reposting this from an earlier thread. The sign is still up as of a week or so ago when i went by the V...I still really want to get a door hanger like that made for my condo.

A) I havent used the service, but the sign at least advertises online casino gaming as well as sports betting.

B) Regardless, if the topic of discussion is "we need to protect the proles from getting in over their heads", the distinction is meaningless. People getting in over their heads with sports betting is so common its a cliche. If anything, it has more abuse potential than most of the other forms of betting.

The biggest difference is that these games are not played with playing cards or dice. The assumption is made from the get go in most states that any game involving cards or dice is a game of chance.

Even backgammon, which is unquestionably a game of skill, was considered a game of chance for quite a while.

the context regarded playability in other parts of nevada outside the casino grounds

I'm going to go back and read the rest of the thread.

But ... can anyone tell me what the best reason to order in-suite dining is supposed to be? My best guess is convenience if you are hungry .... ?

And don't want to get out of your pajamas.

I think 'being alone' is a huge source of in-suite dining. Not everybody, but there's a large population that would be embarrassed to go to a restaurant alone.

There has been some more research on Problem Gambling rates, this time it is England.

You may recall that the UK rates from the Gambling Prevalence Survey were
1999 - 0.6%
2007 - 0.6%
2010 - 0.9%
and that the seeming rise in 2010 was at the boundaries of statistical significance on one measure (DSM-IV) but not significant under the other measure (PGSI).

You may also recall that we recently got the figures for Scotland which was 0.7% in 2012, exactly the same as in 1999.

Well the England figures are out today (the questions got moved to a Health Survey rather than the dedicated Gambling Survey).

here is the link to the survey
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/searchcatalo...&returnid=1685

Here is the PDF of the gambling chapter
https://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publicat...-behaviour.pdf

In England for 2012:

The PGSI measure FELL to 0.6% for men and 0.1% for women - about 0.35% overall
The DSM-IV measure fell to 0.8% for men and 0.2% for women - about 0.5% overall.

So next time you hear an expert saying that access to online gambling will increase Problem Gambling, or you hear Adelson claim it will be a disaster for society - remember that in England and Scotland we have had fully legal access to online gambling since it started and over that time it now seems likely that Problem Gambling rates have fallen.

Even if you get in to the obvious problems with surveys and different screens for PG - that the screens catch slightly different groups and that the numbers that are Problem Gamblers are small as it is so rare that these small changes may be sample issues - Plus the potential that shifting to a health survey rather than a dedicated Gambling survey altered the sample a bit...it is absolutely clear that the rise of Internet Gambling has not increased Problem Gambling in the UK, nor has the big increase in advertising for gambling and online gambling in particular. If anything Problem Gambling has fallen over the period (just as it has fallen in the US as it went from 3 states with casinos to 33 states with casinos).

Next Spring we will get a further analysis of the Scottish and English figures, combining the results and doing some analysis of it but the jury is in - Internet Gambling does not increase Problem Gambling.

Excellent info. Thank you for posting this. I'm glad to see the numbers continue to support our claims, and to see the percentages of those with problems are decreasing even with increased access.

It is good news. The industry still needs to do a lot more for the degen addicts, the economic evidence is that in terms of welfare or happiness being a problem gambler is as bad as going from in "good health" to "very poor health". The suicide stats for PGs are grim. It is a nasty disease.

My interest is piqued a bit though. We have good evidence of problem gambling falling but also good evidence that participation and expenditure is up. It seems as though increased access, and higher disposable income, lets responsible gamblers enjoy gambling more and spend more on it but the mechanism for the LOWER problem gambling rates is not clear.

Maybe other entertainment options divert some degens, maybe it is that increased access means that the population adapts better, that people learn not to degen.....or maybe there is a small group that are PGs and the variation in the figures is a bit random because of the sample size issues (the 95% confidence error bars mean that it could be exactly the same figure 1999-2012).

The one thing we can be clear about though is that Internet gambling does not increase problem gambling, the puzzle is why not and why the increased access might mean LOWER problem gambling rates.

I found out about this open letter from a post in NVG and felt the link should be in this thread, too.

http://apracticalphilosophy.wordpres...eldon-adelson/

Here is the Wire Act Fix that Sheldon Adelson is pushing through Congress [agentmarco.com]

Wire Act Clarification.
18 USC § 1084 is amended by adding at the end, the following:
(f) For the purposes of this Act:
(1) the term “wire communication” includes the Internet, and any activity which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet.
(2) the term “any sporting event or contest” includes games in part or predominantly subject to chance, including games in which players compete against each other, and not against any person, entity, or fellow player hosting the game, the outcome of which, over any significant interval, is predominantly determined by the skill of the players, and the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance).

The bill (pdf). [agentmarco.com]

makes me ****ing sick that this scumbag can push bills through congress. wish I lived in europe....

