Mass. Gambling Bill Would Criminalize Online Poker 296
timothy writes "Awesome: 'A gambling bill introduced by Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo criminalizes Internet gambling and online poker. The bill calls for two casinos.' Not that they're against gambling, you see... just against being deprived of a monopoly in such a perfect fleecing opportunity."
Victimless crimes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if my neighbor plays poker. I do care if I have to pay money because my neighbor plays poker.
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed.
And honestly, I don't participate in Online Gambling myself, but I think people who want to should have that right. I hope they meet more resistance than just the minority of people who play.
The next thing I need is some bill saying I can't visit an MMO because they too are an online service depriving me of my money. It's my call to make. If you have a problem with gambling, go ahead and try to get it outright banned. Otherwise, targetting just the online sector of it is just silly. Why does the internet make a process any more illegal or immoral?
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
> I hope they meet more resistance than just the minority of people who play.
I'm willing to bet they won't. People can't be bothered to resist things like two wars that are costing them hundreds of billions each year, they sure as hell won't get off their asses for the poker player down the block.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like the Victimless Crime of deciding I don't want hospital insurance and would rather just pay cash as needed?
Yeah.
Thanks to the central government that is now a crime, punishable with a ~$1000 annual fine.
But of course that's different. "We" support making free choice a crime. Pretty soon I suspect I'll be fined for the Oreo cookies I just ate, or ice cream I had for dessert last night, or having a BMI greater than 25.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you got it on the nose.
The U.S. has one political party, the lobbyists, subdivided into two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.
Somehow, we call ourselves a democracy. This is exactly why the health care bill's public option was jettisoned. The whole Dems vs Reps was a farce created by the Lobbyists for the insurance companies (if the Dems had wanted to get the (entire) damn thing passed, they would have done so six months ago when they had the votes).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's more, even the victims of gambling (friends and family who are abused to fund the gambling and the addicts themselves) are not helped by this bill. Why? Because gambling addiction is generally a psychological addiction or a bad coping mechanism, all of which will express themselves in other areas if the addict can't gamble.
All that this is the establishment of a monopoly to the benefit of a few existing operators, and a guaranteed income stream for the government establishing the monopoly. The fundin
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that the states really care about you gambling, they just want to have the revenue from it themselves instead of it going to someones Internet business.
Re: (Score:2)
So declare internet gamblinb legal in their state and tax all the companies that setup there.
Of course, the feds won't let that happen - see "medical marijuana".
Re: (Score:2)
The feds wouldn't blink an eye. Gambling is legal; transmission of gambling information by interstate telecommunications is not (except for the broadcast of horse and dog races; don't ask me why, I don't care).
The medical marijuana thing is still an ongoing tussle between the states and the feds.
They'd stay out of it if MA wanted to allow its casinos to hook up its citizens online. They'd get mighty pissed if those casinos colocated their servers in Connecticut.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That makes no sense. They can regulate and tax online, intrastate gambling as easily they do a brick-and-mortar casino. But ensuring the games aren't skimmed, and preventing gambling addiction, is far more expensive and difficult online.
This law doesn't change interstate or international law one bit. It is redundant with them. It is, however, banning intrastate internet gaming, while at the same time legalizing gaming in the state.
If in the future someone finds a way to prevent compulsive gambling, or t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How can you call this a victimless crime when you've already been victimized by your own ignorance of the ease with which online gambling becomes online fleecing of the player?
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you really call someone who chooses to do any particular act a "victim"? Unless there's deception (that isn't part of the act in some way) I'd have a hard time calling the loser a "Victim". Is the guy who loses in a boxing match a victim?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you really call someone who chooses to do any particular act a "victim"?
That's an interesting philosophical question. The strict answer is yes - the simple example: "Give me your money or I will shoot you" - followed by your choice to give the speaker your money. You had a choice - you could have chosen to take the bullet - but you are also now a "victim". The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines victim as: "someone or something which has been hurt, damaged or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else, or because of illness or
Re: (Score:2)
Since all gambling is fleecing, either ban it entirely or allow it.
