Casinos brace for impact of Internet gambling

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By WAYNE PARRY

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) - With legal gambling now moving beyond the casinos and onto the Internet, the industry is bracing for the most far-reaching changes in its history.

A Las Vegas firm, Ultimate Gaming, on Tuesday became the first in the U.S. to offer online poker, restricting it, for now, to players in Nevada. New Jersey and Delaware also have legalized gambling over the Internet and expect to begin offering such bets by the end of this year.

And many inside and outside the industry say the recent position taken by the federal government that states are free to offer Internet gambling - as long as it doesn't involve sports betting - will lead many cash-hungry state governments to turn to the Web as a new source of tax revenue.

Ten other states have considered some form of Internet gambling so far this year, but none has legalized it yet. Efforts to pass a national law legalizing online poker have sputtered, leaving states free to pass laws as they see fit.

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130503/DA61MCR01.html

---

A sample poker game is played on the soon-to-be launched Ultimate Gaming website, Monday, April 29, 2013, in Las Vegas. The social gaming company is expected to launch the first legal, real-money poker site in the U.S. Tuesday morning. The Ultimate Gaming site will be available only to in players in Nevada, but likely represents the shape of things to come for gamblers across the country.(AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

[freethought]

1. If there is any type of activity or commerce over the net

that should be subject to tax. It should be this.

[Taverner]

18. A Freakin Men!

[olddots]

2. Fools ,morons and idiots

Running scared is one thing but this will be total suicide for a dying scam.

[Veilex]

3. I just cant imagine this as being a good thing...

Gambling via the web is a recipe for disaster, corruption, fraud and a whole host of other problems... this is a can of worms that realy shouldn't be opened.

[Control-Z]

4. It's actually been around for years.

It's hard to imagine that anyone who likes on line gambling isn't already gambling on line.

[hughee99]

26. Don't forget money laundering. I can see where this would be very handy for people

looking to transfer money from one party to another "anonymously" and turning one person's dirty money into another's "winnings".

[kimbutgar]

5. Credit card debt will soar

I wonder if they will really be starting debtors prisons for the fools who will get addicted to these sites and run up their credit cards?This is so immoral on so many grounds. Gambling is almost as worst as drug and alcohol addiction. I once knew a compulsive gambler and he ended up losing his wife, family, home and livelihood and ended up in prison because he robbed a liquor store to get more money to gamble. In the comfort of ones home this will be a freakin' disaster.

[denverbill]

9. Internet poker was pretty much legal until 5-6 years ago.

I don't recall any mass bankruptcies due to it.

My wife and I both played on various sites and liked it a lot. If you go to a casino, the cheapest buy in for poker is likely $50+. Online, you can play for hours or days for $1. There are hundreds of games at all hours days and night. You can come and go when you choose. You don't have to drive 5 hours to get there or pay for a motel.

Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.

[JusticeForAll]

34. Agreed

I played for years on the same $100.

Can't do that at the local casino.

Thanks for your well-written post.

[ErikJ]

6. Internet is killing Main Street retail too. Tax the hell out of it ALL!

[ripcord]

7. Im sure there are plenty of other jobs for casino empkoyees.

I'm sure the are plenty of jobs for the employees who get laid off.

[geek tragedy]

8. Of what possible good to anyone on the planet is Internet gambling?

I mean, casinos, tobacco farming, arms manufacturing, etc at least produce jobs.

[denverbill]

10. Why I like internet poker.

1) I can play from the comfort of my own home. I don't have to drive 2+ hours to and from a casino.
2) I can drink as much as I want and not worry about driving.
3) I can choose the limits I want to play. I'm not stuck with the $50+ buy-ins at a casino. I can buy in with $.50 if I so choose.
4) I can play for 15 minutes or 15 hours.
5) More experienced players can't pick up on physical 'tells' online.
6) I can find a game any time I feel like playing, whether 8 AM or 3 AM.
7) What possible good to anyone is online shopping? Other than being more convenient, providing more options, and being able to do it from the comfort of your home?

[geek tragedy]

11. As you can probably guess, I'm not a gambler. nt

[denverbill]

14. I'm not a big money player, but I have fun playing.

We probably played for 3-4 years online, and I doubt I spent more than $200 playing total. My wife was probably ahead more than that.

