Is Regulation for Online Gambling Imminent?

[Rogthedodger]

From the original Online Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997 introduced by Jon Kyl to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which became law in October of this year, a common reason was given in those bills for requiring the ban on internet gambling: the fact that it was impossible to regulate the industry. While most people involved in the industry didn't believe this was the real reason the United States wanted online gambling banned and still don't today, the legislation nevertheless clearly outlined that, in the eyes of the U.S. government, the internet could not be regulated and hence the only option was to ban online gambling in the United States. Because many in congress didn't understand how the internet worked and really didn't want to learn the intricacies of it, they decided instead to label the internet as some sort of "black hole" where evil prevails and cannot be regulated. Essentially the arguments were that there is no way to determine if a game is being run honestly online since everything is virtual, so the player is at the mercy of the operator. As well, they argued that because the gambling operations were located offshore there was no way to ensure that winnings would be credited and in such a case gamblers have no recourse if the business doesn't pay up. Furthermore, they said they were concerned that minors could bet online and they were also concerned that problem gamblers could continue betting without any parameters set on them.

Of course all these things could, and do, happen at brick and mortar casinos, but the thinking in that regard is that if nothing else, the governments and or police could shut down physical casinos and sportsbooks who are not operating according to the law, while online entities were out of their control. A few industry insiders tried to refute these arguments, and even offered up some methods by which the industry could be regulated. But the U.S. government was set in its belief and nothing could change its mind. In fact, the U.S. turned down opportunities to discuss the topic of regulating internet gambling because it believed there was nothing to talk about.

While the U.S. stance seemed a bit staunch, if naïve, there were other jurisdictions following suit. Australia, which was the first to regulate online gambling, changed its tune in the last few years as a result of the number of Australian problem gamblers and Prime Minister Howard's dislike of gambling. The country decided to make all online gambling illegal with the exception of sportsbetting and lotteries, which the government contended weren't traditional gambling. They were more concerned about games of chance like slots and roulette. Canada seemed to be moving in the U.S.'s direction of prohibiting online gambling by law, even though a large number of internet betting software companies and gambling operations themselves were located in the country; and in the European Union, Italy, Germany and Spain looked ready to make online gambling illegal also. Even the United Kingdom, where gambling is king, seemed a bit concerned about the area of online gambling due to the concern over regulation and the fact that so many casinos and sports operators were setting up offshore in Malta, Gibraltar and the Isle of Man.

But in October things changed. The United States passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and in the process drove away businesses that catered to the U.S. market and wiped billions off the value of stock exchanges worldwide. More importantly, it made other countries take a second look at the whole area of regulation. After all, if the United States is so vastly opposed to the idea, then maybe there is merit to the whole area. While George Bush contends the war in Iraq is justified, few countries are convinced and the fabricated evidence the U.S. presented to the U.N. relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have badly hurt the United State's credibility worldwide. This is particularly true in Britain where Tony Blair's government has taken a beating in Britain for supporting the war.

Besides that, there has been some concern worldwide and particularly in Europe that prohibition could lead to new types of speakeasies which would drive online gambling underground to websites and into the control of criminals as happened with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s. For example, now that so many have had a taste of online poker, if they can no longer do it online, they will set up places onshore to do it and outside of the government's reach. The British government, therefore, decided to hold a conference in early November in Europe to discuss the whole area of internet gambling regulation, since as Anthony Wright, a spokesperson for Tessa Jowell, the secretary for culture, media and sport in Britain, stated: "We believe that tough regulation is a better approach than a free-for-all or prohibition. We will be looking to secure agreement to the principles for international standards of regulation." To prove this point, Britain recently announced plans to give incentives for companies located offshore to move their operations into Britain in exchange for lower taxes than the government currently asks for, which is 15% of gross profit. Doing so, Britain felt, was essential to leading the way to gambling regulation online.