I would say it isn't fleecing because everybody knows the likely outcome, even if the want to pretend otherwise (that they'll be the one lucky winner out of millions).
Re: (Score:2)
Person A willingly decides to gamble online, they make online gambling illegal, Person A continues to gamble, Person A gets prosecuted at my expense. Who wins in this scenario? I certainly don't, neither does Person A.
Unless someone disturbs me, or endangers me, I shouldn't have to waste my money prosecuting them. Yeah, keep murders, thieves and other violent criminals out of the streets, but online gamblers? Why does it matter? They aren't affecting me.
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Person A gambles away every penny he has, aided by the con game being run by the online poker service.
Person A then goes on welfare, taking even more of your money than it would have cost to stop his online gambling.
The only hypocrisy in this is that Person A will probably end up broke at the Wewannafuckyu Casino on Rte 128. But far fewer will, and they won't be cheated in the process, just ground into meaningless flesh by their own stupidity.
See, stupid is a victimless crime. Conning someone out of their money is not. Knowingly committing an act deemed to have deleterious implications to the welfare of the community, also is not.
Re: (Score:2)
And for every "problem" gambler there are 20 more who go to the casinos for fun. And many, many, many, many more who go there on vacation to say Las Vegas and gamble just that once.
Plus, it is a fundamental right to be able to do whatever with your money that doesn't harm anyone other than yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Person A gambles away every penny he has, aided by the con game being run by the online poker service.
What con game? How exactly is person A being defrauded of money? Losing all your money by voluntarily playing poker on a site isn't the same as being defrauded off your money.
Gambling leaves a trail of victims (Score:3, Insightful)
Casinos are specifically and carefully designed to exploit people's natural instincts (for example, no windows so you have no sense of time) and mental illnesses; the layout of the floor is done purposefully, as are the style of the games. There's a wealth of information out there for anyone with access to Google Scholar [google.com], for example, like this [springerlink.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
...and police spending has to do with ONLINE gaming how?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to pay when your neighbor robs the local convenience store to pay the rent/mortgage/grocer (or their gambling debts, or just to gamble more),
One could say that about -anything- pleasurable. Yet I hope you are sane enough to realize that banning everything pleasurable is not the way to go.
loses the house/apartment anyway, and their spouse and child are now homeless and on welfare.
Yeah, because again, we know that -never- happens wi
Re:Gambling leaves a trail of victims (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately nobody but you has proposed banning everything pleasurable. So far they are just banning (actually just RESTRICTING) a few things that are pleasurable to some people but cause severe problems for many of those people, and for society at large.
To be accurate, they haven't proposed restricting the ability for people to gamble. They've only proposed restricting gambling at venues that are competing with the casinos they are proposing to create. Since Internet casinos don't require physical presence and physical ones do, this proposal will most likely increase the number of gamblers in the state.
Re:Gambling leaves a trail of victims (Score:5, Insightful)
Non sequitur. The existence of a recovery group for addiction to X does not indicate that doing X results in a victim. For instance, there's groups for shopping addiction, yet shopping is victimless.
Same as I have to pay if he robs the local convenience store because he bought too much house for his income, or spent all his money on a business that failed, or any number of things. It's already illegal to rob the local convenience store; making the reasons someone might rob a local convenience store illegal is not compatible with a free dociety.
Casinos attract a lot of people full stop. But this is about _internet_ gambling; the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal can stay right where they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Casinos attract a lot of people full stop. But this is about _internet_ gambling; the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal can stay right where they are.
You would think that if we were concerned about addiction to gambling, we'd outlaw actual casinos, not just online versions. This isn't about caring for addicts or helping people, this is about the State trying to figure out how to control, regulate, and tax this activity. Because if the State isn't getting their "fair share" then no one gets to play...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gambling leaves a trail of victims (Score:4, Insightful)
Casinos are specifically and carefully designed to exploit people's natural instincts
So is World of Warcraft [cracked.com], and no one is trying to outlaw that. Hell, as far as college age people goes, I knew 5 people that dropped out of college as a result of WoW addictions. We're talking playing 100+ hours per week without sleep or going to classes numerous problems with relationships, few friends outside of their addiction, and extreme difficulty holding down a job. In other words, all the hallmarks of a destructive addiction, and any psychologist can tell you that the game is designed to create exactly that.
