Will Betfair become a Player in the U.S?

[rwwupl]

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/will-betfair-become-a-player-in-the-us/

With all the talk about Betfair purchasing TVG and becoming a licensed player in California, I thought a reprise of this article might be appropriate,even though it was published 21 months ago...

The article has a lot of good points to consider,including:

What is Betfair?

Concerns about Betfair.

Can racing develop its own betting exchange?

Integrity issues remain a concern.

Reader comments.

Excerpt:

Are betting exchanges a possible solution to the problems facing the U.S. Thoroughbred industry, which in 2008 saw its annual pari-mutuel handle fall for the fourth time in six years, dropping over 7% to a 10-year low? The Thoroughbred Owners of California thinks they may be, having recently signed a letter of agreement with betting exchange giant Betfair to have the UK-based company promote California racing abroad while TOC helps BetFair obtain statutory and regulatory approval to operate a betting exchange in California

Excerpt:

CONCERNS ABOUT BETFAIR

The problem many see with Betfair is that the company pays a small percentage for the rights to races on which it handles wagers. In England, for example, it pays a bit over 10% of gross profits on racing wagers. In some cases, however, it pays no fees at all, as is currently the case with racing from the U.S. Betfair currently accepts bets on American racing, but only from customers outside of the U.S., and it does not have rights to any video signals. Betfair is acutely aware of concerns from racing interests in the U.S. who believe betting exchanges would cannibalize pari-mutuel betting and decrease revenue to tracks and purses. It addresses some of those fears in this pamphlet, which was designed to appease the racing industry in the United Kingdom.

Another concern raised about Betfair centers on wagers it accepts that a specific horse will lose, prompting worries about race-fixing. But Betfair has cooperated in several investigations involving horse racing and sports betting, giving authorities access to detailed betting information as part of its memorandum of understanding.

Drew Couto, the president of TOC, said the letter of agreement with BetFair was signed last month. He believes wagering will continue to suffer unless the industry distances itself from Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing time after time and expecting a different result. “That really describes our industry’s approach to this sport and business over the last decade,” Couto said.

“Going forward,” he added, “we have to face two very important realities. “First, we have allowed the sport to basically disappear. It’s no longer a sport, but simply a justification to gamble and wager, and as a wagering proposition we know it’s not the most attractive. We have to go back and make it a sport. We have to give the sport some structure to have it make sense for the fans, make some very serious fundamental changes to focus on the sporting aspect of racing. We have left it largely to the tracks to be the stewards of the sport, and they only care about the financial side.

“Second,” Couto said, “we have to adopt new ways our fans can participate. New wagers, betting exchanges. We have to embrace these new ways of playing as ancillary to the way we currently operate, so it’s new and fresh. That includes tournament-style wagering that was approved by the RCI (Association of Racing Commissioners International) last summer. If we don’t begin to do things differently and find new ways to operate, we are bound to be the definitive example of what Einstein said

[andymays]

BRITISH RACING GROUP

BETTING EXCHANGES…ARE NOT PROVIDING BRITISH RACING WITH A FAIR RETURN



http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/british-racing-group-betting-exchangesare-not-providing-british-racing-with-a-fair-return/

[Charlie D]

Betting Exchanges are paying what they are told to pay by the Levy Board and that is why the aricle states


British Horseracing today launched a campaign calling on the Government and the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) to secure a fair return from the betting industry

[Robert Goren]

It should read British Horseracing launched a campaign calling on the government and the HBLB to kill the goose who is laying the golden eggs.

[DeanT]

Reading what racing tells you about this, is like reading what the recording industry told you about online music. After all, in 2006 in Australia, one member of Parliament in that country who was in a racing jurisdiction told the public (on the floor of parliament) that Betfair should not be allowed because it was funneling money for Al Queda.

How about reading what gambling journals say instead - we'll learn more.

Here is an article in a US magazine from 2004.

This is not a new issue - it has been around for six years. Racing did just what they do best - protect the status quo.

It is interesting to read it, because it shows how far the business is willing to go in holding firm to the 1905 pari-mutuel market, in a 2010 world. This is a fundamental shift in the world economy. Good industries with foresight win, bad companies who protect lose. It's the way it is, no matter how much racing tries to obfuscate the issue.

