View Full Version : Connecticut wagering news...
From Hartford Courant article: State Clamps Down On Internet Betting Site (http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-moreonline0806.artaug06,0,6691786.story?coll=hc-headlines-local)
Connecticut is clamping down on any pari-mutual wagering over the internet by state residents.
From article: The state has shut down another Internet gambling venue, blocking patrons from parimutuel wagering on a website owned by Penn National Gaming Inc.
"In Connecticut you cannot use the Internet for online gambling. Period. Telephone gambling is OK," said Paul Young, the division's executive director.
Penn National also noted that "at least three other entities" were still offering Internet wagering to state residents. One, youbet.com, appeared to still be taking bets Friday.
I'm glad the AG in CT is going after the real criminals.
What a pathetic little state. Can we sell it to Canada?
Or give it to them?
Skanoochies
08-06-2005, 09:34 PM
Tom........trade you for Quebec? :lol:
so.cal.fan
08-06-2005, 10:46 PM
"What a pathetic little state. Can we sell it to Canada?
Or give it to them"?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Actually, Tom, we have a couple of nice Pace Advantage members who live in Conn. I hope they are not inconvienced by this crappy ruling.
kenwoodallpromos
08-07-2005, 12:05 AM
Might as well give it to Canada; the half the wrestlers at WWE hqtred there are from Canada anyway!
bobhilo
08-07-2005, 12:46 AM
actually conn. has some very nice country scenery...spent a summer on the conn.- RI. border...pretty ride to the casino....new england sure beats much of flyover country(the middle of the US) and canada is very scenic also...Canaidians are nice folks also...there are good people all over...
They want you to wager in conn. ....so go offshore
toetoe
08-07-2005, 01:11 AM
You're all a buncha nutmeggers.
JOEG
Don't let them get to you, You and I know that Conn. is becomeing the Las vegas of the east coast and wants to keep it clean.
IRISHLADSTABLE
08-07-2005, 09:18 AM
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20050729083309990013
andicap
08-07-2005, 01:30 PM
What a pathetic little state. Can we sell it to Canada?
Or give it to them?
Tom, you'd do anything to get rid of a blue state! (Tho remember it has a Republican governor.)
:D
Zman179
08-07-2005, 08:07 PM
Tom, you'd do anything to get rid of a blue state! (Tho remember it has a Republican governor.)
:D
You mean a Republican ACTING Governor. The one who was voted in had to resign because he was corrupt. :lol:
EDITOR'S NOTE: Trying to discourage the use of abbreviated vulgarity....it's silly, unnecessary, and played out.
Anyone who is in favor of restricting internet horse race wagering is not red or blue - he is brown - like dirt. Is there no end to the things phony politicos will do to get their name in the papers? Like this is the main problem Ct. faces?
I am beginging to think AG's are attacked to racing becasue they feel at home with all the other horse's pituties! :mad:
so.cal.fan
08-07-2005, 10:00 PM
Horseracing can ill afford to lose customers....ANY customers......ANYWHERE.
We are looking for fans....not to drive them away. It may be Conn. just wants casino gambling? I don't know that much about the state....but I agree with Tom....it's just another dirty deal for horseplayers. :bang:
andicap
08-07-2005, 11:31 PM
CT has casinos -- two of them. In fact it was one of the first -- if not THE first state to award casinos to Native Americans (Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun.)
I was just pulling Tom's chain, that's all.
The governor, Jodi Rell, ahem, acting governor, is more than likely to get re-elected. She's a moderate Republican, and those types do well in that state.
To be fair, the AG is a a Democrat, a phenomenally popular politician, but who is not running for another office anytime soon. The legislature is also all Democratic.
I don't think gambling issues are really ideological as much as political. The casinos enjoyed a great relationship with Clinton because they contributed a pile of money to his campaigns. And yet the head of the trade group representing casinos in D.C. was a dyed in the wool Republican.