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
re: legislation of morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Bottom line, IMHO? NEVER legislate anything based on "morality". If we adhered to that simple policy, we wouldn't have the huge fight over whether or not gays can get married in various states, and we wouldn't have all the nonsense about prostitution (illegal to pay for something it's illegal to get for free, even from the SAME people). We wouldn't blow MASSIVE amounts of tax dollars on the "war on drugs" that's impossible to win either.
And as for laws preventing people from "parading around naked all da
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why is it that in 2010 we still try to create even more victimless crimes?"
Online gambling is a haven of criminal activity, many of the games are rigged easily, not to mention the hacking of other peoples computers that happens through the software or website to unsuspecting visitors. I know tonne of people who got ripped off through online casino's who had their computers hacked their email passwords stolen and as well as bank/financial data were cleaned out.
It's not that gambling isn't a "victimless cri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"online gambling is just so inherently corrupt."
Make sure to ban all politicians as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't be so corrupt if operators could legally set up shop in places where their customers would have meaningful recourse against corrupt operators. Like, for instance, in the same country as the customers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this:
Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford to feed myself and my children. give me food stamps.
Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford to house myself and my children. give me section 8 housing.
Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford health care for myself and my children. give me universal coverage.
Your Neighbor: hi, I want to play
Re: (Score:2)
So then my not on welfare self should be allowed to gamble?
Should a poor person be allowed to gamble with non-welfare money?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how much government help does someone have to accept before you reduce their rights?
Should old people who paid into and now collect Social Security be treated this way?
What about a person who uses public transportation?
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:4, Interesting)
How much of other people's money should you get to blow before they get to have a say in how you live your life? How much of their rights do other people have to give up so you can avoid having to take any responsibility for your choices?
Social Security isn't welfare. The amount you receive is based upon how much you contribute. If you didn't contribute, then you don't receive anything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
so i do not know if online gambling is victimless. but let us assume there is harm. In the state of washington, the state was doing advertising campaigns around the slogan "playing is good"
more generally, if you think the phrase "casino economy" has significant meaning, I expect you do not want the state supporting actual casinos.
Washington lottery structure is for a 50% payout, assuming the tickets were claimed. It is I think tricky to say playing the lottery makes sense for the individual player. and i
So Gambling Is OK ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of Course MA Wants Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't be a shock to anyone that MA, or any state, would want to limit on-line gaming. The only reason any US state has permitted gaming at all is to generate revenue. Being as the states don't have a good mechanism for that on-line, they don't permit it.
One can moan about libertarian ideals and Puritan ethics all one wants. But, all of the players are fully aware of the situation, and have no inhibition against saying so in public, so pointing it out isn't going to make it go away.
WA too (Score:2)
And how many rapists will have to go free to fit i (Score:2)
And how many rapists will have to go free to fit in people who just play on line poker / sports bets?
any ways this will just give Argentina even more free IP.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"While the plaintiff's story is compelling and her evidence against her attacker incontrovertible, it has come to the attention of this court that web poker is now illegal. I find the defendant not guilty and motions to appeal are hereby dismissed. This hearing is adjourned, get out of my court, you whiny victim. NOW LET'S TRY THESE GAMBLERS."
Re: (Score:2)
That only works as a mockery of the sort of bizarre illogic that leads to the argument that rapists would be displaced to jail gamblers.
Internet gambling is illegal in Vegas! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a fairly common ban... even in Las Vegas you have to submit yourself to the whims of the Nevada Gaming Commission, and you can't get an Internet casino approved by them. Most states have lotto laws that makes the state-run game the only legal gambling in their jurisdiction.
It's already proven that a lot of MA residents are traveling to the two CT casinos. I'd rather stay in MA to play poker if only there was a legal game in town.
Technically unconstitutional. (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that the online poker game is *NOT* based in MA, then under the Commerce Clause (abused though it may be) and the 10th Amendment (ignored though it may be), the power to regulate/ban is reserved to the Feds, and the States may not ban it.
