Internet gambling headed for a ban

[B.King]

Gambling ban passed and is headed to bush for a signature
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...ING.xml&WTmodLoc=InternetNewsHome_C1_[Feed]-2

 

[Ian]

Well let him approve of it...I know some people in the gambling industry will certainly be passed on the heat through horrendous loses! It's a pity that the politicians decide though I don't know whether every American is in favour of it or not!

 

[Bob]

The slimeballs attached the bill to Port Security legislation.

-Bob

 

[Leading Names]

It's funny how they have no issues with offline gambling, but online gambling is such a major concern to them.

What a bunch of cretins.

- Rob

 

[lyndonmaxewell]

Yea, the folks..

Anyway, correct me if i'm wrong, is it true for offline gambling, say in casinos, you can only bet and loss what you have at hand (chips, properties written on paper)
while for online gambling, it is easy to run up into debts easier because you are playing on credit, for instance credit cards?

Thus online gambling is more of a concern as you can play what you do not have?

 

[Leading Names]

Yea, the folks..

Anyway, correct me if i'm wrong, is it true for offline gambling, say in casinos, you can only bet and loss what you have at hand (chips, properties written on paper)
while for online gambling, it is easy to run up into debts easier because you are playing on credit, for instance credit cards?

Thus online gambling is more of a concern as you can play what you do not have?

I see your point but you'd think regulation would be the way to go, not a ban.

Bloody governments screwing stuff up as usual

- Rob

 

[RazorNF]

William Hill has decided to ban US users.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a7tCSVrOCCGw

Who knows how many more of your favourite poker sites will follow suit...

 

[fatter]

definately gonna be a big hit on online casinos as well as domain industry at large, washington post says 50 percent of online gambling revenue comes from USA, a lot of domainers will take a hit especialy ones who financed gambling names based on revenue

 

[ThisDot]

Yea, the folks..

Anyway, correct me if i'm wrong, is it true for offline gambling, say in casinos, you can only bet and loss what you have at hand (chips, properties written on paper)
while for online gambling, it is easy to run up into debts easier because you are playing on credit, for instance credit cards?

Thus online gambling is more of a concern as you can play what you do not have?

Also not true... you can get money from your credit card in casinos also.

 

[fatter]

the banking industry allready said they dont have the manpower to police individual accounts, i think they will force ISP's in US to block gambling sites. if that isnt in the law then i dont think it will work

 

[izoot]

Yea, the folks..

Anyway, correct me if i'm wrong, is it true for offline gambling, say in casinos, you can only bet and loss what you have at hand (chips, properties written on paper)
while for online gambling, it is easy to run up into debts easier because you are playing on credit, for instance credit cards?

Thus online gambling is more of a concern as you can play what you do not have?

You can use most credit cards at casions without an issue. They charge hefty service fees in addition to the rate your credit card company charges. For instance was at the casino the other day and used a credit card for any additional $500 to play with and was charged a $24.99 service fee for the privilage. ( I ended up about $1400 up for the day ).

This legislation is complete bullsheet ... looks like the courts are going to be as full of poker players as they are of people caught smoking pot. I wish the politicians here in the US would get their heads out of their arses.

 

[katherine]

That's what happens when you vote for terrocrats.

 

[NameYourself]

you'd think regulation would be the way to go, not a ban.

Exactly, that's what logic would tell you.

But maybe there is a need to eliminate the offshore competitors of the long-standing lotteries and brick & morter casinos which have been struggling? Just a thought, maybe with little substance to it. I think it should either all be wrong, all be right, or all regulated equally.. banning it all online just because it's online is inconsistant.

Also many of the people who decide these things are from a much older generation which I believe has a general lack of accustomment to, and a broad mistrust of something just because it is online. Many of those misunderstandings are falsely based and times have changed.

Even as a non-gambler and a non-stakeholder in the gambling industry, I do see the bill as a little unbalanced.

 

[lyndonmaxewell]

I see.. not at the legal age to enter one yet, and yes, many people spreaded around will be hit hard. What a decision..

 

[RatherGood]

Also not true... you can get money from your credit card in casinos also.

If you are talking about ATM's remember they have daily cash advance limits. Nowhere near close to what you can do with a CC in an online casino.

 

[David G]

It's funny how they have no issues with offline gambling, but online gambling is such a major concern to them.
What a bunch of cretins. - Rob

I know this post is going to be real unpopular with domainers who get good income from gambling names, and I may get flamed too. IMO, there are important reasons for favoring in-person gambling and why the internet gambling bill was drafted and will no doubt be approved:

Other than Nevada it's mostly Indian Casinos in other US states which greatly helps the Native American economy and local employment.

The Casinos also generate lots of related jobs including entertainment, food, travel and lodging industries, again big contributions to the US economy.

It's well policed and regulated by the govt whereas internet gambling is not, at lest by US govts. Also less chance of falsified odds, tilted machines, corruption and fraud due to govt policing.

Local govt benefits from tax revenues.

A lot less chance minors will gamble at a casino vs online where they can fake their age a lot easier, and certainly frequent more often.

Less credit card fraud involving stolen cards and kids using the parents card and parents doing chargebacks.

Far less use of credit cards at casinos vs online. At casinos most gamble with cash meaning far less likely to go into debt.

 

[RatherGood]

I know this post is going to be real unpopular with domainers who get good income from gambling names, and I may get flamed too.

BuyDomains was certainly on the mark when they decided to dump all their gambling names this summer.

 

[lyndonmaxewell]

BuyDomains was certainly on the mark when they decided to dump all their gambling names this summer.

Yea they were certainly 'smart'. But who knows how smart a move this may end out to be and the above decision progress?

 

[izoot]

If you are talking about ATM's remember they have daily cash advance limits. Nowhere near close to what you can do with a CC in an online casino.

As I stated in an above post....you can get a cash advance from your credit card as long as the CC company allows them. The fee as I said in the case when I took money was $24.99 for a $500 advance. The only limit involved in the case of getting money like this is your card limit. It could be $1000 or $100k. In the case of using your card at an online casino I've only played for money where I made a deposit once and the fee was signifigantly less.

Irregardless ... its not gonna be an issue with online casinos in the US until they come to their senses and throw this ban out the door.

 

[Poker]

If they can't tax it, they don't want it.