In some states it's a religious issue. Conservative fundamentalist Christians lobby against the spread of gambling. In some states Democrats lobby hard against its spread because they consider it a regressive tax on the poor, many of whom gamble (Lotto especially) even though they have trouble making ends meet. I argue this point with my brother. It is truly a condescending viewpoint -- we have to protect the poor from themselves. To me it smacks of Rudyard Kipling's racist "White Man's Burden" from colonial India.
I don't know why the CT attorney general has clamped down on Internet betting. Perhaps it's because he believes that's the right decision under the law. Perhaps its to protect CT's OTBs which includes a pair of teletheatres and telephone betting. Or the casinos which probably contribute a ton of money to his campaigns.
Certainly I disagree with those who say the state should not go after Internet gambling because they have more important fish to fry. Of course I abhor the AG's actions, but if you believe something is illegal you should act on your convictions, no matter the issue. Its his duty under the state charter. If the government did not pursue "minor" crimes than everyone could litter, park wherever they wanted, and play loud music in public places.
Note that the AG is not arresting people who are gambling over the Internet, only trying to block the sites. Actually arresting people for that would be a grotesque misuse of the AG's legal power.
I agree with Andie, and yet I agree with Tom too.
I feel Conn. is protecting their casino's. I hear there is a third tribe in Conn. that wants to have a casino. It's like Mass. the Lottery is so successful that the tracks will never see Slots.3000 people are employed by the state lottery and most of those people are relatives and friends of the politicians.
most states could care less about horse racing.because the politicians can see how to get more of the residents gambling dollar than racing can give.
My guess is that Conn. will have sports betting before Las Vegas.
so.cal.fan
08-08-2005, 10:01 AM
John brings up an interesting question.
If gambling is expanded to sports betting in most states.......which is highly likely..........
Does racing have a chance to survive?
It is a frightening scenario to me......I am thinking of a place like Hollywood Park, which has already warned they will soon be a racetrack no more.....
If they had gambling.....Las Vegas type gambling with sports betting.....why in the world would they want to bother with a racetrack?
Slot racing will be the eventual downfall of our sport....because it is just the "beginning".
[QUOTE=Does racing have a chance to survive?
So.Cal, IMHO Horse racing has two chances, Slim and none. in Mass. That is why trainers will do anything to win. Trainers and owners know that the track cou;d close it's doors tomorrow. Magna, has done that in your state.
so.cal.fan
08-08-2005, 11:13 AM
:( Sad commentary, John.....we can only pray we are wrong.
The well known equine artist, Fred Stone, told me 20 years ago....
"there will eventually be only a half a dozen live racing tracks in America...they will simulcast everywhere else". Fred obviously has a deep love of horses and horseracing......but he saw it coming......we had no idea of legalized gambling in 1985, but it is slowly but surely replacing our beloved horseracing.
andicap
08-08-2005, 02:00 PM
Legalized sports betting won't spread too far because the professional sports leagues won't allow it. Besides I can already bet on sports through the Internet. Connecticut is too small to have a major league franchise so maybe it will pursue sports betting. But the state doesn't have a racetrack either, just OTBs/teletheaters/racebooks in casinos.
bobbyb
08-08-2005, 02:12 PM
Penn Nat Gaming is NOT in our Best Interest's, nor are most others...
This organization has managed Casino Rama for the past 4 years, with the contract expiring in the 5th year.
Prior to Penn acquiring managment agreements with this 2200 Slot/Poker Rooms/Dozens of Blackjack Tables/ and other bet interests, this Casino averaged 150-200 people per Saturday and Sunday in the Race Book. The book operated 7 days a week/noon till the last race in the pm.
Race go'ers applauded the new entry, (Penn Gaming), a racetrack operator, and pressed to have the Race Book re configured since it is part of a bar/restaurant.
You'll have to visualize this - I'll try my best to describe where the tellers are and what you have to do to wager:
The Book has 4 mini jumbotrons that are stacked 2 x 2 - 1 showing Race Feed usually the other 3 showing auto racing/baseball/beach volleyball whatever. Their are approx. 16 Televisions. The Tellers (2) are caged in an enclosed booth with 1 Sam machine next to them.