It is also interesting to read it, because it was written six years a-freaking go.

Internet-related technological change isn’t some isolated one-off phenomenon that affects just the racing industry. The Internet is realizing its promise: it is wringing inefficiencies out of industries across the economy, lowering consumer prices for goods and services through more perfect information. As (MIT computer scientist) Nick Negroponte has pointed out, being digital changes the way consumers relate to the world. Consumers can access goods and services (or each other) directly–bypassing pre-Internet industry gates like CDs or racetrack turnstiles. The impact of betting exchanges on racetracks is merely an incident in a much larger transformation in the global economy.

You will also find lower prices. Much lower prices. Betfair’s business model derives revenue from a commission on the peer-to-peer bets it matches: this commission seems to range from 7% to 9%. That is, of course, very much lower than the north-of-20% takeout that is commonly deducted from pari-mutuel wagers in the United States. Serious horseplayers are among the most price-sensitive consumers of any kind in any industry, and Betfair’s pricing is irresistible. Offshore betting services and rebate shops also offer lower prices, of course. Downward pressure on the price of betting horses is a structural change in racing’s market environment; betting exchanges contribute to this pressure but it would exist even if the exchanges shut down tomorrow.

http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/racings-response-to-betting-exchanges-703.htm

[Stillriledup]

Lets hope!

[rwwupl]

DeanT,

Thanks for that fine article, it sheds more light. I wish the regulators and the racetracks were as interested as many of us are.

[Native Texan III]

Commission is 5% down to 3% for big accounts on winning portions of bets. There are extra Premium charges for those who make high frequency bets.

Improved integrity works so far in UK and Australia, easily catching individual and naive small time crooks but I don't think that the US authorities are up to the task if organized crime gets involved in laying hot favorites to lose. They don't take prisoners of those who stand in their way.

[satrabyk]

I have been betting on Betfair for 5 years now and believe that the main reason Betfair is any good is because of the low takeout rate (3-5%). If introduced here at same takeout rate it will ruin overall handle. Why would one bet into pools at the much higher rates ? I know this for a fact since every person I referred to Betfair rarely bet into the pools now including myself. If introduced in the U.S. with increased takeout rates it would defeat the purpose and will probably fail.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Overall handle is doing a good job of ruining itself without the help of Betfair

Betfair would be good for USA racing but I cannot see it happening. Instead further takeout increases on the tote are the most likely future for USA racing

[Stillriledup]

I have been betting on Betfair for 5 years now and believe that the main reason Betfair is any good is because of the low takeout rate (3-5%). If introduced here at same takeout rate it will ruin overall handle. Why would one bet into pools at the much higher rates ? I know this for a fact since every person I referred to Betfair rarely bet into the pools now including myself. If introduced in the U.S. with increased takeout rates it would defeat the purpose and will probably fail.


Shhhhh

[Kelso]

I have been betting on Betfair for 5 years now and believe that the main reason Betfair is any good is because of the low takeout rate (3-5%). If introduced here at same takeout rate it will ruin overall handle. Why would one bet into pools at the much higher rates ? I know this for a fact since every person I referred to Betfair rarely bet into the pools now including myself. If introduced in the U.S. with increased takeout rates it would defeat the purpose and will probably fail.

If exchange betting is the final straw for many of today's marginal tracks, it might turn out to be a very good thing.

If, for example, 60% to 70% of the tracks close down, the bulk of their handle ... and many of their horses ... logically will migrate to the surviving tracks.

Fewer races, larger fields, concentrated handle and LOWER TAKEOUT (commissions) might be just what the entire racing community (PARTICULARLY BETTORS) needs.

Just speculating.

[redshift1]

I'm trying to get my mind around this... so for example a horse with post time odds of 3-1 at the track might be 5-1 on Betfair?

Does Betfair pay the track a percentage of the total pool?

Does betfair pay the State a percentage of the total pool?

So if Betfair offers higher payouts who gets the short end of the stick. The State, the track, the ADW's.

Is this a form of par-mutual wagering?

My head is spinning.

