the symbol. Meanwhile, Florida State got to keep its hostile and abusive image because it had a financial agreement with the tribe.
Is it hostile and abusive or not? The NCAA will tell you it is.
Look, if the NCAA doesn't care about gambling, then it should stop pretending.
But the guardian of your standards has to be your heart and your conscience. If gambling is hurting college students, then the relationship to gambling has to be cut. It's simple. And it doesn't matter what that does to the NCAA Tournament, or to a university's "financial relationships/agreements."
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
By Greg Couch
The NCAA will tell you that college students are in trouble. On campuses across the country, they are subject to a dangerous gambling culture.
Student bookies, gamblers and fixers are everywhere, knowing just how to tap into a poor victim. So college athletes can find themselves in trouble, and asked to shave points or throw games for money. It's not just a sports issue regarding the integrity of games, but also the NCAA will tell you it's a human issue.
So it's no shock, really, to see the point-shaving scandal at Toledo.
We've seen them in campuses everywhere, from Boston College to Northwestern, from Arizona State to Fresno State. From Maryland to Toledo. Big, small, east, west, north, south.
The FBI has been looking into point-shaving allegations at Toledo for at least four years. It now alleges that former running back Adam Cuomo, with the help of a Detroit-area gambler in 2003, recruited teammates to take part in a point-shaving scheme over a three-year period. He also is said to have recruited basketball players to fix Toledo hoops games.
Years ago, the NCAA started talking tough about the scourge of gambling. And years later, it's still talking, talking, talking, even putting up occasional fliers. At the same time, the latest trend at colleges across the country is to sell ads to casinos and place them in stadiums.
So the NCAA will tell you that kids are getting hurt from a gambling environment, but at the same time NCAA schools are in business with the gamblers.
Right side of mouth, meet left side. This is the NCAA's little con, arguing one point for the good of humanity and profiting from the opposite side.
How does this work? I asked Rachel Newman Baker, the NCAAs gambling czar, who passed my request onto a spokesperson, who answered this way in an email:
"Our position on sports wagering has not softened at all; we continue to be stridently opposed to any type of sports wagering. You are not likely to find anyone in the membership who doesn't agree.
"But we have come to understand that there are different perspectives within the membership about commercial activities, including the appropriateness of accepting casino advertising. What some institutions may see as acceptable, other may not. This is an evolving process.
"The NCAA does not interfere in the financial relationships/agreements of its institutions, as long as they do not violate NCAA legislation."
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS here. The NCAA is notorious for this type of doublespeak, a crafty way, basically, of blowing smoke when no legitimate explanation exists.
So the NCAA makes a moral argument, but then polices its morals with economics.
There is money to be made, so ethics are gone?
These are the people educating our kids.
Murray Sperber, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, who has written several books on the excesses of the NCAA, talks about the uncomfortable relationship the NCAA has with gambling.
"A huge part of the NCAA Tournament is the gambling, the office pools, or much-larger pools that [former Washington football coach] Rick Neuheisel was in. Because of gambling, they get good ratings. Who would watch first-round games if, in fact, gambling were outlawed on college basketball. What would happen to the $6 billion they get from CBS?
"At the very core of the NCAA, the mother's milk they live on, the March Madness money, is this deep, deep hypocrisy. I remember their own poll showed that one in five athletes had bet on college sports.
"Should they encourage gambling? Especially when one of the problem groups of gamblers, people who can't control their gambling, are college kids? They get in over their heads."
Meanwhile, last year, the University of New Mexico took $2.5 million for a five-year deal that made the Route 66 Casino Hotel its "exclusive gaming sponsor."
Whatever that means.
"Corporate sponsorships," UNM president David Schmidly said at the time, "are very important to the future growth and success of our athletic department."
Those vulnerable college students the NCAA will tell you about? Not as important.
Some schools have played sporting events in casinos.
And seven of the Pac-10 Conference's 10 schools take casino or lottery advertising, according to the Oregonian, Portland's newspaper. How prevalent is this nationally?
"I would say there are more schools that do have them now than don't," Tim Roberts, president of Oregon Sports Network, part owner of the University of Oregon's media rights, told the paper.
And here comes another problem with gambling and college sports, this time at Toledo.
