Boyd CEO Speaks Out On Regulated Online Gambling

I agree wholeheartedly with Boyd's CEO.

I learned to play poker at pokerstars and now travel to Las Vegas a couple of times a year to play live. If it weren't for online poker, I would never have set foot inside a bricks and mortar casino.

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.

Great article!

For me, online is just easier. If I want to play NL I have to drive to Iowa or Wisconsin... They do offer spread limit here at some of the Card Rooms, and have somehow circumvented the state laws on NL by offering "Survivor Tourneys". Where you buy in for a set price plus a house fee, say $200 $20 ad you play a cash game for 2 hours...but it is a tournament and you can rebuy at will.

Chemist said:

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.

Click to expand...

So...let me get this straight. You're a member of a poker forum, I notice that you take breaks from it for a month or more at a time, but when you do post, you post quite a bit and in no way seem opposed to gambling, or at the very least an activity that's as close to gambling as you can get while having potential for it to not be gambling, and...you're opposed to casinos?

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.

Lheticus said:

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.

Click to expand...

batteries might be dead in your sarcasm detector

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.

curtinsea said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

curtinsea said:

batteries might be dead in your sarcasm detector

Click to expand...

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.

Lheticus said:

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.)
.

Click to expand...

I understand the fear that casino games provide more of an incentive to cheat than perhaps poker does, but it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The problem is that all of the arguments for regulating internet poker hold equally true for casino games. About the only argument you can make is the cannibalization argument the article linked is attempting to refute.

As long as the programs are routinely audited, we can be relatively sure that they are not 'ripping you off,' although that is subjective, as many believe a game where the odds are inherently in favor of the house by definition are ripping you off.

Personally, I only advocate for poker, on the basis that it is a peer to peer game, where you do not play against the odds, nor against the house. We are not playing in an unfair environment, but rather a level playing field where the players' skill determines long term success. Those are the arguments I make.

Hmmmm.... interesting article. I think only time will tell how OLP and online gaming in general will affect brick and mortar casinos.

The article brings up some good points. At first thought, it seemed to me that, of course it would cannibalize business. But after looking at it thoroughly, with an unbiased opionion, I can see how the majority of these online players, aren't the "normal" customers they cater toward.

Just gonna take issue with one statement (admittedly not the author's):


Australia doesn't have legal online gaming - at least, not casino gaming (sports betting is a different matter entirely). Online poker isn't strictly speaking legal either, though the government hasn't show much interest in doing anything about it ever since the laws came into force over a decade ago.

Live poker makes up a tiny, tiny portion of income at our brick and mortar casinos (even the "major" poker rooms in Crown Melbourne or the Star in Sydney are small compared to their Vegas counterparts, and they're tiny compared to the rest of the casino floor too).

So I really don't know how they're supposed to draw any conclusions from that: the casinos make the vast majority of their income from games other than poker, and games other than poker have no real online competition here...

This is a very interesting topic. But in terms of online poker everyone here knows that helped bring poker player to the casino. I still go to Potowatomi, here in milwaukee all the time, i love the feel of casinos, and playing against really people. its a different kind of game really. You take different things into account in person vs online. i still enjoy both.

whoops wasn't done, the issue of other casino games being played online is another question. I can see people at the slots when at the casino and a lot of them look like they like being in the casino, its like a private time for them, get out of the house and enjoys some slots, or blackjack, craps with all the other people around and you play off eachother, can't be accomodated online, also the serivce, of being comped rooms, buffet, whatever isn't there. going to a casino is an experience. online casino play just different.

Now i don't play other casino games since they became available on the poker sites recently. I personally don't trust them. I will always go to casinos. I don't think this online gaming should effect casinos, like i sais people mostly go for the experience.
-A

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...

daredeviljo said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Lheticus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from. Maybe if they had broadened they're research it would have helped their argument, however it is an ongoing issue. We as poker players would like to see the expansion of poker in casinos and other various attractions. This also benefits the poker sites, as the situation is mutual. We can only hope it does expand.

Thanks for clarifying.

Lheticus said:

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.

Click to expand...

A few thoughts on the above:

- Yes brick and mortar casino game are scrutinized by the relevant state or government regulators. But the vast majority of oversight that goes on in casinos is done by the casino itself to ensure staff and players aren't ripping them off. That's what pretty much all the cameras, supervisors, pit bosses and security are there for.

- Contrary to what you've suggested, an online casino would be much, much easier to regulate and oversee in that regard. For starters there's a whole area of brick and mortar regulation that you can throw out altogether: croupiers colluding with players. No such problem online.

It's then a trivial exercise for the licensing body to confirm that the games are following the rules and that the RNG being used passes checks.

Keep in mind too that table games and slots are, by their nature, already "rigged" in favour of the house. A legal online casino is a licence to print money - not only are the games already running in their favour, but they've got none of the dealer or other overhead costs that a brick and mortar has and they get WAY more volume in terms of hands/spins per hour when the human interaction is taken out. So they don't need to rig the games in order to win money and they'd be stupid to risk their licence trying to squeeze a little extra house edge on a game.

- An online casino would also be easier for players to monitor. Remember that it was player scrutiny that broke the UB/AP super user scandal, and that was possible because the players had access to thousands and thousands of hands worth of data. Same would be true of other online casino games. Compare that to a brick and mortar casino, where you might think something isn't on the level but you've got no actual data to go back on, and even if you did you'd only be talking about a statistically insignificant sample size.

Short version: yes it'd be relatively easy to rig an online casino game to increase the house advantage. But it'd also be pretty easy for regulators and even players to detect when it's happening. And when the casino is making money hand over fist anyway, there's not really much motivation.