Of course, if the game *IS* based in MA, then no problem.
Re:Technically unconstitutional. (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't ban the commerce, they ban the communication.
The feds have already banned interestate and international gambling online.
It was banned over the telephone and telegraph decades ago; in fact, having read that law and knowing how the Internet works, I didn't see a need for any new laws to ban it for internet traffic, but legislators like to show up on C-SPAN.
Massachusetts legislators are no different, so tacking a redundant ban onto a bill legalizing in-state gambling is either a no-op, or adds some twist that the feds didn't consider. Like banning in-state internet gambling as well.
Re: (Score:2)
knowing how the Internet works, I didn't see a need for any new laws to ban it for internet traffic
They must be trying to ban RFC1149 based gambling.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As far as I know, the transmission of bets and winnings via carrier pigeon is still legal.
Betting on the pigeons, however, is illegal.
. . . an Mr. Speaker DeLeo reveals . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Press: "Mr. Speaker DeLeo! How come only two casinos?"
DeLeo: "I only got two friends."
ClubWPT? (Score:2)
A spinoff of the World Poker Tour TV show is called ClubWPT where people pay about $20/mo. to subscribe to a poker club that offers frequent games with small prizes. This is legal in most states because the subscription fee is for a Las Vegas-based e-mail newsletter, and the games are considered promotions that don't have an individual cash buy-in. Would this go away in MA under the new law?
Massachusetts governent is corrupt (Score:2)
The only thing they care about is lining their pockets with the money they steal and extort from us.
A better idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of trying to ban or restrict online gambling, why not simply license these sites on the condition that they pay the same gambling taxes as would be paid by a physical casino.
So if someone from Massachusetts plays on a site, the site has to pay gambling taxes to Massachusetts.
Enforcement? (Score:2)
How in the world do you enforce this? RIAA style dragnets?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How in the world do you enforce this? RIAA style dragnets?
NSA sniffs at ISP's.
Army and Air Force will take you down.
FBI will freeze your money.
IRS will collect taxes from your winnings even while you don't get your money back.
Next question?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That wouldn't be a new problem, nor is it a difficult one. State laws in the United States regulate gambling by stuff like the number of tables in play and the number of machines in play, as well as whether the company makes a business out of operating a gambling establishment. Even non-casinos are (and should be) subject to regulation like the rule saying that no purchase can be necessary to enter a contest or else it's legally a lottery.
Also, why would you say that a Warhammer tournament with entrance fee
Re:Enforcement? (Score:5, Informative)
Some states have rules decided based on whether it's a game of chance or skill.
For example, pinball was hotly contested in some states, because there are some luck elements - especially because early pinballs paid out. (And they didn't have flippers, so it was almost entirely chance at first.) Some of those luck elements (free games, match, etc.,) must be disabled in some states, to be on the skill side of the chance vs. skill threshold.
Some states require that games of skill not pay out, some of them have a certain legal tests for what a game of skill is (they essentially boil down to something along the lines of, can a skilled player win even with all luck elements being against them, IIRC,) etc., etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You identify the gambling company to the credit-card company and say "if you want to do business in this state you will block transactions to these companies".
If that drives people to mail cash around, you wait for the usual money-laundering detection mechanisms to kick in.
Difficulty in policing something isn't a reason to allow a crime to be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but sometimes difficulty in policing something is used for the specific purpose of keeping something from becoming illegal.
For instance, was the 4th amendment maybe designed to make crimes like "sedition" effectively impossible to prosecute? I say yes.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the 4th amendment was designed to make sedition legal, by banning laws against it.
It's effectively impossible to prosecute it because it's not legal to prosecute it.
Seriously, did you really see that any other way?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that it's illegal to prosecute it. As far as I know, Congress could easily pass a law to create such a crime, without running afoul of the Constitution (assuming they wrote their law to skirt around 1st-amendment protections at least. which is a big if.)
What the 4th amendment does is create significant legal barriers in evidence-gathering to prosecute such a crime. It doesn't say "congress shall pass no law ... ", it simply promises that, if such a law is ever passed, it will remain effectively une
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Difficulty in policing something isn't a reason to allow a crime to be legal.
