MPs hit out at online gambling bill

[quovadis]

(if this is true post a url!) Ja, puppy dog australia, another doing the bidding of George Bush.

http://www.dcita.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/internet/online_gambling

And it had nothing to do with GWBush - it had to do with credit card debt default amongst other social issues.

Kilo39 - An amount wagered is not necessarily an amount won - go put R50 in a slot machine at a casino - every time you get even money back thats still a wager. With R50 u can probably wager R200-300 before losing or winning. Turnover needs to calculate buyins rather than playthrough and is no indication of the number of active players gambling online.

Also since the US crackdown - online gambling at Partygaming (probably the biggest online operator) did revenue of only $325m from over $1,2billion before the crackdown.

I'm not against online gambling at all - I think regulation would protect players however it needs to be done responsibly to eliminate problem gambling and gambling on credit.

As to america. Only reason I can see is 'vested interests' keeping gambling in Vegas (and nowhere else.) I wonder why? (Let us remember the history of Vegas!)

If you think gambling is only legal in Vegas - you would be wrong - there are at least 24 states in the US that have collectively over 300 traditional casinos.

 

[Meisteral]

Gambling originally a form of entertainment, but now, like everything else, just a money making business for the owner/s.

Just imagine if the Government owned this line of business instead (like the lotto), what would have then happened to the industry here! Are they trying to protect the people from debt or are they unhappy that declared taxes (as with taxis) aren't correct?

 

[kilo39]

Kilo39 - An amount wagered is not necessarily an amount won - go put R50 in a slot machine at a casino - every time you get even money back thats still a wager. With R50 u can probably wager R200-300 before losing or winning. Turnover needs to calculate buyins rather than playthrough and is no indication of the number of active players gambling online.

I am not interested in putting money in 'slot machines.' Do not point me at slotmachines when it is perfectly fine for this government (and most others 'in the free world') to run "Lottos," or smile at other forms of gambling.

Also since the US crackdown - online gambling at Partygaming (probably the biggest online operator) did revenue of only $325m from over $1,2billion before the crackdown.

How then do you make this earlier statement?

oh come on - there aren't billions gambling online... in SA its around 75,000 active online gamblers if that - the US banned online gambling this year and it's currently illegal to interactively gamble in South Africa at the moment.

What was that? A misrepresentation (to allow you to take the high moral ground?)

(As you are so knowledgeable) I am sure you are aware of america being in abeyance with the WTO?

I'm not against online gambling at all - I think regulation would protect players however it needs to be done responsibly to eliminate problem gambling and gambling on credit.

You laud the demise of online gambling in the states (and in oz.) Shall I take this as another 'misrepresentation' (while you laud the higher moral ground?)

If you think gambling is only legal in Vegas - you would be wrong - there are at least 24 states in the US that have collectively over 300 traditional casinos.

Exactly. Stipulated or in >Indian Reservations!< (What does that tell you of the morality of america) and WhoTF thinks it perfectly fine to gamble in one area but not another (unless there was some hidden agenda, or vested interests?)

Stay out of the card rooms. Do not point fingers when on the other hand it is perfectly legal. If people think 'gambling' (lotto and slot machines) will pay the rent then educate (do not legislate.) More moral turpitude (unless it suits the agenda of your ilk.)

 

[caramel]

not into gambling but its obvious that it should be entertainment and not a job or a way of striking it rich!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Shake&Bake]

There are plenty ppl playing online poker for a living - fact.

 

[Mike_De_Lange]

Computer random number generators have been proven to not be completely random.

Depends on where you goto! Goto dodgy casinos and you will be ripped off. The proper legit ones are independantly regulated and are approved and given the thumbs up by eCogra!

FYI:

eCOGRA, a non-profit organization, is the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry, specifically overseeing fair gaming, player protection and responsible operator conduct. The function that eCOGRA performs protects those who engage in online gaming where it is lawful.

For accredited casinos goto:

http://www.casinomeister.com/casinos.php

and

http://www.online-gambling-insider.com/microgaming-casino-reviews.asp

The government is just upset because they not profiting from it. Gambling is illegal in very few countries more recently America but that should be overturned soon since there is outrage at the decission. I think it would be foolish to abolish it here. Its good fun and you always have the chance to strike it rich. I mean there are even professional poker players. You must have seen it on ETV. The poker tournaments with Dave Ulliott etc...But for those that have problems they should seek help. Good casinos have the help thats just a click away!

 

[SlappY]

Yet another freedom erroded by a clearly racist government.
(Edit: Actually not sure who they being racist against. By prejucating that whites steal from blacks, or that blacks dont have the mettle to run a gambling site???)

 

[Natas]

I play a lot fo online poker.. actually yesterday I came second in an online tournament and won $2000 US!!! but anyways.... Firstly, the word curb is open to interpretation. The regualtions can curb while allowing. You will never be able to do away with it... so eth regualtions can "regulate" the interactive gambling market... the problem here tho' is that how do you regulate online casio's based in jurisdictions outside fo South Africa. Gamblers will access sites all over the world and this makes it impossible for South Africa to hold these guys subject to our law...