The conference was held in London, and most of the free world attended, with a notable exception being the United States, which declined, stating there was nothing to discuss. While the conclusions of the conference have still not been finalized, some findings were released and it has become clear that the internet can indeed be regulated at least to some degree. In fact, Italy, which in February of 2006 was set to make internet gambling illegal by forcing ISPs to block gambling sites, did an about face and in October declared that it is going to legalize online gambling that is not pure luck based as of January 1, 2007. The legislation in Italy deregulates all "ability based and fixed betting activities", which includes poker, sports betting, bingo and any such games that are not based solely on chance. In turn, Italy gets 3% of any gaming based revenues that are bet at Italian IPs, and consequently Italy has handed out 17,000 online licenses to operate from their country.

Spain followed suit with some conditions, issuing a fixed license fee and a limited number of licenses themselves. However, the license owners are free to open unlimited numbers of online gambling websites. Many other European countries are looking at the area of regulation, and in fact may be forced to allow online companies as part of the EU pact. The only European holdout at this point is Germany, who in October was ready to pass an outright ban on all non state sponsored gambling in an attempt to protect their monopoly on lotteries and sports betting. In December, however, the country postponed their decision pending more information relating to regulation. It's quite ironic that Germany now seems to be the one real European ally for the United States in its fight to ban online gambling.

But it is not just in Europe that online gambling regulation is being looked in to. Tessa Jowell has approached the Canadian government and urged it to fall in line with Britain in the area of online gambling regulation. Canada's stance has always been that online gambling is illegal in the country because only state run gambling is legal and sports betting is illegal under federal statutes. But unlike the United States, the country has never really sought to prosecute anyone for "breaking the law" in this regard, and for good reason. Currently, there are 2,300 gambling websites being run worldwide. 537 of the sites are located in Antigua and Barbuda, 474 are located in Costa Rica and 400 are located on the Indian Reserve of Kahnawake located outside of Montreal, many with close ties to Microgaming which is highly regarded in Canada. Furthermore, Cryptologic and other gambling software developers are located in Canada and provide a great many jobs in the country and tax revenue for the Mohawk Indian reserve in Kahanwake.

But there is another incentive to make online gambling legal in Canada - tax incentives. The current Canadian government in power, the Conservatives of Stephen Harper, has always run on the premise that it is an "anti-tax" government. It feels that Canadians are badly overtaxed and it would try to avoid raising personal income taxes at any cost. In fact. it would be a big benefit to the government if it could decrease them. At the same time, the government needs tax revenue for better health and education, which are key components to the Conservatives getting re-elected - not to mention the Conservatives' promise to spend more money on the Canadian military. Since so many companies are already located in Kahanwake, the government could offer enticements similar to Britain and Italy which would convince some of those companies to move into Canada proper and pay provincial and federal taxes in the form of a gross profit tax like Britain has, or a fixed fee like Spain has implemented, rather than what they are currently doing: a fee to the Indian groups. These companies are already in Canada, so why shouldn't the federal government and provinces benefit from that? Furthermore, many companies currently located in Antigua, Costa Rica and similar countries would be thrilled to move their operations to a more stable technical environment like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver if they weren't worried about being prosecuted.

At the current time, it doesn't seem likely that Canada will follow suit, but it could happen in the future. As well, it should be noted that the Conservatives currently have a minority government, but are second in the polls to the Liberals who are led by recently elected Stephane Dion, and the next election likely isn't far off. And while Harper has tried to develop close ties to the United States government, who no doubt is urging Ottawa not to follow the lead of Britain or Italy, the Liberal government has actually scored points in Canada throughout the last decade by opposing U.S. policies. In fact, in a recent poll on what policies Jean Chretien will be most fondly remembered for, the majority of Canadians who answered the poll stated it was his decision not to take Canada into the war in Iraq and defying George Bush. Thus, if Stephane Dion ran on this "anti American" campaign in the next election, it could help him get elected. And allowing gambling websites to operate legally in Canada would be a gigantic step in this direction.