Yet the NCAA tries to have it all ways at once. It did the same thing with the American Indian mascot issue, saying such images were "hostile and abusive," and basically forcing schools, such as Illinois, to drop the symbol. Meanwhile, Florida State got to keep its hostile and abusive image because it had a financial agreement with the tribe.
Is it hostile and abusive or not? The NCAA will tell you it is.
Look, if the NCAA doesn't care about gambling, then it should stop pretending.
But the guardian of your standards has to be your heart and your conscience. If gambling is hurting college students, then the relationship to gambling has to be cut. It's simple. And it doesn't matter what that does to the NCAA Tournament, or to a university's "financial relationships/agreements."
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
By Jay Graziani
About a decade ago, in the heyday of the online gambling industry, would-be sharps seemingly sprouted from the woodwork. Banking a little coin through internet gambling was easy back then; making enough to support oneself was maybe a bit harder. But a relatively intelligent player could grab his fair share of the gambling pie with just a little bit of effort.
There were plenty of "outs" for players to pick up quick bonuses and loose lines, and anyone with access to the Don Best screen could pull in a decent side income just chasing steam, grabbing middles, and hammering slow-moving numbers. And if you got booted for being an undesirable, a steam-chaser or bonus whore? Just move on to the next shop, as new bookmakers were popping their heads up nearly daily.
Nowadays, it's significantly harder for a part-timer to pull in even a meager income consistently. While there are many possible reasons for the decreased profitability of online sportsbetting, a few significant ones stand out:
A more efficient market. Sports markets were once widely spread out, with little cross-talk between bookies. No matter how sharp a particular guy in Florida was, his betting activity had little effect on someone using a different bookie in New York or Los Angeles, especially on game day, where the morning paper was as good a source of lines as anything else. Lines were essentially static outside of Las Vegas. Even at the beginning of the internet age, things were spread out enough that real-time scalps and middles could be found. Now, all bets are essentially fed into the same global market, and sharp action can send ripples throughout the entire industry within seconds. The emergence of betting exchanges has made the sports markets even more interconnected, and the global reach of the internet has brought even more players into the mix. What all this means is increased competition for the best lines and, ultimately, tighter lines that are harder for the average player to beat.
A consolidated sportsbetting industry. At the peak of the industry there were dozens of different sportsbooks open for business, all with bonuses and their own set of lines. Even "clone" books would often be caught with their pants down on a big line move. Now, the power is consolidated in the hands of much fewer players, as the small fish got eaten up after the U.S. gambling crackdown. Less competition means fewer amenities for the players, which is one reason for the recent lack of bonuses, reduced juice, and other incentives. It also means less opportunity for line-shopping, a key factor in winning at sports gambling.
More efficient sportsbooks. Not only are there fewer sportsbooks, the ones that are left are leaner and meaner. They know how to manage lines, handle bonuses, and deal with sharp players. The books that have survived are going to make you work harder to take a profit away from them. They move their lines rapidly, they keep their thumbs on bonuses, and are quick to limit players who are too sharp for their liking. In other words, today's sportsbooks, unlike their predecessors, aren't giving anything away.
Easier access to stats and information. The internet is the greatest media tool in history, providing access to nearly limitless information at the click of a mouse. This information includes historical scores and lines, game and player stats, and reams of other statistical trivia. Anyone with the time and motivation to research an angle now has the power to do so. Spreadsheet and database software, with some versions available for free, have given novices the number-crunching power once reserved for mathematicians. And the advent of internet billboards and other online social networks have allowed knowledge to spread at an unprecedented pace. All of this makes for more-informed gamblers, and that translates into more accurate betting lines.
Increased statistical research. We see more and more sportsbetting-themed research coming out of economics and finance departments at universities, such as those by Prof. Justin Wolfers that have at times found a degree of notoriety. You might argue that not a lot of people read those papers, especially the more obscure ones, but it doesn't take a whole lot of smart money to move lines nowadays. In the widely-connected sports market that exists today, this newly discovered information can work its way into the lines quickly.
No matter what the reason, it sure seems a lot harder to grind out a side income betting sports nowadays. And don't expect it get easier. Ever. If legalized/regulated, the requisite taxes will squeeze the last drops of profit out of the industry, and the nature of the regulation process would mean more power consolidated among even fewer sportsbooks. If left unregulated, the industry is unlikely to ever achieve the same level of magnitude without coming under even more intense government regulation and policing.