[nearco]

I'm trying to get my mind around this... so for example a horse with post time odds of 3-1 at the track might be 5-1 on Betfair?

Does Betfair pay the track a percentage of the total pool?

Does betfair pay the State a percentage of the total pool?

So if Betfair offers higher payouts who gets the short end of the stick. The State, the track, the ADW's.

Is this a form of par-mutual wagering?

My head is spinning.

Betfair does offer pool betting into US pari pools. But 99% of betting on betfair is peer-to-peer fixed odds betting, i.e you get to play the bookie and offer Zenyatta at 3/1 in the Classic and someone else logs in and takes you up on the bet and bets $10 at 3/1. Betfair isn't actually the bookie, they just facilitate the transaction and take a percentage cut. It is similar to trading stocks on line. Hence the name "Betting Exchange".

As to how much the track/state/etc would get, that would have to be negotiated. Right now in the UK and Ireland Betfair pays a percentage of total profits to the Levy Board, I believe 10%. That's a tiny amount in comparison to the takeout at US parimutuel pools, but it is the standard amount that bookmakers pay as required by the government. One would hope that US tracks and racing jurisdictions would strike a much more favourable deal.... that is in the unlikely event that exchange betting was ever legalized across the board in the US, something I doubt I will see in my lifetime.

[Charlie D]

Bit mad isn't it allowing people to bet on Slots, Lottery and PMU and not allowing them to bet via an exchange or even a bookies should they wish to.


Betting is betting, the vehicle you use for that operation(bet placement) should be of no relevance.

[DeanT]

I'm trying to get my mind around this... so for example a horse with post time odds of 3-1 at the track might be 5-1 on Betfair?

Does Betfair pay the track a percentage of the total pool?

Does betfair pay the State a percentage of the total pool?

So if Betfair offers higher payouts who gets the short end of the stick. The State, the track, the ADW's.

Is this a form of par-mutual wagering?

My head is spinning.

Take out racing (as the bulk of their betting is other sports) and it might be easier to understand:

It's a co. that utilized the net to bring people together to bet without a bookie. They created a betting community, like a facebook for people who bet. If you like the Lions at +4 against the Bears at even money and another dude in India likes the Bears at - 4 even money, you put up $40 to bet it, and he puts up $40 to lay it, and you bypass betting with the house. The commission (around 5%) is taken out by the co. as profit (on winning wagers only).

Their most recent ad campaign shows their edge to attract people:

1- Cut out the bookie
2- It is a community; you bet directly with other people, just like you would in a bar over a beer
3- You get lower takeout

That's it in a nutshell.

vfZ93a_njiM

[redshift1]

Thanks Dean, so this is not a variant of Pari-mutual betting at all. Well it sounds great for the bettor but appears to undercut the track and the state depending on the negotiated fees.

I wonder how Betfair plans to sell their model to the governing entities of horse racing in the U.S. as the taxed revenues would drop except for the bettors.

[DeanT]

I wonder how Betfair plans to sell their model to the governing entities of horse racing in the U.S. as the taxed revenues would drop except for the bettors.

Not sure what they will do, but it is old hat to them. They got licensed in three jurisdictions before (with all the same arguments against them) and succeeded. So I guess it will take time. In some places the grip on the old time thinking holds on. In others it is let go. Horseman groups do not understand gambling, and existing people (bookies, ADWs etc) want no competition, so it is tough. But like most things - the consumer forces change. They are buying their product, and not buying a bookie or ADW product, so they ultimately decide. I assume it might take another 10% handle loss or so for racing to start moving to offering lower prices and more variety to their fan base, and the fan base they want so that racing can be sustained for years to come.

Or alternatively, they could simply lobby for more slots and table games, along with incremental takeout hikes, and keep the status quo. It seems that is the strategy that racing is choosing right now.

[Mike_412]

It will be interesting to see what happens with the betting exchange bill in Jersey. It passed the Assembly by a vote of 78-0 in late June and should be up for a vote in the Senate fairly soon. It seems to have complete support and I'm assuming (very dangerous normally) that it will pass and that Betfair will be named the operator. I'm hopeful that a legal exchange is right around the corner.