So what exactly is entailed in this regulatory framework? Here are some things that are known for sure, based on prior discussions related to the topic in Britain:

1) Move the sites inland. The reasoning here is that if the sites are located in the country proper, rather than offshore, they can be monitored and audited by government appointed officials. Moreso than brick and mortar casinos, regulatory officials can go into the offices of the online operators and ensure they are following guidelines mandated relating to underage betting, problem gambling and the fairness of games. While games of chance are tough to monitor, and hence many countries seem to be opposed to making those legal, software does exist to monitor sports, poker and games of chance to conclude if the games are truly random and the gamblers online are who they say they are when they sign up. As well, it ensures that the operations have money in escrow to pay all post up money.

2) Address the issue of underage betting and problem gambling. While underage betting presents some obstacles online, there are methods to ensure that underage people are greatly hindered from signing up and betting. At a brick and mortar casino, a young person can easily present a fake ID and walk in without much problem. Online, there are more options available to the operator who can try and be more certain that the ID is real and the person is the age they say they are. Of course a big disincentive for young people online is the requirement to set up larger deposits, and also the need to send in things like utility bills in their name. Unlike a driver's license, it's hard to fake a telephone bill, particularly if the operator is able to follow up to ensure the bill is authentic (which would be a great regulatory requirement).

But where the internet really has is advantages is in the area of problem gambling. While it is impossible for a casino to really monitor an individual's gambling patterns unless they sign up for a rewards card and use it constantly, online a person's activity can be monitored and if they display patterns of problem gambling the person can be banned from further betting. As well, the person has the option of self exclusion which exists at some casinos online now. In Las Vegas, recently a man won a large amount of money but had to forfeit the winnings to charity when it was discovered he was on the self exclusion list. The program worked, in that the man didn't get his winnings, but it failed because the man was able to bet in the first place. Online, any person who places himself on such a list can have their IP blocked from accessing the site, as well as disallowing any credit or debit card transactions, addresses, etc. if the online database shows the person to be the same as the one on the list. Consequently, it is far more effective than any ban a brick and mortar casino can put in place.

3) Ensure all money is post up. Totally disallowing credit betting (credit cards excluded) and having set limits on the amount that can be deposited under certain circumstances like credit cards helps ensure the person really has the money to gamble.

It seems very likely that regulated internet wagering is not far off for most of the free world. Will the United States be one of the only countries on the outside looking in? If so, will Brick and Mortar casinos in the United States be willing to go along with a ban when they can be regulated online and increase their revenues and profit share? Will the new United States President be willing to continue a ban that could give it a lot of new tax revenue without raising taxes, especially if most of the free world is operating successfully in a regulated industry? Within the next few years we should know for sure.

12-18-06
Hartley Henderson
MajorWager.com
henderson@majorwager.com

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-348.html

[jimmy the greek]

Gotta like australia deciding to leave sports betting alone, more countries need to follow suit

[Boddie]

I don't think we will see US regulation anytime soon. More importantly, the bettors would hate regulation. Bettors would have like three shops to choose from.

[buddyboy]

Gambling online is already regulated in the USA.

BetHarness.com

Open to US residents only.

[Onasoapbox]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jimmy the greek

Gotta like australia deciding to leave sports betting alone, more countries need to follow suit</end quote></div>

Educate me about Australia's law (s).

Is it a hodge-podge or confusion there or clear one way or the other? Do they have states where in one place it's ok-doaky but in the next town or city it's a Huge NO_NO?

I would really like to know as am sick as can be trying to figure out what the deal is here is the US.

[Hartley]

&gt;&gt;betharness.com&lt;&lt;

Exemption was made for horse racing, lotteries and fantasy sports in the law. Obviously we're most concerned with sports betting and poker (possibly casino games also).