I had never really played poker prior to playing it online because I was afraid I'd be outplayed by everyone with more experience. I never got that feeling online. To me it was no different than the bridge games my folks used to play each week. I don't think they played so much for the money as the fun and competition, which is why I liked online poker. It's not much different than playing in your weekly football pool at work money-wise.

[RebelOne]

12. I totally agree.

I am a big fan of Internet shopping, but I doubt that I would be doing any Internet gambling. I love gambling and have been to casinos in Puerto Rico and Atlantic City, but always quit before I was in the hole. Usually, I just broke even. Internet gambling would be too tempting, so I will pass on it.

[TeamPooka]

31. I enjoy it for those reasons too. Also I can't smoke at the cardrooms.

[jeff47]

17. Well, back before the government and banks made it impossible in the US

I made a few hundred bucks at it. Which was far more profitable than other ways I spent my spare time.

We're talking about poker. It isn't set up so that the player always loses in the long run - the house just takes a cut of every pot.

[daleo]

28. If the house takes a cut of every pot

Then the players have to lose money in the long run. That's statistics. It's a negative expectation game.

[jeff47]

29. That's only true if you're playing against the house.

For example, in blackjack you are playing against the casino. In the end, you will lose money. Even if there's a bunch of people at the table, the bet is between you and the casino.

That's not true in poker. The players are playing against each other. The players who lose lose a little more to cover the casino's fee. But you don't have to be one of the players who lose. If your goal is to be a 'professional' poker player, the trick is to only play hands where you have a good chance of winning.

That's why online poker is very nice for someone seeking to make money at poker - they can play at a bunch of virtual tables at the same time. Having to wait for good hands at a single table means a lot of time just sitting.

[daleo]

39. It' a negative expectation game for the players, as a group, is what I meant

To the extent a particular player exceeds the skill of the others, it could turn into a positive expectation game for that particular person. Whether that is a reasonable prospect depends on the house's takeout and the edge a person really has. Add in the government's take, expenses of playing the game, and so forth, and it's a high hill to climb.

[jeff47]

41. It's really not that hard

There's plenty of people who think they can play poker very well.

There's a much, much, much smaller number of people who actually can.

Remember, the vast majority of people experience poker through movies and TV shows, where it's scripted to be very exciting. Even the World Poker Tour doesn't show every hand - because a whole lot of hands are very boring. So when people sit down at the table, they are expecting to turn mediocre hands into fantastic hands. And that just doesn't happen often.

As a result, there's a massive skill gap between people who play by feel, and people who play using math.

Think of it like Amway, Herbalife or any other multilevel-marketing system. A very large number of people who erroneously think they can make a lot of money give their money to a very small number of people.

[daleo]

42. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, I guess

If you are really good, you might have a shot.

[jeff47]

43. Edited while you were replying:

Remember, the vast majority of people experience poker through movies and TV shows, where it's scripted to be very exciting. Even the World Poker Tour doesn't show every hand - because a whole lot of hands are very boring. So when people sit down at the table, they are expecting to turn mediocre hands into fantastic hands. And that just doesn't happen often.

As a result, there's a massive skill gap between people who play by feel, and people who play using math.

[daleo]

48. True of the track too

Most races should be passed up. Of course, the track and government takeout on horse racing is so high that having a sufficient edge in knowledge and/or legitimate information is extremely difficult to achieve.

[TeamPooka]

32. That is true if the players are a constant. That is why turnover at a table is so important.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Not quite. You don't understand the full consequences.

Typically, the house takes a small percentage from each pot, with a cap on the amount that the house takes. It works the same way in a casino. Let's say you are playing in a "$10 limit/3 raise limit" game of Texas Hold'em. A typical pot would have about $200 or $300 in it, more if the particular hand is strongly wagered. The house will take $3.00 from the pot.

The total money that is on the table will slowly diminish, so it appears to be a negative expectation. But, if a person plays tight, and only enters the action on hands that have a better than average chance of winning, he can have enough of a positive expectation to overcome the effect of the house cut (called the "rake&quot .

I would love to see online poker become available again in the U.S. I made a nice amount of money when the government wasn't bothering about it.

[daleo]

40. That all depends on being a lot better at the game than the other players

I guess that can happen, if you are really good and your opponents are not.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. True. But it isn't that hard to do.