Of course good handicappers, those that can make a line better than the oddsmakers, will always find a way to make money. But at some point, even for them, the tighter markets may not provide a good enough return on investment to justify the workload.
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
By Jay Graziani
About a decade ago, in the heyday of the online gambling industry, would-be sharps seemingly sprouted from the woodwork. Banking a little coin through internet gambling was easy back then; making enough to support oneself was maybe a bit harder. But a relatively intelligent player could grab his fair share of the gambling pie with just a little bit of effort.
There were plenty of "outs" for players to pick up quick bonuses and loose lines, and anyone with access to the Don Best screen could pull in a decent side income just chasing steam, grabbing middles, and hammering slow-moving numbers. And if you got booted for being an undesirable, a steam-chaser or bonus whore? Just move on to the next shop, as new bookmakers were popping their heads up nearly daily.
Nowadays, it's significantly harder for a part-timer to pull in even a meager income consistently. While there are many possible reasons for the decreased profitability of online sportsbetting, a few significant ones stand out:
A more efficient market. Sports markets were once widely spread out, with little cross-talk between bookies. No matter how sharp a particular guy in Florida was, his betting activity had little effect on someone using a different bookie in New York or Los Angeles, especially on game day, where the morning paper was as good a source of lines as anything else. Lines were essentially static outside of Las Vegas. Even at the beginning of the internet age, things were spread out enough that real-time scalps and middles could be found. Now, all bets are essentially fed into the same global market, and sharp action can send ripples throughout the entire industry within seconds. The emergence of betting exchanges has made the sports markets even more interconnected, and the global reach of the internet has brought even more players into the mix. What all this means is increased competition for the best lines and, ultimately, tighter lines that are harder for the average player to beat.
A consolidated sportsbetting industry. At the peak of the industry there were dozens of different sportsbooks open for business, all with bonuses and their own set of lines. Even "clone" books would often be caught with their pants down on a big line move. Now, the power is consolidated in the hands of much fewer players, as the small fish got eaten up after the U.S. gambling crackdown. Less competition means fewer amenities for the players, which is one reason for the recent lack of bonuses, reduced juice, and other incentives. It also means less opportunity for line-shopping, a key factor in winning at sports gambling.
More efficient sportsbooks. Not only are there fewer sportsbooks, the ones that are left are leaner and meaner. They know how to manage lines, handle bonuses, and deal with sharp players. The books that have survived are going to make you work harder to take a profit away from them. They move their lines rapidly, they keep their thumbs on bonuses, and are quick to limit players who are too sharp for their liking. In other words, today's sportsbooks, unlike their predecessors, aren't giving anything away.
Easier access to stats and information. The internet is the greatest media tool in history, providing access to nearly limitless information at the click of a mouse. This information includes historical scores and lines, game and player stats, and reams of other statistical trivia. Anyone with the time and motivation to research an angle now has the power to do so. Spreadsheet and database software, with some versions available for free, have given novices the number-crunching power once reserved for mathematicians. And the advent of internet billboards and other online social networks have allowed knowledge to spread at an unprecedented pace. All of this makes for more-informed gamblers, and that translates into more accurate betting lines.
Increased statistical research. We see more and more sportsbetting-themed research coming out of economics and finance departments at universities, such as those by Prof. Justin Wolfers that have at times found a degree of notoriety. You might argue that not a lot of people read those papers, especially the more obscure ones, but it doesn't take a whole lot of smart money to move lines nowadays. In the widely-connected sports market that exists today, this newly discovered information can work its way into the lines quickly.
No matter what the reason, it sure seems a lot harder to grind out a side income betting sports nowadays. And don't expect it get easier. Ever. If legalized/regulated, the requisite taxes will squeeze the last drops of profit out of the industry, and the nature of the regulation process would mean more power consolidated among even fewer sportsbooks. If left unregulated, the industry is unlikely to ever achieve the same level of magnitude without coming under even more intense government regulation and policing.
Of course good handicappers, those that can make a line better than the oddsmakers, will always find a way to make money. But at some point, even for them, the tighter markets may not provide a good enough return on investment to justify the workload.
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Gambling is an exciting pastime, and there are many options for enjoying the many aspects of it whether you are at home or in a casino. Many people feel all gambling is wrong, and are quite firm in their belief.