[Hartley]

soapbox I found this for you

The history of gambling in Australia is generally one of a liberal approach taken by the Australian government with a generally upward trend of gambling participation and gambling revenue from which the government has benefited. Modern historical trends of Australian gambling law has been of general legalisation and control by the government. Privately owned soccer pools, loosely based on the British game, were introduced during the 1970s. Two-up was legalised for the first time in 1973 when Australia's first casino opened in Hobart, Tasmania. Casinos and gambling machines were introduced in the 1980's. Also in the 1980's, sportsbetting - which had always been the Australian's favorite form of gambling - was finally officially legalized, and in the 1990's Internet sportsbetting was legalised, first in NT and soon after in all Australian states and territories.

So, in general the Australian government's approach to gambling has been one of acceptance and eventual legalization and taxation, and gambling in Australia has become an ever-increasing source of revenue for their government. The only ever negative legislation has been to protect the government's interests, such as legislation in the fifties and sixties to clamp down on illegal (untaxed) off-course sports betting. Australians for their entire history have been enthusiastic gamblers and the government appears to have accepted the fact, and their only concern appears to have been that as much of the gambling as possible should be government controlled and taxed. That is not to say that there has been general agreement across the population to this approach, or that there has been no debate (of which there has been plenty), or that the Australian government has not been constantly aware of the societal implications of gambling within its national borders. However, until recently, the Australian government's approach to gambling appears to have been unwaveringly liberal. Boys will be boys - and in the modern era of female independence, Sheilas too - and Australian law appears in general to be more concerned about what goes in and out of Australia than what goes on inside.

On this historical backdrop of liberalism in the context of government control, the recent legislation pertaining to online gambling strikes one at first site as not a little incongruous. The Federal Interactive Gambling Act of 2001 (IGA), more recently fully implemented, makes illegal the provision of interactive games (namely, but not exclusively, Internet casinos) to Australians. This anti-online gambling legislation is different from recent US legislation in that it seeks only to prosecute the provider of the online casino, not the player. Also, although the legislation includes online casino outfits worldwide, only those inside Australia fall into Australian federal jurisdiction. So in practice, the IGA does nothing but prohibit Australian online casinos from knowingly accepting online bets from anyone physically inside Australia. It is therefore specifically legal for people in Australia to use offshore online casino websites to gamble (nor can they be prosecuted for using Australian online casinos) and Australian online casinos can in practice offer their services to anyone not physically located in Australia. Inevitably, users will increasingly prefer to play non-Australian online casinos, and this is borne out by a year-long survey of Internet gamblers conducted by the Australian Casino Association (ACA) in 2003 which found that 40% of Australian Internet bettors used offshore gambling sites.

This then really leaves only the question as to why bother at all? What are the motives of the Australian government in passing such legislation? The official line is that of concern that the Australian's natural tendency to gamble may get out of hand, with living room casinos on hand 24-7. And that the anti-online gambling legislation is intended as a warning call about the dangers of online casinos. Maybe so, and certainly the legislation is nothing more than a political gesture at best. Our opinion is that the gesture is more likely intended for the Americans, to show a token support for US federal anti-online gambling efforts, and certainly the US government is watching the Australian experiment closely for signs of success or failure.

Perhaps, after all, this new Australian gambling legislation is not entirely out of character with the Australian government's approach to gambling. They have always wanted to control and profit from the gambling of their citizens and there seems an acceptance that this is not going to be possible in the case of online casinos. In this case, it seems sensible therefore to discourage Australians from participating as players without discouraging Australians from profitting from the online gambling of non-Australians. The fact that the law seeks to prosecute providers rather than players also suggests that the Australian government would prefer for an online casino gambler to be playing on an Australian site than an offshore site, even though the effect is of driving online gamblers away from Australian sites.

[Hartley]

I don't think we will see US regulation anytime soon. More importantly, the bettors would hate regulation. Bettors would have like three shops to choose from.