I play online poker... its illegal to do it now.. and if they make it even more illegal, I will carry on doing it... I understand that the givernment needs ot be able, to a certain extent, to tell me what I can do with my money (exchange control) but this is taking it a bit too far.. some people gamble away their lives, but I dont.. if this is the logic you are going to use, then you have to do away with teh bricks and mortar casino's too..... I see no reason to differentiate between online gambling and gambling in meat space... why we need the regualtions is in order to make sure that online casino's based in dodgy countries have a proper payou proportion. IN south Africa, casino's payout about 95% of what comes through their doors... ie for every rand that gets wagered, THEY MUST payout 95 cents.. I guarantee that lots of online guys dont payout nearly this much... besides teh fact that Roulette, blackjack and slots are a muggs game, this si why I only play poker online.. when you can ALMOST guarantee that the person you are playing against is another person, ie the house has little interest.

 

[quovadis]

eCOGRA, a non-profit organization, is the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry, specifically overseeing fair gaming, player protection and responsible operator conduct. The function that eCOGRA performs protects those who engage in online gaming where it is lawful.

Errrrrrr - yeah and it's owned by Microgaming - not very independent if you ask me.

Exactly. Stipulated or in >Indian Reservations!< (What does that tell you of the morality of america) and WhoTF thinks it perfectly fine to gamble in one area but not another (unless there was some hidden agenda, or vested interests?)

Indian reservations? Are you mad? Unless indian reservations are taking over the US - Licensed land based casinos in US : Arizona 16, California 56, Colorado 28, Connecticut 2, Florida 7, Idaho 3, Illinois 7, Indiana 10, Iowa 10, Louisiana 16
Maine 2, Michigan 13, Minnesota 11, Mississippi 15, Missouri 8, Nevada (Vegas - MANY), New Jersey 8, New Mexico 12, New York 4, North Carolina 1, Oklahoma 55
Oregon 8, South Dakota 21, Texas 1, Wisconsin 12

You laud the demise of online gambling in the states (and in oz.) Shall I take this as another 'misrepresentation' (while you laud the higher moral ground?)

Ummmm when did I laud the demise? I actually stated that regulation should be done correctly. As for the so called billions - there aren't billions of online casino players - more like a few hundred thousand at the peak of the industry and SA wouldn't even make up 1% of the worldwide market.

IN south Africa, casino's payout about 95% of what comes through their doors... ie for every rand that gets wagered, THEY MUST payout 95 cents

Yes but its not R1 comes into casino 95c goes out. You put in R10 u play winning a little and playing it back in to the machine. The 95% calculation takes into consideration the total payout and not what was cashed out. A land based casinos hold is not 5% or less.

 

[kilo39]

@quovadis: I stand corrected (and informed) on the 'reservation' issue.

Billions: billions are wagered online (though agreed billions are not playing: though their money is!)

Came across this latest article:

Off-shore gambling websites' ads banned from UK
Mark Sweney
Thursday August 9, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk
The government has banned about 1,000 off-shore gambling websites, including well-known operators such as William Hill, from advertising in the UK.
The ban applies to any gambling companies operating outside the European Economic Area, affecting popular websites such as William Hill Casino, Betfred Casino and Poker, Interpoker.com and Littlewoodscasino.com.

Gibraltar-based 888.com and PartyGaming are not affected.
-
Alderney and the Isle of Man are the only jurisdictions to have so far made the "white list" after sufficiently demonstrating a rigorous licensing regime designed to stop children gambling, protect vulnerable people, keep games fair and keep out crime.

DCMS rejected applications to join the "white list" from Alexander (Canadian Reservation), Netherlands Antilles and Tasmania.

 

[quovadis]

Kilo... interesting article from the UK - i guess everyone is cracking down - at the end of the day I still think people should have a right to gamble etc online - but receive the same amount of protection they would if they were playing at a normal casino - I don't think that protection is in place and thus regulation (and not banning) is something that is needed and I'm sure any online casino would welcome it as well.

 

[kilo39]

Kilo... interesting article from the UK - i guess everyone is cracking down - at the end of the day I still think people should have a right to gamble etc online - but receive the same amount of protection they would if they were playing at a normal casino - I don't think that protection is in place and thus regulation (and not banning) is something that is needed and I'm sure any online casino would welcome it as well.

Thank you quovadis for your informative posts. I admit on many levels I was 'just' ranting (my concern being: ya, let's ban everything!)

Agree: would rather deal with 'trusted' people/sites/organisations.

(Though have to say believe the USA is totally out of order; and surely the blame lies with GW Bush?)

 

[quovadis]

I think one of the issues with the whole US thing is the sheer amount of money leaving the country. If you consider probably 90% of online gamblers were american and a few billion dollars leaves the US every year that cannot be great for the country. I think the US should've just issued licenses - but i understand now that this is something which they're looking into now.

 

[kilo39]

I think one of the issues with the whole US thing is the sheer amount of money leaving the country. If you consider probably 90% of online gamblers were american and a few billion dollars leaves the US every year that cannot be great for the country. I think the US should've just issued licenses - but i understand now that this is something which they're looking into now.

Surely there is some return in winnings? Is this not what global 'trade' is all about (open markets and all that?) Surely the 'benefits' to america outnumber the money leaving: tournaments, tourism, positive global image? (And 'people' themselves 'using' american sites?)