Betting Against Online Gambling

conq writes "BusinessWeek.com has an article looking at the possible consequences if anti-gambling legislation is passed. From the article: 'Just how much of a setback is the proposed legislation for the $12 billion industry? While online gambling companies generate half their sales from U.S. gamblers, the industry is operated almost completely by companies beyond the reach of U.S. regulators. [...] It's a lot of smoke and mirrors and misstatements.'"

Sure is a good thing...

[Atario]

...that there's nothing else important going on the country or the world, so Congress can address the dire scourge of online gambling.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[KiloByte]

But gambling is against the scripture, while depriving citizens of their freedoms isn't.

It will have little effect long term...

[spagetti_code]

FTFA:

encourages financial institutions to deny Internet gambling transactions

So the gambling sites will move offshore. The banks and credit card companies will not want to lose that massive
source of transactions, and will find a way to continue those transactions. There is no explicit restriction on them.

There's too much money at stake here.

Re:Coming from a gambling addict....

[Anonymous Coward]

I know exactly how you feel. As an IT equipment addict, I've spent a fortune on new hard drives, new monitors, CPUs' RAM etc. in the past year alone. When they've finished with gambling hopefullt they'll ban IT sales next. Oh, and then everything else. Won't someone please think of the consumers?

See also . . .

[bblboy54]

See also: Prohibition [wikipedia.org].

Congress wants the money

[eebra82]

The way I see it, the congress is worried about the billions of Dollars that's sipping out of the country. Online gambling will always be there, so if we don't want all the money to end up in hands of tropical islands, why not just vote for legalizing this industry instead?

I doubt the republicans are doing this to "save us" from the evilness of gambling. After all, the vast majority of all Americans gamble responsively. Blaming the industry too much would be like blaming television for murderers becoming who they are (read: artificial violence). If people have a problem with spending money, it will end up in pockets of other people no matter what, simply because gambling is only one way to canal it.

So once again, my point is, the US authorities should look at options of keeping as much of the industry within the US as possible instead of messing with peoples' habits and hobbies.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[MyLongNickName]

I, for one, like gambling along with the lottery. It is a tax on folks who cannot do math.

Re:Coming from a gambling addict....

[gowen]

Coming from a non-gambling addict: Are you seriously suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to gamble because you can't handle it?

Gambling is not chemically addictive. Its time for you to take some personal responibility for your lifestyle choices.

take a piece

[duffbeer]

Folks, one hell of a lot of people like playing poker and gambling on the internet. Unfortunately, the rake from those games is ALL going offshore. Take note that this bill made it through the house but is not going to be matched in the senate.

This is just a warm-up. Legalizing online gambling so the feds and US corps can get their cut is the real goal. Ask yourself: why aren't the major US gaming corporations being extremely vocal on this issue?

Once again, The Right brings up an issue to legislate on moral grounds (gaining votes) only to collect behind the scenes (gaining $$$) when they later fulfill the interests of the corporations.

Re:Coming from a gambling addict....

[walnutmon]

Don't know how much poker you have been playing lately, but unless you are playing 1/2 cent games, I don't think it's accurate to say that people who play poker online are weaker than those in casinos.

Poker players in casinos are generally far worse than those that are commonly found online, not to mention, you can actually SEE how bad many of them are.

The advantage isn't that you make more money per hand online, it is that you can make a small advantage into a lot of money because you have the ability to play many more hands.

I know i'm kind of nit picking, but your post just stood out to me as not exactly helping any cause. If you want people to be behind gambling, you don't generally say... Gambling is good because you are all idiots and I can take your money, HAHA!

Hell, I don't even like online gambling now, poker players are pricks! :P

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[Vellmont]

You assume there's no value in a lottery ticket beyond the actual payoff. Sorry, but you're wrong. What people are buying is the CHANCE at winning the lottery. It's a fantasy of being able to do whatever they like for the very low price of $1 or a pound. Many people judge the value of that fantasy as being worth far more than the cost of a lottery ticket. It's not about being "bad at math" as you say, but about mentally ignoring the overwhelming odds that you're not going to win, if only for a little while. That doesn't mean you don't know you're extremely unlikely to win, you just don't think about that so you can enjoy the fantasy. I don't play the lottery because I can't easily ignore the fact that I'm not going to win. Other people can do that, and as the poster pointed out it's a trivial amount of money to buy a lottery ticket. You're not really hurting yourself as what else of more value can you really spend $1 on?