Boddie I disagree. If the industry was ever regulated in the United States, they would have no recourse against Antigua, Canada etc. if they wanted to cater to the U.S. market provided casinos and sportsbooks in those countries adopted the same regulatory format. What will happen is that the likes of Harrah's, Casear's Palace etc. would cater to a lot of Americans while the ones in Antigua, Costa Rica, Canada, Europe etc. would be able to offer their products to the U.S. as well without fear of prosecution. The WTA has already ruled that the U.S. is obligated to allow its citizens to be allowed to place bets in Antigua. The U.S. government just doesn't care and are falling on this moral ground that online gambling goes against thier morals which of course is ridiculous. If the U.S. decided to regulate and legalize online gambling then they could no longer use this as reasoning for banning other countries. What would likely happen in that case is that places like Betfair, William Hill, TheGreek etc. would be enticed to set up in America and pay the tax there rather than operating offshore. After all if you can no longer state that offshore online wagering is immoral and illegal you may as well take money from them in the United States.

So IMO, if it was deregulated the number of shops available to Americans would be vast.

[Onasoapbox]

Thanks Harley


Any chance there is someone here from Australia?
I'm your typical ignorant American that knows next to nothing about Australia. I apologize for that.

[Onasoapbox]

I truly believ that the USA is the single (of the major powers) most corrupt country in the world. That said--it's citizens on a whole are good hearted folks (for the most part) and it's a shame !

[Hartley]

I truly believ that the USA is the single (of the major powers) most corrupt country in the world. That said--it's citizens on a whole are good hearted folks (for the most part) and it's a shame !

I think you can say that for a lot of countries. Citizens are generally good, honest hard working people. But power corrupts - no reflection on the residents themselves.

[Onasoapbox]

I hear ya Hartley. I think more and more today as I grow older and see the horizons from a new perspective; that (and it's a shame no doubt of that); Americans (again for the most part) have become more of a selfish nation. Look at the tax structure. It's a case of hocus-pocus ; while we proclaim to LOVE freedom, the greatest COMMUNIST country on EARTH (CHINA) is fully supported by the US government. When I say Fullu supported-- check with Walmart---and I like Walmart!!


Our borders have become a political toy---with Mexico. Good Bad or Indifferent--I'm sick of it. Don't misread my sickness--it's once again the corruptness (double standard) of it al.

The single greatest reason the US of America is hated today (amoung the terrorist) is because of a double standard. The wealthy have one standard those not so are held to a different one. Overstated? Maybe. But one Nation under God--should have one set of laws under the same!
That's my question about Australia.

[stevo]

So IMO, if it was deregulated the number of shops available to Americans would be vast.

I agree with that and I definately would prefer regulation compared to what we have now. Ask me before the poker boom and maybe I dont favor it but I definately do now.

[Boddie]

HH and Stevo,

Who do you think would still be around (of the current US offshore books) if every US citizen could log into their MGM account and get down?

I'll start this one out. The likes of CRIS, Greek, and any other -110 shop would fold up. Hell, they are on thin ice with post up as it sits now. Then that leaves you reduced shops/exchanges, and depending on how competitive the "new mega regulated books" want to get with juice amongst each other in the mad scramble for this new market share, a Pinny might make it for a while? Pinny would probably fold if it did not come stateside quickly and join the bunch in regulation. Pinny would also be forcibly introduced to new and VERY expensive advertising that it has never had to deal with, and oh....let's not forget about those new taxes that the US will come knocking for. All of a sudden these factors have our attention if were a shop offering reduced juice. Then I imagine all the "new mega regulated books" would soon scramble to develop their own exchanges and the rest will just play out...ect..ect...

Also, for those of you who think Pinny has no "chinks in the armour", who would they bet out with now if they in fact do this as many speculate in their operating model? Perhaps a "symbiotic lifecycle" would be disrupted here???No my friends, regulation would be the beginning of the end for any shop sitting offshore. I'm sure even Calvin would receive an offer he couldn't refuse.

Nice topic. Thanks

[stevo]

Yes, Great topic and with football starting and BB halftimes coming up I don't want to rush my opinion. Will revisit tomorrow.[img]i/expressions/beer.gif[/img]

[Onasoapbox]

REGULATION
In and of itself==creates a WHOLE different Market.


