The Sacramento Bee reports that Senator Dianne Fienstein (from San Francisco), wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, asking him to support a bill to ban online gambling. This is the same politician that thinks the Second Amendment should be stripped away, so your right to keep and bear arms would be removed, although she would still be able to keep hers.
Somehow in her weird view of the world, internet gambling is a huge threat to the US, but all those hundreds of thousands of invaders streaming in to the southern US, with their gang members and diseases aren't.
What is wrong with these people? Oh, that's right, she's from San Francisco. Never mind.
California - truly the land of fruits and nuts...
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Nevada Gambling Hypocrisy On Parade
Here are a couple of recent stories that highlight the hypocrisy that arises when you deal with an industry that has a strong regulatory component. These stories are in addition to my recent post regarding casino heavy hitters fighting each other over expanded gambling, which you can see here.
The first story details the news that Nevada's senators (one Democrat, one Republican) are teaming up to introduce a bill to outlaw all online gambling in the US except for poker. Why? Because they are trying to stop the "wild West" of gambling. You see, yes they are doing this to protect their Nevada casinos, but you shouldn't only think of their more noble motives of protecting YOU from evil gambling. As you of course may realize, Nevada only offers good and pure gambling...so that's OK and should be protected.
This bill is going to be bi-partisan because, let's be clear, the Democrat, Harry Reid, isn't very popular among Republicans, which is probably an understatement. He needs his fellow Nevada senator, a Republican, to help weasel this bill through. Of course, the bill would also have to get through the House of Representatives, but one step at a time.
My view is that this bill shouldn't get through the Senate, but it indeed may. When? After the November elections during Congress' lame duck session. This bill will be inserted into another bill that due to its content would be deemed a "must pass" bill. Think of something like a bill to authorize the budget for the armed forces, or removing a tax impediment for disabled elderly people. No one will stop those bills, so Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader will add this bill to that one and force people to vote for this or they will be viewed as hating old people, the military, etc. Watch for the news on this bill to go very quiet until after the election, then watch these lame duck bills come up in November and December. The article on this bill can be found here.
Now, where's the hypocrisy? Well the Nevada view that their gambling is good and everyone else's is bad is hypocritical, but let's add in the other story to buttress the hypocrisy. This story discusses how Nevada regulators are allowing slot players to use prepaid access cards. Now similar means are used for sportsbook and poker players, but doing this with slots isn't exactly the same. It would take some time for a sportsbook player to place their wagers, similar with a player in a poker game. Slot machines are fast. You can get a new spin about every 6 seconds if you're fast enough. Also, sports betting and poker have a skill component, where a slot machine does not.
Here's a quote from the article:
"Here’s how it would work: A player who wants to use an access card in a slot machine would first have to register at a casino with identification that verifies a player’s address and date of birth. Registration would also tie a player to a casino’s loyalty card. Players could then load the cards at their banks by transferring funds from a checking or savings account. Harry Hagerty, president and chief financial officer of Sightline, said his company’s agreement with banks puts limitations on the amount of money that a player could load to an access card — a maximum of $2,000 a day, $4,500 a week and $10,000 a month, and the most a player could put on a card at any time is $25,000. Regulators also said a player wouldn’t be able to use the card for at least 15 minutes after transferring the funds."
Wow, very responsible of Nevada to make sure the maximum on a card is $25,000 and they have a whole FIFTEEN MINUTE cooling off period. (sarcasm alert)
Here's the Nevada hypocrisy. One the one hand, they want to make it easier for people to spend their money on slot machines, ahem, THEIR slot machines, which they must think is a good thing. On the other hand, they are seeking to pass a federal law to outlaw online slot machines, because those are generally not Nevada slot machines, which of course must be assumed to be bad.