I'll be curious to see what the take is set at as well as how it will be received here. I love the exchange concept so I'm probably a bit biased, but I think it will be a huge hit and am hopeful that other states and racing jurisdictions finally see the light. Racing doesn't understand that of the utmost priority is an engaged betting public. They don't have that right now. I believe a betting exchange will aid in moving in that direction.

[DeanT]

It will be interesting to see what happens with the betting exchange bill in Jersey. It passed the Assembly by a vote of 78-0 in late June and should be up for a vote in the Senate fairly soon. It seems to have complete support and I'm assuming (very dangerous normally) that it will pass and that Betfair will be named the operator. I'm hopeful that a legal exchange is right around the corner.

I'll be curious to see what the take is set at as well as how it will be received here. I love the exchange concept so I'm probably a bit biased, but I think it will be a huge hit and am hopeful that other states and racing jurisdictions finally see the light. Racing doesn't understand that of the utmost priority is an engaged betting public. They don't have that right now. I believe a betting exchange will aid in moving in that direction.

I too am interested to see what Jersey does. With US tracks there is little volume compared to UK tracks right now. Opening it up to a state that has players, it would be a lesson.

If there are Jersey players, along with everyone else, being able to play MTH, for example, it is not unconcievable to see $3M volumes, and in running betting. Virtually everyone would be watching and handicapping MTH, both in Jersey and outside of it (who are BF customers). The Haskell, for example, could be vaulted into the stratosphere with players playing it, and it might spike handles appreciably.

It would be neat to see.

Regardless, the world is changing, and Jersey is smack dab in the middle of it, in many,, many ways.

[Canarsie]

If I recall correctly it's going to be run by NJSEA but they can subcontract it out. If the takeout is 5% how will the pot be split to benefit the tracks? Plus if it's only NJ residents how much handle will they generate (I'm in) from it?

Considering on track handle is still low and places like Favorites (OTW) are packed because people want to be there I can't see this being a huge success but am all for it.

Maybe I should sell my address? :lol:

[andymays]

I have to say when the CEO or whoever (Burns) appeared on TVG and gave his pitch about the California Bill that raises takeout, he said he was for the increase in takeout.

For me the guy sounded like a scammer trying to pull something over on us. If someone can pull up the interview or has a you tube of it I think everyone should see it.

[Some_One]

If I recall correctly it's going to be run by NJSEA but they can subcontract it out. If the takeout is 5% how will the pot be split to benefit the tracks? Plus if it's only NJ residents how much handle will they generate (I'm in) from it?

Considering on track handle is still low and places like Favorites (OTW) are packed because people want to be there I can't see this being a huge success but am all for it.

Maybe I should sell my address? :lol:

If it is run by NJSEA, it'll be a disaster, what experience do they have in this? I wouldn't be surprised a NJSEA run exchange to have a 10+% takeout, then wonder why noone plays it. Plus if it is a NJ only thing it won't work, for the concept to work, you must have liquidity...simply put, make the deal with Betfair or don't bother at all.

[Canarsie]

I have a question that maybe someone smarter then me can answer. If exchange wagering is enacted in NJ and they implement it for out of state tracks what are the chances that their signal gets cut?

[Canarsie]

If it is run by NJSEA, it'll be a disaster, what experience do they have in this? I wouldn't be surprised a NJSEA run exchange to have a 10+% takeout, then wonder why noone plays it. Plus if it is a NJ only thing it won't work, for the concept to work, you must have liquidity...simply put, make the deal with Betfair or don't bother at all.


Well it looks like their in charge unless the bill gets amended.

http://www.drf.com/news/new-jersey-pushes-exchange-betting

[Some_One]

From the same article

"Under the bill, the NJSEA could contract with an outside operator like Betfair to run the exchange."

[Mike_412]

Everything I've read over the last couple of months makes it appear that the NJSEA would just hold the license and then sub out the actual operation of the exchange. Hopefully Betfair will be that operator so we can tap into that overseas liquidity. Plus, they just know the exchange game better than anyone.

As a lifelong Jersey resident, hope for the best and expect the worst is probably applicable here.