The jury has been out on that for a few hundred years now. Consider 1.) An unenforceable (de jure) law ultimately rewards the dishonest while punishing only the honest who confess their crime (Hobbes). And 2.) From a political standpoint, unenforceable legislation creates the appearance of real moral authority without risk of alienating those constituents who would be punished if were enforceable. Public disregard for enforceability therefore promotes dishonesty of both the citizen and the official -- exact
Re: (Score:2)
In order for the credit card processor to get its money from a person whose money is in the U.S., it has to go to a U.S. bank, and the banks are all tied into the same system for transferring funds, and if you believe the myth that only transactions over $9999 are tracked by the feds, then I'd like to play poker against you.
As I said, if the person has to resort to offshore accounts and moving cash across the border, the usual means of detecting money laundering come into play.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and as for Visa/Mastercard, they are already under the thumb of the government for international online gaming. No major credit card company now will accept charges from international gaming companies.
Re:Enforcement? (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in Massachusetts.
If you pay your proper bribes you can do just about anything in the area of gambling. Slot machines, poker games, dice tables.
My next door neighbor used to have a high stakes poker game every week. One of the players was the chief of police.
There is an ethnic club in the next town that has slot machines, lotteries, poker games. They pay their bribes and no one bothers them.
What the politicians don't like about internet gambling is there is no way to collect the bribes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. That's why both the subject and the summary mention Massachusetts. It's a state. You may have heard of it. It is part of the United States of America.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the Red Socks play baseball there...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, but the Red Sox do, scumbags that they are.
GO ANGELS!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the Red Socks play baseball there...
Then obviously this bill sucks!
Go Yankees!
...to be pedantic... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some say it's a socialist republic.
They are trying to make a point they don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a term very much grounded in political ideology, and used by separatist states after they gain independence. It's like declaring that your new state is of the people and not of the state or monarchy or oligarchy (let's not debate that last one).
It makes less sense for American states, but a lot more for former British/Russian states.
Re:...in USA (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot is mostly centered around the United States. And in case you're unaware, the United States is a bunch of united states with their own separate laws. Not that much is legislated federally; news about Massachusetts law (a particularly influential state, in fact) is as notable as any other legal news.
Re:...in USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that much is legislated federally
Say what? Congress may not pass all that many bills but the ones they do are multiple warheads filled with scatter bombs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poker at IRL casino's is generally offered as a service to the players, with the house taking a cut of the total pool; the casino doesn't care who wins, it gets its money anyway. So there's no reason for them to influence the outcome one way or another. With pretty much every other game, though, you're right - the rules are setup in such a way as to favour the house. No cheating needed when you write the rules.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree it's mostly stupid. The way most people do it is completely fucking stupid. The way some people do it is addictively self-destructive.
Table games are a losing cause, but the odds are posted and you make your decision with full cognizance of the risks and the way the chances are stacked against your being a winner, much less a big winner. So for people who aren't addicted, it's just stupidly expensive entertainment until you learn your lesson and stop doing that to yourself.
Poker isn't gambling ag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's better: a world where the money belongs to naive innumate fools, or to exploitative hucksters?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and being online, I could conceivably be the receiver of said fool's money! Why should we only allow well funded brick and mortar monopolies to do this?
Re: (Score:2)
What better way to rid the world of fools? Or at least, rid the fools of their money.
If only those two were identical...
Re: (Score:2)
In a casino the odds are against you anyway, by definition. The even worse odds at an online casino will only accelerate the inevitable outcome. That is not necessarily bad, e.g. if you were going to stop when you lost all your money, at least you saved some time... Now. if you were not going to stop even after losing all your money... oh well...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I agree; if you play virtual games to win physical assets, you are an idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't look at it in the light of "win money", but for its "entertainment value". These people are paying for entertainment. Though I agree; if you play virtual games to win physical assets, you are an idiot.