In Front of the Teller Cage their is approx. 6 feet of space until you get to a 3 foot x 3 foot concrete pillar, floor to roof, dead centre of the cage. You have to line up at an angle - to get around the beam - so people cut in, the Sam players are crushed, tempers flare - and there's NO SECURITY. It get's better - These tellers have to take breaks - so the line wanders thru the dining public, cause only 1 window is open. You can just imagine the anger of those patrons paying 6 bucks for a burger/4 bucks for a beer - and having someone butting a cig. out on their table, not withstanding the cursing that goes on.
The solution was simple - Move the F*****g booth to a side wall, which is unused, no pillars, and a boon to the player. Cost - perhaps a grand. Great site view, privacy, ease of betting. Has it happened - NO. Our little group of 5 were told to put up with it cause it would never happen, and the piddly 250,000 a day wagered did not warrant losing a table for the dining public (?). As an aside, we were told by a senior manager, that gaming management was the priority, not our convience. If we wanted to bet horses, go to a racetrack - they inherited the race book, so they are putting up with it.
Did these dudes every consider where most of the players wives went (Slotting) while they played the horses? My wife was one of them, albiet not too often.
I went to Casino Rama yesterday (Sunday). There were 16 players in the book. According to my pals, it averages around 30 to 50 on a good day now.
A net LOSS of 100 serious players, who, and I know of many, played BJ or Poker after the card finished.
IMO Penn Gaming and most other operators could care less about us/the bread and butter of racing for most of the past century and then some. WE and those before us, have made this all possible for these bottom feeders. In Ontario, they lobbied to SAVE racing with Slots - That's why we have such enormous fields here, today (joke). There are no perks for us - no rebates - nothing. They just take, and take some more. The slots players (this place turns 500Mil a month) are rewarded with dinners/shows. We, as players, pay 2 bucks for a soda (tip incl) - if and when you can get it - no dinners/comps/rebates/ and perhaps clean bathrooms.
I don't give a rat's ass about dinner; just provide a safe, and pleasurable book for us - I like to get outta the house occassionally - but IMO that will never happen.
Sorry for the ranting and this going a bit off topic, but my blood started to boil after reading Irish's post/link to Penn's wonderfull world of gaming. Don't forget, this management team runs CH in W Virg.
Maybe that AG in CON has been to Casino Rama :bang:
Slot's - That's where it's at!! (Penn G/advert)
bobbyb
NoDayJob
08-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Fred Stone, told me 20 years ago....
"there will eventually be only a half a dozen live racing tracks in America...they will simulcast everywhere else".
Downsizing is bound to occur in racing, just as it has in the rest of the corporate world. Japan has less than a dozen tracks. Their handles are huge. The same goes for Hong Kong with their 2 race tracks. I'm not too worried about tracks closing in N.A. and simulcasting replacing them. It will probably reduce the number of horses bred and raise the quality of the stock. Handles will probably increase quite a bit too. TV will feature more racing, thus increasing the number of people exposed to the sport of kings.
NDJ [AKA Troll #1]
Connecticut has 2 dog tracks. Plainfield and Shoreline Star.
ZAFONIC
andicap
08-08-2005, 04:03 PM
Connecticut has 2 dog tracks. Plainfield and Shoreline Star.
ZAFONIC
I stand corrected -- but I've been to Shoreline Star (for the racebook not the dogs) and I've seen more people at a Pat Sajak charisma fest.
Zman179
08-08-2005, 08:02 PM
I can only assume that the AG had to come down on racing because of the fact that he came down on the lottery and against Foxwoods, which both tried to implement internet games but were both denied.
This way, the AG doesn't show favoritism since he's cracking down on all types of internet gaming within Connecticut. In this regard, I don't mind heavy-handedness as long as it's equally distributed.
BTW, Plainfield Greyhound Park went out of business earlier this year.
Makes sense Plainfield going out due to the close proximity to Foxwood's / Mohegan.
Congrats Andy , you are the first living person that I know who attended Shoreline Star. How does that place stay in business ?