In person casino poker is easier to beat than online poker. With online poker you can't read tells, can't use psychology, and you have to battle against their supporting software that is one their computer.

[daleo]

47. Computer vs computer

Like that Star Trek episode. Trick is to catch the opponent's computer into a logical paradox, so that it goes crazy and explodes.

[Kokonoe]

13. Its legal in all the rest of the world.

But only in the land of American freedom, its illegal to play cards.

[Politicalboi]

15. LOL!

But you can get a gun. I thought they would make it convenient, but I still have to drive to Nevada to gamble.
I'm sure someday it will allowed in all 50 states, but to keep it limited in the states where gambling is legal, is stupid. IMO

[closeupready]

16. Just like drinking or abortion - don't like it, don't gamble online.

Done.

But don't, in the process, stop other grown adults, many who are older than you, from spending their money as they wish.

[DCBob]

19. Internet gambling is nothing like going to a real casino.

That's like comparing a video basketball game to a real basketball game. I doubt it will have much impact.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. How many people live within a convenient distance of a casino?

Comparing it to video and real basketball is a very poor comparison. If you want to go in that direction, compare watching basketball on TV to watching it live. Given the chance, people might prefer to do the latter - but the former is much easier to do, for the whole population, and can expand easily. And is now the most important aspect of the sport's business.

If you want an example of the impact of internet gambling, take the Coates family. They borrowed £15 million to start bet365 in 2000 (against the chain of betting shops they owned, which they sold for £40 million in 2005); it now makes a profit of £104 million a year.

[DCBob]

22. The question the article states is whether people will stop going to casinos.

I doubt it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Fair enough

But I expect there will be some people for whom the hassle of the journey could be enough for them to start gambling online instead, at least some of the time.

[jeff47]

30. If your goal is to make money at it, online is far better

The way you make money as a "professional" poker player is to wait for hands that have a very good chance of winning. Which means you spend a lot of time just sitting there after you've folded.

If you're at a real-world casino, you can only play at one table at a time. If you're online, you can play at several tables simultaneously, which means it's much more likely you'll be playing at least one hand.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. I would prefer an in-person casino.

Back when online poker was sort-of legal, I played a lot on multiple screens. At first I won nicely, but slowly my winnings rate dropped. Software had become available that tracked other players, entered them into a database, and could be accessed if you joined the service. Important parameters of their play were displayed beside them on your screen. And other software advised players on what to do. And if someone could get your ISP there was spyware available that would display your hand to them. I quit while I was nicely ahead. I would love to go to a regular casino where it is my mind against other's minds, not my software against their software.

Still, I would enjoy playing in very low limit online poker, hoping to avoid people who would be willing to pay for such software.

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. Yes. It is much much much quieter than a real casino.

Food buffet is not as good, tho.

[TeamPooka]

33. the huge number of players in the World Series of Poker is because of internet gambling

last year there were like 6800 players in the main event.
10 years ago right before before internet poker took off there were 800
that is a brick and mortar impact and that's why the casinos are very afraid of anyone else but them controlling this new legal industry

[leftyladyfrommo]

21. I would think this is really a bad idea for compulsive gamblers.

One of my customers is a gambler. She told me that she has won a million dollars and lost all of it. She is banned from all the casinos around here so she has to drive to a casino in a small town. At least that takes some effort. But just being able to turn on the computer and gamble would be awful for her.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. I strongly object to limiting my freedom because someone else may misuse their freedom. N/T

[leftyladyfrommo]

45. I understand your argument.

But I worry about people I know. Gamblers have no will power.

It's a sticky wicket for sure.

[Sunlei]

23. tax the heck out of this, great revenue stream for state, local and federal gov.

I bet there will be card counter apps and cheat hacks galore, give the feds a lot of busy work. Good start-up business too, everyone can run an online casino.

[curlyred]

24. I made a certain amount of money playing poker online

And would welcome its return. Love the game. Not a high stake player, but I love poker - don't always have the time to go to Blackhawk. It is a different game online, though.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Yes, it is different.

I love to play poker and miss the interpersonal dynamic and the psychology.

[Fearless]

46. It existed legally for almost a decade before it was made illegal

So that they could "regulate" (ahem monopolize) the industry. Nothing is going to change in the industry except big casino companies have conned their way into making money off it.