The vast majority of gamblers are losers. There are a few out there that do make money simply by being smart. Back in the day before the problems with the US bans, bonuses offered by the numerous online casinos totaled in the thousands of dollars. By playing smartly within the rules of the casinos, you could walk away with most of that money in profit. This is after the almost insignificant losses from the play requirements of the casinos, assuming you played blackjack with correct strategy.
It was a fun mon
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem at all with banning online gambling worldwide.
yeah, fuck freedom, who needs that?
Re:Gambling online is completely fucking stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have a very good grasp as to how online poker works. There is no reason whatsoever for an online casino to cheat their customers. In fact, it works against their interest. Money is taken out of each and every pot played. It is NOT in the casino's interest to make their customers go broke faster than normal. If you go broke fast, you may leave forever. If you go broke slowly you will likely reload your account with new funds. Regardless, a hired "shill" will not be able to pull a profit undetected faster than the rake which collects money every single hand on every single table.
You sound like the many many people who try online poker, lose badly, and chose to blame the system rather than a lack of skill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have a very good grasp as to how online poker works.
That is a stupid assumption.
You sound like the many many people who try online poker, lose badly, and chose to blame the system rather than a lack of skill.
I doubt you've ever met two people who've acted that way, much less "many many".
I write high-zoot software. I play high-stakes poker. I've played poker online since it was done in email*. I've studied the laws of gaming by wire (before Janet Reno did, btw) and the history of online gambling
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. It's obvious you don't know how to play poker - on line or IRL.
Reading your opponents "nervousness" is only a small part of the game. Playing on-line just means everyone has a perfect poker face.
The far more important clues are just as valid on-line as they are in person. How much did he bet? From what position did he play? How long did it take him to think? How often does he bet? How often are the continuation bets? These are all much more important tells
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, etc., who make hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, playing online poker.
Does that make me think I can do it? No, but there are lots of well known poker players making lots of money on online gambling sites.
(There have been cheating scandals, e.g. UltimateBet and AbsolutePoker.)
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's been done (absolute poker) and was damn obvious.
Any poker site willing to risk the mint they make in rake to a player exodus if they are discovered cheating is worse at math than slots players.
And any cheating the do is going to be a smaller percentage than the rake at a physical casino anyway...
You are far more likely to be cheated by players communicating over IM/phone while playing at the same table against you.
Re: (Score:2)
If they ever get caught they lose all their credibility and likely their future profit, just like what happened to UltimateBet and Absolute Poker.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Generally, I'd say you are right. You don't have the certainty you're not being cheated.
However, my personal experience is that I substantially netted positive over a year-long online poker career. I don't have any explanation for it, really, but I can't imagine they'd let more than a few players get away with any real amount of money, and I certainly don't think I'm the one that won the lottery of being "allowed" to win to attract other players.
If they do adjust the win rates at an infinitesimal rate to al
Wrong, at least for poker (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You, as a participant in online gambling, have ZERO ability to determine if you are being cheated.
All serious players at online casinos run programs which store each and every hand dealt at the tables they play at, and make various statistics based on that information. Some of them have a sufficient grasp of statistics to be able to figure out if they're being cheated. Certain things, like getting worse hands in a consistent manner, would be grossly obvious for instance. Furthermore, casinos already have a steady revenue stream: the rake. At tables where the big blind reaches 50 dollars, the casino take
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll bite.
Ever done a technical integration for a gambling site? It's a little bit more than putting a box online, writing a PHP Poker script and making cash.
Depending where you setup (The majority are hosted in the Northern Territory, Australia, for its very, very gambling-friendly taxes) - every single piece of hardware and software you put online is scrutinised and tested by the government - yes, hardware as well (so you can't shave with a dodgy FPU, etc)
All hardware must be contained in the equivalent o
Re:About time!!! This needs to pass immediately (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who needs proof here on /.? Poster had their AA beaten - definitive proof that teh online pokahz iz rigged!!1! A few of the smaller sites have been busted for dodgy things, I have never seen any proof against Full Tilt or PS (being a fairly serious player both online and live I keep a very close eye on these things). Stars especially has a reputation for solid service and refunding $ to players if anything shady was discovered in any of the games that player played in.
If by any chance the poster does hav