That's what most don't understand.



Let's suppose Warren Buffet and Bill Gates bought a Pro Football Team.

A. Rules keep their buying power in placce

If A is Invalid---Then the US government is totally invalid as we know it.

The entire thing is nothing is nothing BUT a DOUBLE Standard.

[blogguy]

Have you guys heard about that Nigerian email scam? It's been on the news a lot lately. And, many of you may have received emails that tried to lure you in. In a nutshell, the scammers tell you that you have a lot of money coming to you. Before receiving it, you have to send a payment or two (or more) to some places to cover fees and otherwise expedite the process.

It's a scam. There's no money coming to you. The scammers pocket the money of anyone lured into the loop.

Should a government try to protect its citizens from something like that? Is that something where you say to yourself "man, there ought to be law" so more people don't get burnt? Or, should a democracy and a free society allow for scams to happen in the interest of protecting the privacy of its people? Whatever you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business. If that involves succumbing to scams, so be it. It's your own darn fault for being so gullible in the first place.

What if it's not you who falls for the scam, but your mother? Or another elderly person close to your family? They trust people. They're not as familiar with the internet as you are. If they get an official looking email that comes from a foreign government, it doesn't occur to them that it's a scam. They get lured in. Before it's too late, they've lost money they couldn't afford to lose because they thought a big pay day was coming their way.

The government may not need to protect you, because you're too smart. Should they protect people who aren't as smart as you? Or are more trusting of strangers? Is it the role of lawmakers to create laws that protect its citizens from scammers?

If you're trying to protect vulnerable people from scams, does it matter that the scams originate in another country? Are you thinking, "if somebody from Illinois was scamming my mother, I'd be furious. But, since the emails originated in Nigeria, I'm okay with that. We don't have jurisdiction in Nigeria. If it's legal in Nigeria to scam citizens from other countries, I gladly support that nation's rights to choose its own laws. Heck, thousands of jobs may be lost, and Nigerian companies may lose their stock value if the US starts cracking down on these email scammers."

Internet roulette is a scam.

You can't possibly beat the game. It's programmed to beat you. Live roulette is also a scam. It's only legal in Nevada, Atlantic City, Indian casinos, and on riverboat casinos. We are not a nation that's embraced roulette as a wonderful pastime. It's illegal in the vast majority of the country.

Internet blackjack is a scam. Same thing. There are no strategies that work long term if you're hoping to come out a winner. The longer you play, the more certain it is that you will be a loser. There are methods that can be used in live blackjack to garner an edge. Land based casinos continue to develop their own strategies for taking away those edges from the small percentage of players who are good enough to earn them.

There's not that big a difference between Nigerians scamming the vulnerable, and casinos scamming the vulnerable. You don't have to be a religious extremist, or a busy body government official who's too "naive" to understand how the internet "really" works to think that protecting the vulnerable from getting scammed is an acceptable role for a nation's government.

When governments or concerned citizens get involved in these issues, they're not necessarily looking to deny you your right to have fun. They're looking to keep scammers from profiting at the expense of people who don't know any better.

If Major Wager wants to be a voice of reason in the debate...a voice that gets picked up by mainstream media outlets looking to hear the pro-gambling side of the argument, it can't keep treating anti-gambling people as religious zealots who are trying to jam God down everybody's throats, or as naïve knuckleheads who don't understand how the internet works. There are reasonable reasons to oppose gambling in a society. There are EXTREMELY reasonable reasons to oppose gambling when much of the industry is a scam designed to separate the vulnerable from their money.

The critical mass of opposition is not from extremists anyway. It's from soccer moms and soccer dads who are trying to create a good life for their families. It's not in their nature to force their views on everyone else. But, if their government decides to ENDORSE gambling as acceptable behavior, they're not going to sit quietly by. To them, it's the same as endorsing scammers. Democracies are governments of the people...and a significant percentage of people oppose having gambling in their communities.