So, in essence, NO NO NO don't put your money in those non-Nevada slot machines because they are bad and evil because they are electronic and online and you could go through your money very fast. Put your money in our slot machines because we're pure and decent and we limit the money you have on your prepaid card to $25,000 dollars! Right, I stand corrected thinking about this...no hypocrisy here! (sarcasm alert)
The first story details the news that Nevada's senators (one Democrat, one Republican) are teaming up to introduce a bill to outlaw all online gambling in the US except for poker. Why? Because they are trying to stop the "wild West" of gambling. You see, yes they are doing this to protect their Nevada casinos, but you shouldn't only think of their more noble motives of protecting YOU from evil gambling. As you of course may realize, Nevada only offers good and pure gambling...so that's OK and should be protected.
This bill is going to be bi-partisan because, let's be clear, the Democrat, Harry Reid, isn't very popular among Republicans, which is probably an understatement. He needs his fellow Nevada senator, a Republican, to help weasel this bill through. Of course, the bill would also have to get through the House of Representatives, but one step at a time.
My view is that this bill shouldn't get through the Senate, but it indeed may. When? After the November elections during Congress' lame duck session. This bill will be inserted into another bill that due to its content would be deemed a "must pass" bill. Think of something like a bill to authorize the budget for the armed forces, or removing a tax impediment for disabled elderly people. No one will stop those bills, so Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader will add this bill to that one and force people to vote for this or they will be viewed as hating old people, the military, etc. Watch for the news on this bill to go very quiet until after the election, then watch these lame duck bills come up in November and December. The article on this bill can be found here.
Now, where's the hypocrisy? Well the Nevada view that their gambling is good and everyone else's is bad is hypocritical, but let's add in the other story to buttress the hypocrisy. This story discusses how Nevada regulators are allowing slot players to use prepaid access cards. Now similar means are used for sportsbook and poker players, but doing this with slots isn't exactly the same. It would take some time for a sportsbook player to place their wagers, similar with a player in a poker game. Slot machines are fast. You can get a new spin about every 6 seconds if you're fast enough. Also, sports betting and poker have a skill component, where a slot machine does not.
Here's a quote from the article:
"Here’s how it would work: A player who wants to use an access card in a slot machine would first have to register at a casino with identification that verifies a player’s address and date of birth. Registration would also tie a player to a casino’s loyalty card. Players could then load the cards at their banks by transferring funds from a checking or savings account. Harry Hagerty, president and chief financial officer of Sightline, said his company’s agreement with banks puts limitations on the amount of money that a player could load to an access card — a maximum of $2,000 a day, $4,500 a week and $10,000 a month, and the most a player could put on a card at any time is $25,000. Regulators also said a player wouldn’t be able to use the card for at least 15 minutes after transferring the funds."
Wow, very responsible of Nevada to make sure the maximum on a card is $25,000 and they have a whole FIFTEEN MINUTE cooling off period. (sarcasm alert)
Here's the Nevada hypocrisy. One the one hand, they want to make it easier for people to spend their money on slot machines, ahem, THEIR slot machines, which they must think is a good thing. On the other hand, they are seeking to pass a federal law to outlaw online slot machines, because those are generally not Nevada slot machines, which of course must be assumed to be bad.
So, in essence, NO NO NO don't put your money in those non-Nevada slot machines because they are bad and evil because they are electronic and online and you could go through your money very fast. Put your money in our slot machines because we're pure and decent and we limit the money you have on your prepaid card to $25,000 dollars! Right, I stand corrected thinking about this...no hypocrisy here! (sarcasm alert)
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Federal Online Poker Legislation Reintroduced
New York Representative Peter King has reintroduced legislation attempting to federally regulate online poker. This version is likely different than the version pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. His preference is to have federal regulation and licensing, but biased toward the large Nevada casino companies being the only companies to be able to provide the games.
My view is that if the legislation can't be crafted to lock in the big Nevada casino companies as being the only online poker operators nationally, no federal bill will pass. The fallback for the large operators will be a state by state approach, where the size of their checkbook will buy the licenses, keeping out competition, particularly foreign operators.
Foreign operators would be better served by trying to enter the US market by finding unique US-based opportunities to be their beachhead and not take on the large Nevada gaming companies head on.
The renewed efforts do show that online gaming and gambling is becoming more mainstream and as governments look for more sources of revenue, gambling suddenly becomes palatable.