[gm10]

Betfair do actually contribute, but not enough according to the industry. The outdated 'Levy'-mechanism is largely to blame for that, though, not Betfair or the underlying principle of betting exchanges. It's the UK government who need to get their act together, they need to abolish the Levy system which was introduced in the 60's when off-course betting was legalized.

[Some_One]

Reading some of the articles, I think part of the problem is that the bookies like Ladbrokes and William Hill are moving their internet ops offshore. The government needs to go after them, threaten to close down their storefronts and ban their websites from being accessed in the UK.

[gm10]

Reading some of the articles, I think part of the problem is that the bookies like Ladbrokes and William Hill are moving their internet ops offshore. The government needs to go after them, threaten to close down their storefronts and ban their websites from being accessed in the UK.

The Levy is becoming one big loophole, both for bookmakers and betting exchanges. It's the first thing that needs fixing.

[satrabyk]

I noticed at times that TVG shows what the comparable Betfair odds are and naturally they are higher in most cases. Do they mention that this is before commissions ?

A 3-5 shot here would be 1-1 here if there was no takeout which would be better than Betfair most times.

What would be better if takeout rates were reversed ? Betting at Betfair at our takeout rates or betting here at a takeout rate of 3 to 5 %.

Who would buy stocks if commission rate was 25% ????

Rates need to be reduced drastically here to allow people a chance to win and this would also eliminate all the competition. Handle would be increased exponentially.

How could the U.S. allow Betfair to buy TVG ???????????

[gm10]

I noticed at times that TVG shows what the comparable Betfair odds are and naturally they are higher in most cases. Do they mention that this is before commissions ?

A 3-5 shot here would be 1-1 here if there was no takeout which would be better than Betfair most times.

What would be better if takeout rates were reversed ? Betting at Betfair at our takeout rates or betting here at a takeout rate of 3 to 5 %.

Who would buy stocks if commission rate was 25% ????

Rates need to be reduced drastically here to allow people a chance to win and this would also eliminate all the competition. Handle would be increased exponentially.

How could the U.S. allow Betfair to buy TVG ???????????

By the same principle as the American companies have been buying overseas businesses??

[David-LV]

Exchange betting will only work if you can do it on the internet.

As of now having an account and betting at Betfair or any other internet gaming site is illegal in the United States.

How is California and New Jersey going to overcome the anti-internet wagering atmosphere and federal law that is in place right now in Washington?

You can pass all the state laws you want, but if it is against federal law you have very little chance of going forward with exchange betting.

__________
David-LV

[lamboguy]

for betfair to work here you are going to need to multiply the handles 10 fold and betfair pay 1/2 their take to the race tracks for putting on the show. i have no idea how they can do that without the show improving first. and then there are the legal obstacles to overcome for betfair to operate too. the republicans look like they are going to take over the congress now, and in 2 years they are more than likely going to get the presidency as well. if by some remote chance the repubicans do a decent job they will be around for a very long time. the longer they are in the less chance betfair has to get their agenda on the table no matter how much they pay these pollitions off.

[gm10]

for betfair to work here you are going to need to multiply the handles 10 fold and betfair pay 1/2 their take to the race tracks for putting on the show. i have no idea how they can do that without the show improving first. and then there are the legal obstacles to overcome for betfair to operate too. the republicans look like they are going to take over the congress now, and in 2 years they are more than likely going to get the presidency as well. if by some remote chance the repubicans do a decent job they will be around for a very long time. the longer they are in the less chance betfair has to get their agenda on the table no matter how much they pay these pollitions off.

That is weird - I thought republicans were pro free-market? Surely allowing Betfair and abolishing the tote monopoly would be something they support??

Not sure why Betfair need to to multiply their handles by 10. Handles (ie. Betfair 'liquidity') are fine even with just the European customers.

[David-LV]

for betfair to work here you are going to need to multiply the handles 10 fold and betfair pay 1/2 their take to the race tracks for putting on the show. i have no idea how they can do that without the show improving first. and then there are the legal obstacles to overcome for betfair to operate too. the republicans look like they are going to take over the congress now, and in 2 years they are more than likely going to get the presidency as well. if by some remote chance the repubicans do a decent job they will be around for a very long time. the longer they are in the less chance betfair has to get their agenda on the table no matter how much they pay these pollitions off.

