Originally Posted by curtinsea
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.
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.)
Originally Posted by curtinsea
batteries might be dead in your sarcasm detector
When dealing with text-only interaction, my batteries are hardly ever charged
enough. They almost were this time, but the sentence, "Seriously are casino profits an industry worth protecting anyway?" successfully threw me off. It didn't seem to contextually jive with a sarcastic response to what I assumed was Adelson's "study" being epically shot down when the context was added.