ZAFONIC
PaceAdvantage
08-09-2005, 01:21 AM
I think I went there once or twice as well....with Andy....LOL
socantra
08-09-2005, 02:19 AM
Certainly I disagree with those who say the state should not go after Internet gambling because they have more important fish to fry. Of course I abhor the AG's actions, but if you believe something is illegal you should act on your convictions, no matter the issue. Its his duty under the state charter. If the government did not pursue "minor" crimes than everyone could litter, park wherever they wanted, and play loud music in public places.
Note that the AG is not arresting people who are gambling over the Internet, only trying to block the sites. Actually arresting people for that would be a grotesque misuse of the AG's legal power.
You seem to want it both ways Andi. If the govenment cannot ignore minor crimes, then it is the AG's duty to arrest, or at least ticket those gambling over the internet.
If it is a crime to place a bet on the internet, then those state citizens so doing are committing a crime and by your reasoning should be held accountable. For the AG to ignore those crimes would be deriliction of his duty.
We live in a society where it is hard not to commit a dozen crimes before breakfast in the morning, and every government body on the planet is making more things illegal every day.
The AG will not arrest individual citizens of the state because it would be politically unpopular to do so. Most of our laws are selectively enforced, and if he could find an internet bettor he could get away with labeling a member of organized crime, he would have them in jail in a 'New Haven minute'.
socantra...
andicap
08-09-2005, 11:01 AM
Im not sure I'm being inconsistent. What I'm saying is that if the Attorney General truly believes he is interpreteing the law correctly then he has the duty -- as the head legal officer of the state -- to enforce it. If there are laws on the books that are not being enforced, they should be rescinded. That just makes people lose respect for the law.
I happen to believe the AG is interpreting the law too broadly by allowing telephone betting out of state but not Internet betting.
socantra
08-09-2005, 12:05 PM
If the law is written like most state internet gambling laws, it is a crime to place a bet on the internet. If the attorney general feels it is his duty to enforce that law, he should be rounding up the citizens of the state who are committing such a crime, something you call a groteque misuse of his legal power. He will not take such an action, because he would most likely be looking for work, if not another state to live in.
Instead, he will do as he is doing and try an end run to stop sites from accepting wagers from state citizens. Once that is accomplished, or the headlines die down, whichever comes first, he will most likely abandon his crusade and everyone can go back to doing business as usual. The law will remain on the books and everyone can safely ignore it til the next time some politician is looking for an issue.
socantra...
highnote
08-09-2005, 03:09 PM
If the law is written like most state internet gambling laws, it is a crime to place a bet on the internet. If the attorney general feels it is his duty to enforce that law, he should be rounding up the citizens of the state who are committing such a crime, something you call a groteque misuse of his legal power. He will not take such an action, because he would most likely be looking for work, if not another state to live in.
Instead, he will do as he is doing and try an end run to stop sites from accepting wagers from state citizens. Once that is accomplished, or the headlines die down, whichever comes first, he will most likely abandon his crusade and everyone can go back to doing business as usual. The law will remain on the books and everyone can safely ignore it til the next time some politician is looking for an issue.
socantra...
I live 20 or so miles from Shoreline Star. It is my favorite OTB. We always get a table in the restaurant - decent food and lots of tracks.
This whole CT AG things is total BS. I sent Blumenthal (the AG) a letter awhile back because he didn't want Connecticut OTB (owned by Autotote) to broadcast races at night on Channel 73 from 7:00pm to 10:00pm because he was against the expansion of gambling in the state. What a bunch of horseshit. I told him the horse racing industry is in such bad shape that 3 hours of daily broadcasting would hardly do anything to boost gambling. How many people are going to tune in for 3 hours at night and bet horses - 5, 10 maybe 20 people? I suppose that technically, he is correct. If 3 new horse racing bettors are created then this is gambling expansion. But is this the gambling expansion he is afraid of? Does he have so little to do up there in Hartford that this is what we are paying him to do -- stop 3 new people from gambling? What a joke.
Slot machines and lottories will expand gambling. 3 hours of horse racing broadcast will not.
