Thanks for the lengthy response Hartley.
Let me first apologize for looking like I was putting words in Hartley's mouth. My listing was kind of a summation of all sorts of discussions I've been in here at the site...some with Hartley and some with people who aren't writers for the site but still post their thoughts in these lively debates. It all gets lumped together when trying to summarize something...so characterizations that Count Zero made in prior posts, or others have made all run together in a summary like that. The side of the debate that's opposite of the side I'm on have all made those types of characterizations. That doesn't mean Hartley specificially said those things on the list. Please don't think those represents Hartley's specific opinions on these issues. I was summarizing what I've heard from the other side of the argument in various formats here at the website.
Hartley does a great job of speaking for himself. If I'm referring to something he said, I'll attribute it to him and put in in quotes or italics. As he does when specifically referring to something I said.
Hartley, to me, we've already had debates, so I'm not sure what having a new one will prove to anyone, lol. I think we agree on most things actually. I do disagree with many of your characterizations of the anti-gambling side. And, I don't see how this site is going to make a contribution to the future of the online gambling with those characterizations. I've already made the key points I believe our important in this current article earlier in this thread obviously.
As you write your articles "refuting" the arguments, I'll hope you'll consider researching or pointing out:
1) the software available in the industry that has a much worse payback rate in blackjack, roulette, slots, video poker, and other games that are played in land based casinos. The odds are already against the player in those games in casinos. The reports I've seen from software providers make it clear that online casino's have worse paybacks. They are "rigged" to take people's money faster than brick and mortar casino's are. And, be sure to mention that the national government is opposed to brick and mortar casino's too. Individual states bucked the national laws against gambling to create their own windows of play.
2) You can mention that blogguy knows a minor who's been winning sit-and-go's since he was 12 years old.
3) dont' know that we'll disagree here
4) that it's been known within the offshore industry since its inception that organized crime was backing or connected to some sites. Don't say the government has no proof. Interview people in the industry (though many probably won't be willing to talk on the record) to find out the full scope. This is something that's talked about all the time amongst guys shooting the breeze. I'm just on the fringes of the sports handicapping industry...but I knew about it at the time, and I've heard stuff ever since. This is not a secret. It may not be something you've come across in your time in the industry. You may not have come across the alleged connections between the British men arrested and British mobsters either. Maybe some research of British publications could clarify that. You may not find people who want to talk about this obviously (the offshore stuff). It's not something people want to discuss unless they think you're they're buddy and you won't tell anyone.
5) Nobody said that online gambling presents the "biggest" threat to America for money laundering. And, again, terrorists shuttling money amongst each other is not money laundering. The "potential" danger from terrorists does not come from money laundering. Please make that clear in your article. Perhaps the guy you interviewed in this piece above could provide more specifics regarding why terrorist organizations might choose this "potential" route in the future.
And, as a general point...a lot of what I'm hearing from you and the Major is along the lines of the fact that the anti-gambling side isn't going after some other thing, so it's wrong that they're going after gambling. You said something about kids possibly using credit cards on ebay. Major said something about how Las Vegas casinos could be easily used.
The fact that the government isn't going after kids on ebay doesn't mean that the ease of kids gambling on line isn't a legitimate concern.
The fact that the government isn't invading Nevada because gambling exists there doesn't mean there can't be legitmate concerns about unregulated offshore places.
I'll buy that it's hypocritical. But the fact that it's hypocritical doesn't mean that the concerns about these other issues aren't legitmate concerns. We should be concerned about kids gambling on the internet regardless of what's possible on ebay. We should be concerned about BOTH. We should concerned about possibly money laundering or terrorist transfers at brick and mortar casinos. It's not a valid point in my opinion to say we shoudln't be concerned about unregulated offshore places because an individual state to allow casino gambling within its borders.
I haven't had a chance to do this already, so let me add in my thanks for all the hard work you did on the Neteller situation. I know that took a lot of legwork (getting the runaround always does!).
Like I said in my first post in the thread, I hope the website can come up with a centralized vision and plan of attack for making the case. This thread suggests we can't even agree on what's "obvious" lol.
Thanks again for devoting so much time and energy to the above post.  |