The history of gambling is quite a storied one. Despite the evolution of this popular pastime, gambling isn’t always viewed as socially acceptable. The effects of gambling can be far reaching. Known as ‘gaming’ for around 265 years before the term ‘gambling’ was introduced, the entertainment value of the many types of wagering money or property continues to grow.
Back in 1994, the UK government approved a National Lottery, which helped to make gambling seem more mainstream to the public. The advent of gambling via the Internet, mobile phone and/or television also served to make the gambling laws that were passed in 1968 seem rather old-fashioned. As more people began to enjoy gambling from the comfort of their homes, and the impacts of Internet gambling became apparent, a change of rules was definitely needed!
The gambling industry in the UK was given a thorough review, approved by the government, during the year 2000. Gambling statistics were studied, and the follow-up to this review was dubbed the Bud Report. It recommended that gambling as a whole should be modernized. This report also suggested that current laws be relaxed to let communities have more freedom of choice concerning their gambling habits.
A new Gambling Act went into effect in 2007, and the reaction of a large number of people was anything but positive. They refused to recognize any benefits of gambling. The most vocal criticism of these liberal gambling laws came from the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army. Their concern was that the number of casinos in Britain would grow at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, the new laws remained, and served to regulate not only certain lotteries, bingo, casinos and gaming machines, but also remote gambling and betting.
More than ten various commissions and trade associations have been established to aid in the monitoring process of gambling. They also have the power to impose fines, pull licenses, assess penalties, and can see that those who cheat or gamble illegally are prosecuted. Among these are the National Lottery Commission, the Gambling Commission, British Casino Association, British Horseracing Board, and the Association of British Bookmakers.
Three categories of gambling are prevalent in the UK. These are betting, casino style gambling, and lotteries. In most cases, a person must be over age 18 in order to gamble. The exceptions are fruit machines which pay with tokens, which has no age limit, lotteries that are local, and football pools, with the latter two having an age limit of 16 and above.
Those who are employed within the gambling industry are held to high standards. Some must obtain certificates of approval before they can begin their jobs. Betting shops and bookmakers also play a big role in the UK gambling scene. Sports betting is quite popular, and betting shops offer a location to place a bet via betting terminals, seating to watch the events on television, and enjoy some refreshments as well. Bookmakers have many tasks. They accept the wagers, collect money from those who lost a wager, pay those who won, and turn a profit by striving for a ‘balanced book’. Gamblers can also place a bet on the Internet or by way of a telephone call. The types of sports betting in the UK include horse and dog racing.
Casinos are full of different types of gambling to attract visitors. Slot machines which can deliver a large jackpot, table games with playing cards such as Blackjack, and games of chance like roulette are all popular. The odds always favour the house in casinos. Millions of pounds flow through the coffers of the various British casinos each year. By law, the casinos cannot advertise their addresses, nor can they urge people to come in and gamble.
Fruit machines, also known as slot machines, seem to be very profitable for the casinos, and are hugely popular with the gambling public. Bingo is also popular, especially with institutes and clubs who hold bingo games so that a charity receives the proceeds. Lotteries continue to be a popular way to raise money, or to take a chance on winning a jackpot by buying a ticket. 70% of the UK population enjoy playing the lottery. The draw variety of lottery is well known, and there are also the raffles, scratch cards, sweepstakes, and those lotteries found on the Internet and interactive television. Lottery fraud is becoming a gambling problem that must be solved.
Internet and remote gambling have boosted the profits and also the problems relevant to UK gambling. The increased monetary benefits are seen by some as one of the benefits of gambling, along with giving people a social outlet. Another favorable benefit is the money gambling can raise to profit charity.
However, others are staunchly determined that all types of gambling exploit those who are addicted to the thrill of this pastime, and see this habit as one that is just as damaging as alcoholism. By creating gaming addicts, draining the bank accounts of those who can’t stop gambling, and damaging the lives of those family members who must live with the repercussions of having a gambler in their midst.
There is a big chance that the gambling statistics that zero in on those who have a problem with gambling are going to continue to grow. Many organizations have been formed to look into gambling’s social impact. They have revealed the four reasons people gamble are escapism, the idea that they are doing something glamorous, the thrill of risk taking, and the social aspect.
The liberal laws of the UK will more than likely increase gambling problems. According to the Church of England’s organization, all gambling should be avoided as the risks outweigh the benefits. The Church will not enter into investments with any company who gets more than a 25% turnover from gambling proceeds.
