Editorial--New York Should Rethink Internet Gambling Plans

[Pace Cap'n]

Yet another bozo...

leisure.newstimeslive.com/opinion/edit.php?id=1048436 (http://leisure.newstimeslive.com/opinion/edit.php?id=1048436)

Congress is considering regulatory legislation on Internet gambling because it can be so dangerous. It is an easy way to lure compulsive gamblers and children. It also is subject to exploitation by criminal elements.

[Tom]

What he says applies more to Congress than the internet! :ThmbDown:

[highnote]

Yet another bozo...

leisure.newstimeslive.com/opinion/edit.php?id=1048436 (http://leisure.newstimeslive.com/opinion/edit.php?id=1048436)


It's a stupid freakin' law. In Connecticut it's OK to open a telephone wagering account. But it's not OK to open an internet wagering account? What the hell is the difference? How can it be any more "dangerous" to open an internet account than a telephone account?

I want to know. Can someone explain it.

I wrote a letter to the editor of DRF. It should appear any day now.

I also wrote the Attorney General's Office in Connecticut.

Connecticut has the largest casino in the Northern Hemisphere and that's OK. But it's not OK to bet a horse race over the internet?

Anyone who thinks Connecticut's law on internet betting on horse racing makes sense is a fool.

[andicap]

Did you ever think Connecticut was keeping racing illegal over the Internet in order to PROTECT the casinos.

I mean who gives more money in political contributions? The casinos give millions upon millions to pols.

It has absolutely nothing to do with morality and double standards and everything to do with who has the deepest pockets.

[trying2win]

Great post SWETYEJOHN,

That really gets me...these politicians who think it's bad to allow internet gambling on horse races, because they believe it might cause more people to become compulsive gamblers. In my opinion, people are more likely to become problem or compulsive gamblers who are regulars at the casinos. Yet, I bet you (pardon the pun) a lot of these same narrow-minded politicians won't say a bad word about casinos in their own State. Try and figure out that kind of thinking.

And good show SWETYEJOHN, for the gumption you showed in taking the time to write to the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE about their Neanderthal era ideas about internet gambling on horse races. I admire you for that.

T2W






It's a stupid freakin' law. In Connecticut it's OK to open a telephone wagering account. But it's not OK to open an internet wagering account? What the hell is the difference? How can it be any more "dangerous" to open an internet account than a telephone account?

I want to know. Can someone explain it.

I wrote a letter to the editor of DRF. It should appear any day now.

I also wrote the Attorney General's Office in Connecticut.

Connecticut has the largest casino in the Northern Hemisphere and that's OK. But it's not OK to bet a horse race over the internet?

Anyone who thinks Connecticut's law on internet betting on horse racing makes sense is a fool.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

There is a reason to allow telephone betting and ban internet betting

On the phone it takes longer to place a bet (waiting for someone to answer your call, having to read out all the numbers and then have someone confirm your bet). Plus it costs money to make each call (unless you do all your bets at once). These things both act as a disincentive to bet

On the internet you can place your bets more quickly and easily without paying each time to make a call. So people are more likely to bet over the internet than on the phone

The people who makes these laws do not want you betting at all but are happy to strike a compromise by making it slower and more costly to bet over the phone (and so making it less likely that you will bet)

Happily I live in a place which allows internet betting. I used to bet over the phone before the internet came along. It is miles better and easier to bet on the internet than by phone. So I think these lawmakers know what they are doing

[highnote]

Seabiscuit,
You're argument sounds good. And that is probably what politicians think.

However, when you think about it, it is not true.

If I want to bet $100 to win, it might actually be easier by phone. I can pick up a phone and call in a bet anytime and anywhere. To make an internet bet I have to be at a computer. I have to turn it on, log in, etc.

Sometimes it's easier to call in a complex bet than to make it over the internet. It is especially easier to call in a large pick-6 ticket than to try and punch it in over a computer interface like BRISBET.

Or what about an exacta part-wheel box? Much easier to call it in. I always had to break my exacta bets up into smaller groups to place them over the internet. Much easier to call them in.

So while your argument might sound good, (especially to politicians) it doesn't hold true in my experience.

[highnote]

Did you ever think Connecticut was keeping racing illegal over the Internet in order to PROTECT the casinos.

I think about it all the time. I must have no life.

[Indulto]

I think about it all the time. I must have no life.I know the feeling. Really looking forward to your DRF letter.