"Pushing thru Congress" is a bit of an exaggeration. This is a draft idea he is promoting. It hasn't been introduced as a bill. As long as Reid is the Majority leader, something that rolls back NV's online poker legislation will not even be taken up in the Senate.

And while that may seem like a relief, this is still a situation that requires response from the poker community. It can do damage to state efforts by discouraging legislatures from taking up the issue for fear that moving forward with legislation could be undone by federal action.

OTOH, Adelson's bill clearly places many powerful gambling proponents in our camp, including the state lotteries since his bill would ban all Internet lottery sales (including intrastate).

http://www.4flush.com/online-poker-n...gambling/15819

thanks for the explanation

Both Internet gambling and the practice now of using cards to track players at B&M reduce problem gambling as people can self-ban. It used to be anybody of age with a roll of cash could show up, buy chips and play. One can self-ban now, even at B&M casinos, although I don't know about how easy/hard it is to get around self-bans. I've always had to show my ID to get a card and I'm sure the address on the ID is checked against self-bans (plus backballed players).

Adelson's clearly self-interested and overhanded tactics also make me sick. I just don't get it, from either his personal or business point of view. He must really think that online gaming hurts his B&M investments or he wants to hurt his competitors even if it doesn't help himself. I just don't get it, and how he couches what's clearly his personal vandetta everything in "minor gambling, problem gambling, national security, blah, blah" absolutely makes me sick. I get the moralistic prohibitionists who truly do want ALL gambling outlawed, but it's obvious he has some petty personal reason for this crusade and he's just use to getting what he wants with the money he throws around. Ugh.

im not sure why. His tactics are the same as the PPA, the online gaming company's and everyone lobbying for online poker. He's just lobbying for a for a different position.

I can see how you might not agree with his stance. But in terms of tactics, he has not done anything the PPA hasn't.

I also don't agree that his motivation is self-interest. I can see how he might believe that online gambling might hurt his bottom line (I don't necessarily agree that it will, i can just see how he might believe it). But i can't imagine him or any rational person thinking that legalization will cost him more than the money he is spending to fight it.

Same goes to his heavy contributions to the GOP in past elections... Or birthright... the fact is, hes quite willing to put his money behind causes that for one reason or another he believes he has a moral stake in. Certainly if you look at the major proponents of online poker legalization over the past ten years, its much easier to find a credible financial self-interest.

I had a friend who self banned and she would borrow other friends' cards to get into the casino. As she was an older lady, they didn't card her for age so she never had a problem. She would go with friends so that if she won enough for a hand pay someone could claim it for her.

It would seem an online self-banning would have less holes than a land based casino self banning.

Well, I didn't mean the tactics per se but how the talking points are coated in, you know, minor gambling, national security, all that. It may almost certainly be -ev for Adelson, but it's almost certainly either monetary self-interest in protect B&M properties or self-interest of a non-monetary sort, namely hurting competitors who have invested much more in online gaming.

So this 80 something year old codger casino mogul is launching an effort to ban "online" gambling. If this isn't the most hypocritical cause in history I don't know what is.

These attorney generals have to be complete imbeciles to play into this scumbags hands.

This is nothing but blatant protectionism. Logically this as.shole can't be morally against gambling since his entire fortune has been made exploiting it!!!!!!

PPA needs to just point this out straight up. Anyone with half a brain can see this.

Like almost everyone believes, I believe he is ultimately worried that online gaming will hurt his bottom line. I don't believe online POKER is his real cconcern. His real concern was revealed in the subcommittee hearing when his Senior VP spoke about when the Wire Act was overturned, Nevada rushed to start online gaming. He said everyone said, "It's just poker. It's just poker. It's just poker. Nine months later, it turns out it wasn't just poker." He then spoke about operators offering full online gaming. He said poker is not a sustainable market. And even spazzed out and said "It's fine if people want to play poker online." Then went on to yap about kiddie themed slot machines and such.

Adelson is worried that online poker will eventually turn into full online gaming. If online gaming were available online nationwide(or 30-40+ states), it would undoubtedly affect his business. And rather than join the expansion, he rather fight it and stick to what he knows.

Anyone who believes his money laundering ass is worried about "moral issues" is an idiot.

As discussed in NVG, Steve Wynn has joined with Adelson in opposing online gaming.

Adelson tried to get all fifty state attorneys general to sign a letter asking for a ban on online poker. These have been used effectively against us in the past, when 49 signed an anti-online poker prior to UIGEA passing and 43 a couple of years later.

The poker community did a great job reaching out to these AGs through social media, phone calls, etc. This time, just 15 (+ Guam) signed, well below the threshold to be adopted as National Association of Attorneys General policy, and even well below that to use NAAG letterhead!

Here's their letter: http://vipasuite.com/resources/dyn/f...Act+Letter.pdf