I'm still pissed off that when the state allowed lotteries they almost killed Jai Alai in CT. Then when they allowed slots, they put the nail into the coffin of Jai Alai.
I did some work for the TV show Adam Smith's Money World. Smith interviewed then Governor of CT, Lowell Wicker. I was the soundman. I was wearing headphones and I heard every word loud and clear. I was in Wicker's office during the interview. At the time Wicker opposed allowing the Mashentucket Pequots to have slot machines. Wicker told Smith, "As long as I am governor of CT there will be no slot machines allowed in the state." Two months and a guaranteed 100 million dollar per year royalty the state of CT allowed the Pequots to have slots. Wicker was either bluffing so he could get a big royalty for the state or he was bought for $100 million. Take your pick.
Blumenthal is worried about people placing bets on horses over the internet? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHA
What a load of horse shit!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe if the racing industry ponied up 100 million per year for royalties for the state of CT Blumenthal would authorize CT residents to place wagers over the internet.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm laughing so hard I think I'm going to vomit. I think I'll take a run up to Hartford so I can vomit on the capitol steps.
:D :mad: :D :mad: :lol: :mad:
highnote
08-09-2005, 11:03 PM
Do you know what is really stupid about this?....
They allow wagering on horses by telephone, but not by internet.
They can shove their shelf righteous, constituent pandering, etc., up their... well never mind.
You know, I saw George Bush, Sr. at the Kentucky Derby one year. It was well known that Bill Clinton's mother loved to bet on horses. Hell, the Queen of England bets on horses. The (former?) U.S. ambassador to England was William Farrish. Betfair even received the Queen's award for best new internet business (or something like that).
And now our state AG - Dick Blumenthal - wants to protect us all from the evils of betting horses online. We will all be safe if we only bet by telephone -- but by God, if you place a bet over the internet the devil will steal your soul.
It is so ludicrous I want to vomit again.
highnote
08-09-2005, 11:21 PM
It just dawned on my that those people who were arrested and accused of betting $200 million and then not paying taxes on the income were Connecticut based.
I suppose that has a lot to do with Blumenthal prohibiting Penn Gaming from taking bets from CT players.
highnote
08-10-2005, 12:05 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2005/08/08/jury_reaches_verdict_in_lincoln_park_conspiracy_tr ial/
State officials recently approved Wembley's sale of Lincoln Park to BLB Investors, a Connecticut-based consortium of investors who own other gambling companies. The company plans to add slot machines at the greyhound track.
Anyone know who BLB Investors is? They are buying a Rhode Island dog track and adding slot machines.
Is it coincidence that all this other crap is going on in CT at the same time?
CT Indian Tribe make big bucks from slots, CT residents prohibited from internet betting, CT group arrested for underpayment of taxes on rebates from $200 million worth of wagers, CT may allow slots at bars and nightclubs, CT Tribes threaten to withhold slot royalties if that happens. CT Investors buy Rhode Island dog track and plan to add slots.
No wonder the AG is up in arms. He is swimming up stream.
That brings up a good question for our guys at Saratoga.
Does anyone know how the Harness track slots have done in the last year?
I bet it is a lot.
John,
I read an article a while ago that they are doing quite well. They are talking about building a hotel adjacent to the track.
ZAFONIC
highnote
08-10-2005, 10:24 PM
John,
I read an article a while ago that they are doing quite well. They are talking about building a hotel adjacent to the track.
ZAFONIC
I don't understand why people would want to play slots and then stay in a hotel near the slot parlor.
Of course, the slot players probably can't understand why I want to play the horses and stay in a hotel near the track.
To each his own.
:o)
:)
highnote
08-14-2005, 12:29 AM
I just read that Penn Gaming is about to open a slot parlor in Bangor, Maine.
Could that be part of the reason why the Connecticut DA Blumenthal has barred Connecticut players from betting with Penn National's eBet service?
Maybe he wants to make sure as much slot money as possible goes to the CT Indian casinos so that CT can get as hefty a royalty as possible.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.