The story can be found here.
My view is that if the legislation can't be crafted to lock in the big Nevada casino companies as being the only online poker operators nationally, no federal bill will pass. The fallback for the large operators will be a state by state approach, where the size of their checkbook will buy the licenses, keeping out competition, particularly foreign operators.
Foreign operators would be better served by trying to enter the US market by finding unique US-based opportunities to be their beachhead and not take on the large Nevada gaming companies head on.
The renewed efforts do show that online gaming and gambling is becoming more mainstream and as governments look for more sources of revenue, gambling suddenly becomes palatable.
The story can be found here.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
No Chance for Federal Poker Bill in 2012
The Las Vegas Review Journal recently reported that the attempt by Congress to legalize online poker won't happen this year. The AGA as well as those that wanted to have centralized control of iGaming in the US have been pushing for Washington to create a one size fits all approach. That plan was thwarted for a couple of reasons, mostly due to politics.
First, this was an election year. Not much was going to happen this year anyway. The normal partisan environment was even more so. Due to the even more partisan contest, any chance at a bipartisan approach to this issue was squelched. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada, was very keen for this legislation. No way were the Republicans going to do any favors for Harry Reid. I would be surprised if this acrimony doesn't carry over into next year.
Second, with the fiscal cliff issue top of mind, that's what's going to be worked on as the primary topic, not online poker.
For now, online poker will move forward on a state by state basis. A few more states implement on their own, and the window for any federal-level approach will be permanently lost. That may likely happen as soon as 2013.
First, this was an election year. Not much was going to happen this year anyway. The normal partisan environment was even more so. Due to the even more partisan contest, any chance at a bipartisan approach to this issue was squelched. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada, was very keen for this legislation. No way were the Republicans going to do any favors for Harry Reid. I would be surprised if this acrimony doesn't carry over into next year.
Second, with the fiscal cliff issue top of mind, that's what's going to be worked on as the primary topic, not online poker.
For now, online poker will move forward on a state by state basis. A few more states implement on their own, and the window for any federal-level approach will be permanently lost. That may likely happen as soon as 2013.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wynn and Caesars Online Poker Push
In a sign that the major brick and mortar casino operators in the US are making the move toward internet gambling, both Wynn Resorts and Caesars Entertainment lock up deals with internet gaming companies. Wynn announced a partnership with PokerStars and Caesars received Nevada Gaming Commission approval of a relationship with subsidiaries of 888 Holdings.
There shouldn't be any doubt that the trend in the US is that in the not too distant future, internet poker will be legalized. From that point, only a few years will pass and I anticipate full internet gambling (with the exception of sports betting) will be legal. If New Jersey prevails in its lawsuit against the US Government over the constitutionality of PASPA, sports betting could also become legal. This won't happen overnight, but the big US players are getting ready.
The Wynn Resorts story can be found here and the Caesars Entertainment story can be found here.
There shouldn't be any doubt that the trend in the US is that in the not too distant future, internet poker will be legalized. From that point, only a few years will pass and I anticipate full internet gambling (with the exception of sports betting) will be legal. If New Jersey prevails in its lawsuit against the US Government over the constitutionality of PASPA, sports betting could also become legal. This won't happen overnight, but the big US players are getting ready.
The Wynn Resorts story can be found here and the Caesars Entertainment story can be found here.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Internet Gambling Bill Reintroduced In Congress
The blog at Onlinepoker.org posted that Barney Frank has teamed up with a REPUBLICAN representative from California, John Campbell, to reintroduce the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. I'll give it to Barney for persistence, but the chance to get this bill through was last year, when Democrats controlled the House. With Republicans now in charge of the House power structure, this seems like a longshot.
It will be easy to predict that this bill goes nowhere and likely that will be the outcome. But not so fast. With the economy in horrible shape, and the federal budget in even worse shape, a strange thing may happen: economics will trump "morality." If Congress needs the cash, they'll grab at anything (usually they grab at our wallets - quite well I might add). Maybe they latch onto this as it might be easier to pass this initially than a tax hike. Congress likes raising taxes too but I digress...