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[MyLongNickName]

You're not really hurting yourself as what else of more value can you really spend $1 on?

I responded to another part of your comment that I agreed with. This one, however, I do not agree with. Consider a 6% return on investment AFTER inflation (you'll find this is very conservative for the stock market, and not much above historical money market rates. Consider most people will spend more than 40 years in the work force.

At 6% interest (plus inflation), over 40 years, this $1/week will grow to $8,673. A $2,080 investment will pay itself off 4 times over. If you take a historical stock market average of 9% plus inflation, this jumps to $20,500+. This calculation also does not take into account that putting money into a tax deferred account effectively increases the money proportionate to your tax rate.

Bottom line: if you want to get rich, you can. As you can see, if one is willing to get rich slow, it doesn't take a lot. Unfortunately, the saying we have in the financial industry is true: "The rich man plans for the next generation. The poor man plans for Friday night."

I am not saying there is anything heinous about playing the lottery. If, however, a person is not planning for the long term in a more realistic manner first, then, yes, there is something wrong with that.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[drsquare]

At 6% interest (plus inflation), over 40 years, this $1/week will grow to $8,673. A $2,080 investment will pay itself off 4 times over.

You'll be lucky to get 6% interest. 5% is the usual amount, which is 4% after tax. Take away inflation and you're not left with much. Anyway eight grand over forty years is absolutely nothing. Expecially compared to the millions you could win on the lottery.

Unfortunately, the saying we have in the financial industry is true: "The rich man plans for the next generation. The poor man plans for Friday night."

Of course, major shareholders and CEOs are always looking forty years in advance, not just until the next quarter until they can sell out and screw everyone else over.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[Vellmont]

I'll trust your math is right (though I take issue with getting a steady 6% over such a long period of time), but there's still an implicit assumption that there's something wrong with buying fantasy in your argument. You can make the exact same argument for buying anything. Why buy that cup of coffee on the weekend when you could invest the money? Don't spend an extra 20 cents on the quality tomatoes that taste better and you'll enjoy more because you could invest it and make more money in 40 years.

What's so different about spending $1 a week on a lottery ticket than buying a beer every so often? You don't need either of them to survive. But for the people who enjoy beer or the lottery, it's worth the very small amount of money. Obviously it's a good idea to save money for so many reasons I can't list. But if you're not spending money to enjoy yourself I think you're going to be a pretty miserable person.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[Vellmont]

However, if the fantasy value of winning is what you consider entertainment, then I'd suggest that the person either cannot do math, or they are able to delude themselves. I am not a fan of either possibility.


Have you ever been to a movie and "deluded" yourself into caring about the characters? You know it's not real, but it's fun nonetheless. I don't see much difference between that and the lottery. It is possible to keep two opposing ideas in your head at the same time, but still know which one is real. The problem only comes when people can't distinguish between the fantasy and reality.

Re:Not against Scripture

[bnenning]

Sometimes people with excellent math ability can win consistently at games like BlackJack. In my opinion, this is wrong also.

That's just silly. A successful blackjack card counter is following the rules of the game, and coming out ahead by making correct decisions. You might as well say that it's "wrong" to pay off your credit card every month because Mastercard wants to collect interest on the balance.

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[NightRain]

When you make conscious decisions like this, it is amazaing how your habits change. I have a few perks that I "can't do without"

So exactly why are you doing without? Why are you living without these perks? So that you can increase your wealth? But what is the point of said wealth? At some point, the only reason you've increased your wealth is so that you can enjoy spending it on some perk or another. No one saves money for its own sake, it's always about increasing your standard of living, and that is, in the end, just a collection of perks

Re:Sure is a good thing...

[drsquare]

The stock market's also a massive gamble. And from the earnings you have to take into account the time spent working out what shares to buy and when to sell them, it's not as simple as filling in a few lottery numbers.