Lheticus
Legend
Silver Level
Completely True
Online gambling should be curbed because it encourages and increases casino usage.
Ooops was that not the aim of the message.
Seriously are casino profits an industry worth protecting anyway?
Double and triple shots in the foot for spreading that message.
Could you please explain to me how this makes sense? If you were kidding or something, the last 2 sentences you wrote really had me not seeing that.
Comments all seem to be coming from the perspective of poker, which is understandable given the location. But the gist of the issue is not about poker, but rather casino games.
The popular argument is that games like slots and black jack, where you play against the house, when offered online preclude the need for going to the casino to play.
Most already agree the online poker is a compliment to live poker, as has been demonstrated by the WSOP growing from a few hundred players to over six thousand.
There is very little data regarding regulated online casino games, as it is pretty new and only in two states. While I do give the article some credibility, the sample size is very small and the full effects have yet to be realized.
But it is promising as a counter argument to groups like Adelson's whose real opposition to online gambling stems from a fear of lost revenue at their properties.
batteries might be dead in your sarcasm detector
You know what? Honestly, I'm opposed to online casino games too. Without the human equation, without other players in opposition to you in the game, any game of chance on a computer becomes way too easy to rig ridiculously in favor of the house. Brick and mortar blackjack, craps, and roulette games are regulated and scrutinized to the point of utter ridiculousness--but that scrutiny is absolutely necessary to ensure those games maintain semblance of fairness. If you put that stuff in a real money computer program, regulation becomes a lot more trouble than it's worth--because unlike online poker, online casino games benefit greatly from being crooked.
I feel it would be far easier to scrutinize players for unfair play rather than gambling institutions--and poker institutions would even aid this as they don't benefit from unfair play in poker, due to customers being driven away! A casino game entity on the other hand would benefit vastly from unfair play, and would be a lot more effective than most individuals at keeping the shadiness of the game a secret from regulatory boards--not to mention the premise that setting up an entity to regulate online casino games would be even more costly than online poker regulation because as aforementioned, in online poker, the controlling corporate entities want the game to be fair, which eases the burden from the government somewhat.
In summary, if online poker starts leading to a push for online casino gambling, and Adelson focuses his energies on that specific target to the exclusion of online poker opposition at that point, I will honestly be on his side there. (Coincidentally, of course.)
.
Lheticus, can you please explain why you are so dumbfounded that this article hasn't been posted on CC?
We are looking at the wrong demographics. The fact of the matter is, poker is a small portion of casino's revenue, with some exceptions (mostly stated in the article). In 2011, the amount of people in my province (in Canada) who haven't gambled in that year, was under 20%.
https://www.problemgambling.ca/en/aboutgamblingandproblemgambling/pages/gamblingindustry.aspx
Are people brought to casinos by Poker? Yes. Obviously, but the percentage of people who do, plus the amount of money made off those people are minimal. These people are in the lower bracket of revenue. Casinos know most online gamblers know about BRM and know how to spend their money (or at least how not to lose it all). However, the big money that casinos make are off the hooked tax grabbing sloths who are too lazy to work and when money comes, sit in front of the slots and spend their income away.
Tell me, when you walk into a casino, what is the first thing you see? SLOTS! Bright colourful slots! Rows and rows of slots. This is because the formula of winning in slots doesn't support the slot grinder.
I'm sorry but I'd have to disagree with this one...
To answer the question you actually asked, well...I didn't read as much into the article as you--honestly, I didn't really want to. Maybe its argument isn't quite as solid as I'd hoped, but the fact of the matter is I still don't see why holding back the legalization of online poker isn't stupid, and what that article does or at least tries to do is take all the ooga-booga-booga nonsense arguments that Adelson and a scant others have had against its legalization and saying "yeah...no." The reason I thought CardsChat would feature it is because it's a very feel-good take on the "issues" surrounding the legalization of online poker--even if there are ways its arguments aren't 100% solid, I'd thought the core concept of the article was something CardsChat would love to get behind. I still think it is--but I believe maybe they deem it not needed now since I shared the article myself.
To address the rest of your post, well, I never really intended to look into the numbers as deeply as you--but nor did I intend to take this article as an ironclad rhetorical checkmate, I just liked what it had to say.
Without the human equation, without other players in opposition to you in the game, any game of chance on a computer becomes way too easy to rig ridiculously in favor of the house. Brick and mortar blackjack, craps, and roulette games are regulated and scrutinized to the point of utter ridiculousness--but that scrutiny is absolutely necessary to ensure those games maintain semblance of fairness. If you put that stuff in a real money computer program, regulation becomes a lot more trouble than it's worth--because unlike online poker, online casino games benefit greatly from being crooked.
I feel it would be far easier to scrutinize players for unfair play rather than gambling institutions--and poker institutions would even aid this as they don't benefit from unfair play in poker, due to customers being driven away! A casino game entity on the other hand would benefit vastly from unfair play, and would be a lot more effective than most individuals at keeping the shadiness of the game a secret from regulatory boards--not to mention the premise that setting up an entity to regulate online casino games would be even more costly than online poker regulation because as aforementioned, in online poker, the controlling corporate entities want the game to be fair, which eases the burden from the government somewhat.