A recent post highlighted some of the advantages of internet gambling. You can read that post here. Maybe you can get your Representative to read it and admit that internet gambling is here to stay, so why not regulate like the UK?
A very tough hurdle for the bill will be getting past the House Financial Services Committee, which has a staunch anti-internet gambling person now at the helm, Rep. Bachus. Will budget needs outweigh personal bias? Who knows?
It will be easy to predict that this bill goes nowhere and likely that will be the outcome. But not so fast. With the economy in horrible shape, and the federal budget in even worse shape, a strange thing may happen: economics will trump "morality." If Congress needs the cash, they'll grab at anything (usually they grab at our wallets - quite well I might add). Maybe they latch onto this as it might be easier to pass this initially than a tax hike. Congress likes raising taxes too but I digress...
A recent post highlighted some of the advantages of internet gambling. You can read that post here. Maybe you can get your Representative to read it and admit that internet gambling is here to stay, so why not regulate like the UK?
A very tough hurdle for the bill will be getting past the House Financial Services Committee, which has a staunch anti-internet gambling person now at the helm, Rep. Bachus. Will budget needs outweigh personal bias? Who knows?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Internet Gambling Bill Has Dim Prospects
Pokernews.com is reporting that the internet gambling and taxation legislation proposed by Rep. Jim McDermott is not likely to move forward before the November election. Historically, not much legislation gets done in "lame duck" sessions, so the prospects for federal legislation to allow internet gambling are pretty dim.
In addition, I'm not aware that the Senate has any sponsors for the bill on their side. Both houses of Congress need to pass the legislation before heading to the White House for signature. With the election and not enough traction, I think we're not going to see a legalized and regulated internet gambling structure from the federal level anytime soon. If it happens, it will have to be at the state level or from the Indian tribes.
As is expected, Republicans will take over control of the House of Representatives. Historically, Republicans aren't in favor of internet gambling. That should put the prospect of federally regulated internet gambling on the back burner for several more years, or until the budget situation is so bad, that the money will just be too attractive to resist.
In addition, I'm not aware that the Senate has any sponsors for the bill on their side. Both houses of Congress need to pass the legislation before heading to the White House for signature. With the election and not enough traction, I think we're not going to see a legalized and regulated internet gambling structure from the federal level anytime soon. If it happens, it will have to be at the state level or from the Indian tribes.
As is expected, Republicans will take over control of the House of Representatives. Historically, Republicans aren't in favor of internet gambling. That should put the prospect of federally regulated internet gambling on the back burner for several more years, or until the budget situation is so bad, that the money will just be too attractive to resist.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
UIGEA Hearing Held
The House Financial Services Committee held an informational hearing on HR 2267, a bill that would partially repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act (UIGEA), and would license and regulate some forms of internet gambling. The report from Information Week on the hearing discussed testimony that stated both pro an con positions. What is important to note is the difference in the stature and quality of the opposing testimony. I'll give two examples of each.
On the pro side, there was the executive chairman of Youbet.com, a leading online gambling company based here in the US. Yes, you read correctly, there are companies engaged in online gambling right here, right now, in the US. Youbet.com handles online betting on horse racing, which is LEGAL in the US. This executive, Michael Broadsky, explained that technology that can properly regulate online wagering in the US exists today. That is obvious because how could this company process hundreds of millions of dollars per year in online wagers if the technology was insufficient?
The other cited example of pro testimony was the presentation of Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard. He states, "combining a thoughtful regulatory scheme with education, technology tools, and support appears to be the most effective means of handling the realities and risks of online gambling," and "consumers in the United States would be better protected than they are now."
As opposed to the fact-based information provided by the pro-regulated internet gambling witnesses, the information provided by the anti-internet gambling witnesses was non-evidence based opinion and hyperbole.