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Gambling is an exciting pastime, and there are many options for enjoying the many aspects of it whether you are at home or in a casino. Many people feel all gambling is wrong, and are quite firm in their belief.
The history of gambling is quite a storied one. Despite the evolution of this popular pastime, gambling isn’t always viewed as socially acceptable. The effects of gambling can be far reaching. Known as ‘gaming’ for around 265 years before the term ‘gambling’ was introduced, the entertainment value of the many types of wagering money or property continues to grow.
Back in 1994, the UK government approved a National Lottery, which helped to make gambling seem more mainstream to the public. The advent of gambling via the Internet, mobile phone and/or television also served to make the gambling laws that were passed in 1968 seem rather old-fashioned. As more people began to enjoy gambling from the comfort of their homes, and the impacts of Internet gambling became apparent, a change of rules was definitely needed!
The gambling industry in the UK was given a thorough review, approved by the government, during the year 2000. Gambling statistics were studied, and the follow-up to this review was dubbed the Bud Report. It recommended that gambling as a whole should be modernized. This report also suggested that current laws be relaxed to let communities have more freedom of choice concerning their gambling habits.
A new Gambling Act went into effect in 2007, and the reaction of a large number of people was anything but positive. They refused to recognize any benefits of gambling. The most vocal criticism of these liberal gambling laws came from the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army. Their concern was that the number of casinos in Britain would grow at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, the new laws remained, and served to regulate not only certain lotteries, bingo, casinos and gaming machines, but also remote gambling and betting.
More than ten various commissions and trade associations have been established to aid in the monitoring process of gambling. They also have the power to impose fines, pull licenses, assess penalties, and can see that those who cheat or gamble illegally are prosecuted. Among these are the National Lottery Commission, the Gambling Commission, British Casino Association, British Horseracing Board, and the Association of British Bookmakers.
Three categories of gambling are prevalent in the UK. These are betting, casino style gambling, and lotteries. In most cases, a person must be over age 18 in order to gamble. The exceptions are fruit machines which pay with tokens, which has no age limit, lotteries that are local, and football pools, with the latter two having an age limit of 16 and above.
Those who are employed within the gambling industry are held to high standards. Some must obtain certificates of approval before they can begin their jobs. Betting shops and bookmakers also play a big role in the UK gambling scene. Sports betting is quite popular, and betting shops offer a location to place a bet via betting terminals, seating to watch the events on television, and enjoy some refreshments as well. Bookmakers have many tasks. They accept the wagers, collect money from those who lost a wager, pay those who won, and turn a profit by striving for a ‘balanced book’. Gamblers can also place a bet on the Internet or by way of a telephone call. The types of sports betting in the UK include horse and dog racing.
Casinos are full of different types of gambling to attract visitors. Slot machines which can deliver a large jackpot, table games with playing cards such as Blackjack, and games of chance like roulette are all popular. The odds always favour the house in casinos. Millions of pounds flow through the coffers of the various British casinos each year. By law, the casinos cannot advertise their addresses, nor can they urge people to come in and gamble.
Fruit machines, also known as slot machines, seem to be very profitable for the casinos, and are hugely popular with the gambling public. Bingo is also popular, especially with institutes and clubs who hold bingo games so that a charity receives the proceeds. Lotteries continue to be a popular way to raise money, or to take a chance on winning a jackpot by buying a ticket. 70% of the UK population enjoy playing the lottery. The draw variety of lottery is well known, and there are also the raffles, scratch cards, sweepstakes, and those lotteries found on the Internet and interactive television. Lottery fraud is becoming a gambling problem that must be solved.
Internet and remote gambling have boosted the profits and also the problems relevant to UK gambling. The increased monetary benefits are seen by some as one of the benefits of gambling, along with giving people a social outlet. Another favorable benefit is the money gambling can raise to profit charity.
However, others are staunchly determined that all types of gambling exploit those who are addicted to the thrill of this pastime, and see this habit as one that is just as damaging as alcoholism. By creating gaming addicts, draining the bank accounts of those who can’t stop gambling, and damaging the lives of those family members who must live with the repercussions of having a gambler in their midst.
There is a big chance that the gambling statistics that zero in on those who have a problem with gambling are going to continue to grow. Many organizations have been formed to look into gambling’s social impact. They have revealed the four reasons people gamble are escapism, the idea that they are doing something glamorous, the thrill of risk taking, and the social aspect.