You are 100% right, and I will add that without the internet, exchange betting has zero chance of becoming a reality in the United States.

_________
David-LV

[horses4courses]

In fear of repeating myself........ democrat, republican, tea party....makes no difference as far as exchange wagering in the US goes.

Betfair came to the US and used the purchase of TVG to get their foot in the door. They really must have thought that the Obama era could give them a shot at their ultimate goal....that is hosting wagering for sports online (including major US events). Reality is now staring them in the face....ain't gonna happen!

Attitudes towards bookmaking in the US are deep-rooted.
It's about as popular a topic as venereal disease.
Tens of thousands (if not more) of illegal bookies can prosper while a blind eye is turned.

Pretending it doesn't exist is preferable to dealing with the situation.
There are no party lines on this one.....nearly all the politicians are in the same boat. Don't touch this issue because it won't help your political career.

Just calling it how I see it.
Betfair has no shot, and they will sell TVG if they can get a buyer.

[lamboguy]

In fear of repeating myself........ democrat, republican, tea party....makes no difference as far as exchange wagering in the US goes.

Betfair came to the US and used the purchase of TVG to get their foot in the door. They really must have thought that the Obama era could give them a shot at their ultimate goal....that is hosting wagering for sports online (including major US events). Reality is now staring them in the face....ain't gonna happen!

Attitudes towards bookmaking in the US are deep-rooted.
It's about as popular a topic as venereal disease.
Tens of thousands (if not more) of illegal bookies can prosper while a blind eye is turned.

Pretending it doesn't exist is preferable to dealing with the situation.
There are no party lines on this one.....nearly all the politicians are in the same boat. Don't touch this issue because it won't help your political career.

Just calling it how I see it.
Betfair has no shot, and they will sell TVG if they can get a buyer.first of all i noticed that barnie frank sponsored some type of bill pro internet gambling bill. he must have been paid off by someone to go in with the bill, and he must have a deal with the president so he knows he is going to sign it. that is one of the reasons why i said the republican's are anti gambling, their base caters to church going citizens with whatever family values they claim they have, and they don't want competion for their churches bingo games. i see those people in massachusetts all the time whenever they try to pass a gambling bill or lottery bill.

maybe someone will buy tvg at a deep discount for what betfair paid. there may be no interest at all in buying them due to the decline in business. i have no idea how tvg stays open these days with such a small portion of the total handle now and forseeably much less after the merger with UBET is worked out with churchill.

[horses4courses]

first of all i noticed that barnie frank sponsored some type of bill pro internet gambling bill. he must have been paid off by someone to go in with the bill, and he must have a deal with the president so he knows he is going to sign it. that is one of the reasons why i said the republican's are anti gambling, their base caters to church going citizens with whatever family values they claim they have, and they don't want competion for their churches bingo games. i see those people in massachusetts all the time whenever they try to pass a gambling bill or lottery bill.

maybe someone will buy tvg at a deep discount for what betfair paid. there may be no interest at all in buying them due to the decline in business. i have no idea how tvg stays open these days with such a small portion of the total handle now and forseeably much less after the merger with UBET is worked out with churchill.

Definitely agree with you about TVG.
I, like many others, have DN and receive both TVG and HRTV.
How can both racing channels survive, especially in these times?

[PaceAdvantage]

that is one of the reasons why i said the republican's are anti gambling, their base caters to church going citizens with whatever family values they claim they have, and they don't want competion for their churches bingo games. i see those people in massachusetts all the time whenever they try to pass a gambling bill or lottery bill.This is absolutely ridiculous and also completely off topic at the same time...

If you want to debate politics keep it in off topic.

If Republicans are so anti-gambling, how the hell did the constantly EXPANDING opportunities to place a bet, buy a lottery ticket, wager on races over the internet survive the period of time when Bush and Republicans held total control over Congress? They also survived when Republicans had total control over Congress when Clinton was President.

You see how silly this is? All it will do is start a political debate here in the horse racing section which is something I will never allow to happen.

[lamboguy]

This is absolutely ridiculous and also completely off topic at the same time...