The first example of this was provided by the head of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Robert Martin. Martin testified, "the legislation will do nothing but legalize off-shore gaming.” He further testified that this legalization would be at the expense of the "thousands of people" employed by tribal casinos. That sounds fine, at first, but his statement is false. You see, although offshore gambling firms may want to be licensed, the proposed legislation would mandate US-based facilities. US-based facilities imply US-based jobs, so Martin's opinion is only important if you care only about tribes, and not America as a whole.
There is more to the Morongo's position that you should know about. His tribe recently tried themselves to get ONLINE POKER LEGALIZED IN CALIFORNIA. So, within a few months, this tribe tries to get online poker legalized and then turns around and claims that online gambling should not be legalized and regulated. How does that make sense? It does if you are focused only on protecting your monopoly and not wanting competition.
At the Global Gaming Expo, some panel discussions regarding the online poker legislation in California implied that the proponents may have had a bill not well thought out...or was crafted too much to benefit a particular tribe or tribes. If that is the case, then the testimony is self-serving, not providing good data to provide informed decisions. I don't think tribes have a problem wanting legislative advantages at the expense of non-tribal casinos... Overall, this testimony isn't very helpful or credible. The story describing this in more detail is here.
The other anti-online gambling testimony of note was from the FBI. It is of note because of its stupidity. Quoting from the Bloomberg story:
"'There are several ways to cheat at online poker, none of which are legal,' Shawn Henry, assistant director for the FBI’s cyber division, wrote in a letter to Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama."
"'Technology exists to manipulate online poker games in that it would only take two or three players working in unison to defeat the other players who are not part of the team,' Henry wrote. 'The online poker vendors could detect this activity and put in place safeguards to discourage cheating, although it is unclear what the incentive would be for the vendor.'"
Think about the genius that said this. There are ways to cheat at online poker and none of these ways are legal. As if there were LEGAL ways to cheat at online poker? You would think the word "cheat" would be a tipoff to the FBI? With mental giants like this fighting crime, I know I can sleep well at night. The FBI stated right after this that there were technology solutions that could detect and defeat cheating, so what's their point? However, they then claimed that they didn't know what the incentive for operators to implement these safeguards. They REALLY can't be this stupid, can they? Obviously, they are.
Let me help state the incentive since the FBI isn't bright enough to figure it out. Gambling operators can't survive if customers don't think the games are fair. Gamblers may win or lose, but they require fairly-run games. An online poker operator that is viewed as having unfair and manipulated games won't have customers and will be out of business. For the FBI to make this kind of statement is so vacant of logic that it is hard to believe that they have fallen this far with regard to talent.
Overall, the trend is that online gambling will be legalized and regulated in the next few years, with the exception of sports betting. My opinion is that all gambling should be legalized, but that will not happen. Poker will likely be legalized first, then other casino games. Sports betting will be legalized last. With the estimates of illegal sports betting being as high as $380 billion per year, it makes no sense to benefit offshore sportsbooks and illegal bookies by keeping this illegal. Now if the Morongo tribe wanted to make a cogent point, they could claim that keeping sports betting illegal benefits offshore operators. That would make sense.
For those interested in the topic, another article on the fallacy of prohibition can be found here.
On the pro side, there was the executive chairman of Youbet.com, a leading online gambling company based here in the US. Yes, you read correctly, there are companies engaged in online gambling right here, right now, in the US. Youbet.com handles online betting on horse racing, which is LEGAL in the US. This executive, Michael Broadsky, explained that technology that can properly regulate online wagering in the US exists today. That is obvious because how could this company process hundreds of millions of dollars per year in online wagers if the technology was insufficient?
The other cited example of pro testimony was the presentation of Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard. He states, "combining a thoughtful regulatory scheme with education, technology tools, and support appears to be the most effective means of handling the realities and risks of online gambling," and "consumers in the United States would be better protected than they are now."
As opposed to the fact-based information provided by the pro-regulated internet gambling witnesses, the information provided by the anti-internet gambling witnesses was non-evidence based opinion and hyperbole.