The liberal laws of the UK will more than likely increase gambling problems. According to the Church of England’s organization, all gambling should be avoided as the risks outweigh the benefits. The Church will not enter into investments with any company who gets more than a 25% turnover from gambling proceeds.
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
By Melissa Francis
Reporter/CNBC
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - It is America’s longest-running sporting event, the centerpiece of a multi-billion-dollar industry.
But as a crowd of 150,000 gathered last week at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky. for this year’s “Run for the Roses,” the sport of horseracing faces some of the biggest financial and economic challenges in the Kentucky Derby's 135-year history.
Often called the “most exciting two minutes in sports,” the event is also expected to draw some 14 million television viewers to cheer on 20 of the fastest three-year old thoroughbreds as they hit the racetrack.
Horseracing is one of America’s oldest and favorite past times. What started years ago as a small race in a small town, has become one of the most famous horse races in the country.
But a tough economy and increased competition from online gambling sites and casinos has forced changes on the industry. In March 2009, racing giant Magna Entertainment Corporation, filed for bankruptcy protection with plans to sell some of its tracks, including Pimlico, host of the Preakness Stakes. To attract more business, Churchill Downs is experimenting with night races for the first time.
The Derby is Churchill Downs’ biggest moneymaker by far. On most days, live business at the racetrack is at a steady decline. With the exception of days like Derby Day there just aren't that many people at the racetrack anymore.
"So we have these huge coliseums like Church Hill Downs or Hollywood Park or Belmont Park where there might on a weekday only be 2,000 or 3,000 people rattling around a place built for 50,000,” said Steve Crist, publisher and a columnist for Daily Racing Form.
Despite the decline in everyday traffic, the Derby and remains an American sports icon and a major draws for the gambling revenues that fuel the multi-billion dollar horseracing industry. More than $100 million worth of bets are placed each year on the Kentucky Derby alone.
Though racetrack attendance is down overall, tickets to the Kentucky Derby are still some of the toughest tickets to come by. Grandstand and bleacher tickets go for $40 to $200 and sell out within weeks of going on sale. There are also the coveted seats in what’s known as ‘Millionaires Row’, where prices start at $1,000 for a two-day package.
The derby is marketed not only as a famous horse race, but also as “an experience.” Mike Iavarone, co-owner of 2008 winner, Big Brown, says the feeling of winning the Derby “is unexplainable. It is like going to the Super Bowl, winning it and hoisting the trophy over your head.”
It’s also a winning experience for the local economy. In 1956, author John Steinbeck wrote that during Derby week, Louisville is the capital of the world, and for many that still rings true today.
The revenue generated during Derby weekend pumps more than $75 million into Louisville’s economy. That economic boost does not go unnoticed by Louisville-based Yum brands, the parent company of well-known restaurants like Pizza Hut, KFC, and Taco Bell. In 2006, Yum signed on to sponsor the Derby.
"I don’t think that the Yum Brands is going to sell one more piece of chicken because they’re involved with the Kentucky Derby,” said Michael Trager, a television sports consultant. “But what it does do is it – it establishes a relationship between the brand and a major event that’s also nationally televised.
For breeders, raising a Kentucky Derby winner is a bet with the longest odds in sport. Nearly 40,000 thoroughbreds are born in the United States each year. Of those approximately 23,000 will become racehorses, and of those only about 20 will make it to the Kentucky Derby. At their peak, these horses can run up to 40 mph.
"The thoroughbred business is all about dreams,” said Anne Peters at Three Chimneys Farm, a commercial breeding farm in central Kentucky. “Everybody's hoping to breed the next great race horse so every foal that hits the ground could be the one. This could be the one that wins the Kentucky Derby."
When the bet pays off, breeding a derby winner brings prestige - and lots of money.
“If you have a horse that wins the Kentucky Derby, the value of that racehorse exceeds your wildest imagination,” said Iavarone.
A horse that wins the Kentucky Derby can earn millions as its second career as a stallion, because horse owners are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to have their mares mate with a derby winner. These horses are expected to mate with up to 100 to 120 mares each year for the next twenty years following their win.
“For most American breeders, breeding a Kentucky Derby winner is the ultimate goal,” said Peters.