If you want to debate politics keep it in off topic.

If Republicans are so anti-gambling, how the hell did the constantly EXPANDING opportunities to place a bet, buy a lottery ticket, wager on races over the internet survive the period of time when Bush and Republicans held total control over Congress? They also survived when Republicans had total control over Congress when Clinton was President.

You see how silly this is? All it will do is start a political debate here in the horse racing section which is something I will never allow to happen.you should take up reading party platforms, i am sure you will not find this rediculous.

i am sure you know that what politions say and do are quite often 2 differemt things, and they will all change on a daily basis depending how the wind blows.

if you want specific bills that the republicans sponsor against gambling take a look at the patriot and the kyl bill against internet gambling making the tranfer of money for poker and other forms of gambling that include casino, sports and lottery gambling illigal.

i believe that the patriot act was sposored by george bush a republican, and internet gambling act was sponsored by john kyl a republican from the state of arizona.

if you want to go further, you should also look at the interstate wire act of 1961 that was also sponsored by a man by the name of keefhoffer who also had hearings into gambling and illegal use of wires across state lines, which meant telephones. he was the head of what is called "the keefoffer commision" that wanted to rid this country of all forms of gambling, legal and illegal. i wasn't trying to make this a political conversation, i didn't start the thread to begin with, i am just trying to say that the republican part has a long standing tradition of being anti-gambling. and i don't see any reason why they are going to change now.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am well aware of Kyl and all of the bills you cite. But as you say, what is actually done and what is rhetoric is quite obvious.

There has been an unprecedented expansion of gambling opportunities in this country over the past 20 years, surviving (and thriving) through multiple instances where Republicans were firmly in control of D.C.

So, as they say, I don't find much to worry about in terms of gambling, no matter who is running the joint in D.C. Gambling is not about politics anymore...it's about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and that's something ALL politicians of ALL persuasions love more than anything else...

[DeanT]

Arkansas put up a pile of cash to get Rach and Zenny to race - money from instant gaming/vlts. Meanwhile, liberal MA outlaws slots at every turn.

It seems less ideological and more driven by which way the wind is blowing.

I have little doubt some states will get what they want done. HANA had a post up on lobbying cash spent over the last while. Vegas bricks and mortar companies, Indian casino's and places like Harrah's with tracks and slots are spending millions trying to get some sort of wagering online.

In Canada, who is similar to the US in many ways on online gaming, recently had two of the most populous provinces pass it. There are now three total with the opps to do online gaming : Ontario, Quebec and BC.

It's coming from everywhere.

[lamboguy]

from my own experience in mass. romney promised his electorate that there would be no aditional gambling casino's under his watch. those people came out in droves to get him elected. so he rewarded them with the no gambling here for 8 years. he stabbed them in the back with the healthcare that he claimed he was against when he ran. that healthcare bill got him the money to run for president from the insurance company's, and if he was president we would have wound up with the very same health care bill that obamas put in. when romney didn't get the nomination the insurance company's hedged their bets and gave this president the money to get elected, and he delivered to them.

[PaceAdvantage]

from my own experience in mass. romney promised his electorate that there would be no aditional gambling casino's under his watch. those people came out in droves to get him elected. so he rewarded them with the no gambling here for 8 years. he stabbed them in the back with the healthcare that he claimed he was against when he ran. that healthcare bill got him the money to run for president from the insurance company's, and if he was president we would have wound up with the very same health care bill that obamas put in. when romney didn't get the nomination the insurance company's hedged their bets and gave this president the money to get elected, and he delivered to them.See what I mean about political discussions. Now you've introduced health care into the discussion. This is precisely why politics is blacklisted here in the horse racing section.

Yes lamboguy, I'm sure you can come up with incidences where a Republican has promised no gambling, but that does not negate the fact that gambling has expanded in this country in leaps and bounds through many a Republican controlled White House, Congress and all of the above.

If Republicans were really interested in ridding the world of evil gambling, they've had ample opportunity to pass laws that would outlaw gambling forever...yet it hasn't happened, won't happen, and is silly to even debate at this point.

Gonna have to close this thread now, because there's no telling what political hot button will be brought up next...