Is sports betting a scam? We can make a very good case that it isn't. If we want it legalized, we've GOT to make a very good case that it isn't. It is possible to come out a winner in this endeavor if you play properly. The problem is, most people don't have the skills to do that. In actual practice, it's basically the same as roulette or blackjack in the casino's. That's why sportsbooks exist. The vulnerable go in thinking they can win, but they don't have a full understanding of how each sport has influences that turn any game into a roulette wheel, or how the vigorish takes its toll on the wagering.

And it certainly doesn't help when the public finds out that sportsbooks do what they can to discourage sharp money, while encouraging square money. It just sounds like exploitation of the vulnerable again. The companies are saying "let's find some stupid people and take their money."

What about poker? It's definitely a game that combines skill and luck, and the skillful are able to win money over time. There are countless skilled poker players we all could point to who have made a living at the tables. The problem is, they're doing that at the expense of unskilled players. The industry needs a continuing influx of bad players to keep the money moving around. Someone who's opposed to gambling isn't going to see that big a difference. It's all the same to them, whether they've got a loved one or friend of a family who lost a lot of money playing blackjack, playing poker against pro's, or betting on sports...it's all vulnerable people being taken in by a chance to get rich. (Oh, the occasional thread here talking about how online poker is obviously rigged can't be helping this side of the debate very much either. That's all critics of online gaming need to hear!).

Regulation is just around the corner? How do you regulate the Nigerian scam? You're going to give out licenses to scam? Critics could argue that's what was done in Vegas and Atlantic City. Major Wager is a site that's naturally very much in favor of gambling. The people here largely enjoy the challenge, and the lifestyle. Much of the country doesn't. Much of the country sees it all as one big scam. If you're going to get the national government involved in legalizing and regulating internet gambling, you're going to have to convince the critical mass that its not.

We're talking about soccer moms who can smell a rat from a mile away...and an industry which contains some rats you can smell from two miles away.

I don't see how MW can endorse the general term "online gaming" when online roulette and blackjack are obviously scams. What's wrong with being opposed to games that can't possibly be won, and only being in favor of games where the player has a chance?

I don't see why MW keeps focusing on a handful of people in the government when an anti-gambling mentality is present in communities all over the country.

I don't see why MW keeps focusing on what's "legal" in outside jurisdictions as a defense when the Nigerian scam and online blackjack or roulette are obviously designed to rob people. Creative marketers come up with ways to rob people over the internet, and it's okay as long as they're based in Antigua or Costa Rica? You think that's going to fly with a soccer mom?

If MW is going to have a voice in the mainstream media...and the mainstream media sells its product to soccer moms, this site is going to have to develop arguments that acknowledge the downsides of the industry...then show how the downsides can be eliminated with legalization and regulation. That may mean only legalizing poker, because the sites collect a rake rather than trying themselves to beat their customers, or mean legalizing just poker and sports betting...because it is possible to win those games using skill and judgment.
The basic premise that "the US government is too religious or too stupid" isn't going to advance the discussion anywhere. Soccer moms don't care what's happening in Europe. They care what's happening in their neighborhood, and in their computer rooms.

Write a letter to a soccer mom and make the case...

[buddyboy]

the reason I brought up betharness.com is to show that I dissagree with your statement, <div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>a common reason was given in those bills for requiring the ban on internet gambling: the fact that it was impossible to regulate the industry. </end quote></div>

the common reason they wanted to ban it was that gambling was getting out of control and needed tamed down.

and how did gamblers combat this argument? By agreeing that gambling is already everywhere, but saying that it's ok.

in hindsight I am amazed it took so long for congress to pass the bill.

[Hartley]

buddy we all know the reason they passed the bill, but every rendition of the anti online gambling bill stated that online gambling can't be regulated, hence the legislation.

What the article was trying to suggest is that the Americans may end up with egg on their face if the industry does become regulated worldwide and they essentially have to admit that the reasons kyl, leach, goodlatte and frist gave for the bill - i.e. it can't be regulated - was a lie.