The first example of this was provided by the head of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Robert Martin. Martin testified, "the legislation will do nothing but legalize off-shore gaming.” He further testified that this legalization would be at the expense of the "thousands of people" employed by tribal casinos. That sounds fine, at first, but his statement is false. You see, although offshore gambling firms may want to be licensed, the proposed legislation would mandate US-based facilities. US-based facilities imply US-based jobs, so Martin's opinion is only important if you care only about tribes, and not America as a whole.
There is more to the Morongo's position that you should know about. His tribe recently tried themselves to get ONLINE POKER LEGALIZED IN CALIFORNIA. So, within a few months, this tribe tries to get online poker legalized and then turns around and claims that online gambling should not be legalized and regulated. How does that make sense? It does if you are focused only on protecting your monopoly and not wanting competition.
At the Global Gaming Expo, some panel discussions regarding the online poker legislation in California implied that the proponents may have had a bill not well thought out...or was crafted too much to benefit a particular tribe or tribes. If that is the case, then the testimony is self-serving, not providing good data to provide informed decisions. I don't think tribes have a problem wanting legislative advantages at the expense of non-tribal casinos... Overall, this testimony isn't very helpful or credible. The story describing this in more detail is here.
The other anti-online gambling testimony of note was from the FBI. It is of note because of its stupidity. Quoting from the Bloomberg story:
"'There are several ways to cheat at online poker, none of which are legal,' Shawn Henry, assistant director for the FBI’s cyber division, wrote in a letter to Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama."
"'Technology exists to manipulate online poker games in that it would only take two or three players working in unison to defeat the other players who are not part of the team,' Henry wrote. 'The online poker vendors could detect this activity and put in place safeguards to discourage cheating, although it is unclear what the incentive would be for the vendor.'"
Think about the genius that said this. There are ways to cheat at online poker and none of these ways are legal. As if there were LEGAL ways to cheat at online poker? You would think the word "cheat" would be a tipoff to the FBI? With mental giants like this fighting crime, I know I can sleep well at night. The FBI stated right after this that there were technology solutions that could detect and defeat cheating, so what's their point? However, they then claimed that they didn't know what the incentive for operators to implement these safeguards. They REALLY can't be this stupid, can they? Obviously, they are.
Let me help state the incentive since the FBI isn't bright enough to figure it out. Gambling operators can't survive if customers don't think the games are fair. Gamblers may win or lose, but they require fairly-run games. An online poker operator that is viewed as having unfair and manipulated games won't have customers and will be out of business. For the FBI to make this kind of statement is so vacant of logic that it is hard to believe that they have fallen this far with regard to talent.
Overall, the trend is that online gambling will be legalized and regulated in the next few years, with the exception of sports betting. My opinion is that all gambling should be legalized, but that will not happen. Poker will likely be legalized first, then other casino games. Sports betting will be legalized last. With the estimates of illegal sports betting being as high as $380 billion per year, it makes no sense to benefit offshore sportsbooks and illegal bookies by keeping this illegal. Now if the Morongo tribe wanted to make a cogent point, they could claim that keeping sports betting illegal benefits offshore operators. That would make sense.
For those interested in the topic, another article on the fallacy of prohibition can be found here.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Gaming Companies Cautious About Internet Gambling Legislation in the US
Rep. Barney Frank is proceeding with moving HR 2267 forward, hoping to replace the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) with a licensing and regulatory structure for online gambling. However, companies that would benefit are keeping a cautious stance and avoiding becoming too public in the discussion.
A Wall Street Journal report discusses the public positions and opinions of three gaming companies that would benefit from liberalization of internet gambling within the US. The consensus opinion is that if this moves forward, it is likely to happen no sooner than a year from now, near the end of this congressional session.
From discussion panels at the Global Gaming Expo, their consensus is that if any game is legalized online, it would be poker, followed by traditional casino games. No one is foreseeing the expanded legalization of sports betting online in the US anytime soon. However, given the estimates that only 1% of sports betting in the US is legal ($2.5B in Nevada casinos), that implies that $250B in illegal sports betting occurs each year. That's a lot of money not being regulated and taxed. I don't think many can make the logical argument that keeping something illegal is somehow going to make that $250 billion of illegal sports wagers disappear. It's still going to occur.