But the long-term pay-off – the increase of a Derby winner’s market value - comes with no guarantees plays a major. In 2004, with the economy strong, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Smarty Jones earned stud fees of $100,000. By 2008, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown's stud fee was assessed at just $65,000.
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
By Melissa Francis
Reporter/CNBC
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - It is America’s longest-running sporting event, the centerpiece of a multi-billion-dollar industry.
But as a crowd of 150,000 gathered last week at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky. for this year’s “Run for the Roses,” the sport of horseracing faces some of the biggest financial and economic challenges in the Kentucky Derby's 135-year history.
Often called the “most exciting two minutes in sports,” the event is also expected to draw some 14 million television viewers to cheer on 20 of the fastest three-year old thoroughbreds as they hit the racetrack.
Horseracing is one of America’s oldest and favorite past times. What started years ago as a small race in a small town, has become one of the most famous horse races in the country.
But a tough economy and increased competition from online gambling sites and casinos has forced changes on the industry. In March 2009, racing giant Magna Entertainment Corporation, filed for bankruptcy protection with plans to sell some of its tracks, including Pimlico, host of the Preakness Stakes. To attract more business, Churchill Downs is experimenting with night races for the first time.
The Derby is Churchill Downs’ biggest moneymaker by far. On most days, live business at the racetrack is at a steady decline. With the exception of days like Derby Day there just aren't that many people at the racetrack anymore.
"So we have these huge coliseums like Church Hill Downs or Hollywood Park or Belmont Park where there might on a weekday only be 2,000 or 3,000 people rattling around a place built for 50,000,” said Steve Crist, publisher and a columnist for Daily Racing Form.
Despite the decline in everyday traffic, the Derby and remains an American sports icon and a major draws for the gambling revenues that fuel the multi-billion dollar horseracing industry. More than $100 million worth of bets are placed each year on the Kentucky Derby alone.
Though racetrack attendance is down overall, tickets to the Kentucky Derby are still some of the toughest tickets to come by. Grandstand and bleacher tickets go for $40 to $200 and sell out within weeks of going on sale. There are also the coveted seats in what’s known as ‘Millionaires Row’, where prices start at $1,000 for a two-day package.
The derby is marketed not only as a famous horse race, but also as “an experience.” Mike Iavarone, co-owner of 2008 winner, Big Brown, says the feeling of winning the Derby “is unexplainable. It is like going to the Super Bowl, winning it and hoisting the trophy over your head.”
It’s also a winning experience for the local economy. In 1956, author John Steinbeck wrote that during Derby week, Louisville is the capital of the world, and for many that still rings true today.
The revenue generated during Derby weekend pumps more than $75 million into Louisville’s economy. That economic boost does not go unnoticed by Louisville-based Yum brands, the parent company of well-known restaurants like Pizza Hut, KFC, and Taco Bell. In 2006, Yum signed on to sponsor the Derby.
"I don’t think that the Yum Brands is going to sell one more piece of chicken because they’re involved with the Kentucky Derby,” said Michael Trager, a television sports consultant. “But what it does do is it – it establishes a relationship between the brand and a major event that’s also nationally televised.
For breeders, raising a Kentucky Derby winner is a bet with the longest odds in sport. Nearly 40,000 thoroughbreds are born in the United States each year. Of those approximately 23,000 will become racehorses, and of those only about 20 will make it to the Kentucky Derby. At their peak, these horses can run up to 40 mph.
"The thoroughbred business is all about dreams,” said Anne Peters at Three Chimneys Farm, a commercial breeding farm in central Kentucky. “Everybody's hoping to breed the next great race horse so every foal that hits the ground could be the one. This could be the one that wins the Kentucky Derby."
When the bet pays off, breeding a derby winner brings prestige - and lots of money.
“If you have a horse that wins the Kentucky Derby, the value of that racehorse exceeds your wildest imagination,” said Iavarone.
A horse that wins the Kentucky Derby can earn millions as its second career as a stallion, because horse owners are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to have their mares mate with a derby winner. These horses are expected to mate with up to 100 to 120 mares each year for the next twenty years following their win.
“For most American breeders, breeding a Kentucky Derby winner is the ultimate goal,” said Peters.
But the long-term pay-off – the increase of a Derby winner’s market value - comes with no guarantees plays a major. In 2004, with the economy strong, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Smarty Jones earned stud fees of $100,000. By 2008, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown's stud fee was assessed at just $65,000.
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