As a trend, the approach to legalize poker and other games of skill, then move to legalize other traditional casino games and slots makes sense. Don't make too much of a change at one time. Start with these games, learn how the regulatory structure responds, improve the process and then consider expanding the available games. Ultimately, people should be able to spend their money for the entertainment they desire, as long as it doesn't impact others. The US the last I checked was supposed to still be a free country, with a constitution that recognized the people's God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Should regulations be instituted to keep minors from wagering? Absolutely. Should programs be in place to help problem gamblers? Sure. Reputable online gambling firms in other countries have been doing this for years. There isn't a reason that the same kind of protections wouldn't be effective here. There has been online wagering on horse racing in the US for almost 10 years and they don't seem to have an issue with gambling from minors or from problem gamblers.
A Wall Street Journal report discusses the public positions and opinions of three gaming companies that would benefit from liberalization of internet gambling within the US. The consensus opinion is that if this moves forward, it is likely to happen no sooner than a year from now, near the end of this congressional session.
From discussion panels at the Global Gaming Expo, their consensus is that if any game is legalized online, it would be poker, followed by traditional casino games. No one is foreseeing the expanded legalization of sports betting online in the US anytime soon. However, given the estimates that only 1% of sports betting in the US is legal ($2.5B in Nevada casinos), that implies that $250B in illegal sports betting occurs each year. That's a lot of money not being regulated and taxed. I don't think many can make the logical argument that keeping something illegal is somehow going to make that $250 billion of illegal sports wagers disappear. It's still going to occur.
As a trend, the approach to legalize poker and other games of skill, then move to legalize other traditional casino games and slots makes sense. Don't make too much of a change at one time. Start with these games, learn how the regulatory structure responds, improve the process and then consider expanding the available games. Ultimately, people should be able to spend their money for the entertainment they desire, as long as it doesn't impact others. The US the last I checked was supposed to still be a free country, with a constitution that recognized the people's God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Should regulations be instituted to keep minors from wagering? Absolutely. Should programs be in place to help problem gamblers? Sure. Reputable online gambling firms in other countries have been doing this for years. There isn't a reason that the same kind of protections wouldn't be effective here. There has been online wagering on horse racing in the US for almost 10 years and they don't seem to have an issue with gambling from minors or from problem gamblers.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Tribal Gaming Is Good, But Not Invulnerable
The Kitsap (WA) Sun had a story back on September 28th that reported on the closing of the inaccurately named Lucky Dog Casino, owned by the Skokomish Tribe. It wasn't a large property, but even the modest employee base of 120 people losing their jobs is very sad. The casino management is stating the closure is just for the winter, but with the economy in its current state, there are no guarantees for next spring.
Management is pointing to the economy as the key driver of the closure. The general manager is quoted as saying, "people who used to come in three times a week were coming in three times a month." That's a very telling indicator regarding slowing patronage. With their winter slow season approaching, that was the final straw to move to close.
Not all tribal casinos in the state are doing that poorly. Net revenue for 2008 was $2.11 billion vs. $1.96 billion in 2007, according to state gambling commission records. It is possible the Lucky Dog may have had issues other than just the economy.
The story further reports that certain gaming products, such as lottery, are holding up well in the economy. Other products, like bingo and card rooms, are suffering. This recession is putting to rest the notion that gaming is a recession-proof industry.
Management is pointing to the economy as the key driver of the closure. The general manager is quoted as saying, "people who used to come in three times a week were coming in three times a month." That's a very telling indicator regarding slowing patronage. With their winter slow season approaching, that was the final straw to move to close.
Not all tribal casinos in the state are doing that poorly. Net revenue for 2008 was $2.11 billion vs. $1.96 billion in 2007, according to state gambling commission records. It is possible the Lucky Dog may have had issues other than just the economy.
The story further reports that certain gaming products, such as lottery, are holding up well in the economy. Other products, like bingo and card rooms, are suffering. This recession is putting to rest the notion that gaming is a recession-proof industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
