gambling summit

[jimmym]

The UK is holding a gambling summit today, I just watched our leading politition on the news here, and she said that she thinks the US will reverse its ruling on online gambling within the year and will join the other countries on better monitoring and vetting of online gambling sites.



I will keep you posted of what comes out of the summit.

[Talking Poker]

I really, really, really hope that ends up being the case.

[Penguinfan]

I had hear the US was the only country invited that chose not to attend.

[jimmym]

True and a shame.

It looks like the UK is going to become the major player in online betting control with the backing from the goverment. I think this is a good thing and will offer good security for both the players and the sites that join, offcourse there will be a fee payable in taxes by the sites and this fee will have to be recouped by the sites through the players but it will offer security and I suppose in the long term this is good.

I cant understand why the US dont come on board as Tessa Jowell has said what the US goverment has done will only lead to Crime and turn good citizens into criminals and just for having abit of enjoyment and with there own money.

Prohabition wont work it hasnt in the past and never will. I feel that if the UK set up good relations and security working with online gambling sites the pressure for the US to come on board will happen soon.

Anyway back to the latest on the gambling summit.

[jimmym]

Well not much news from the gambling summit, the media gave it the usuall 15min of glory mainly interviewing a few loses who managed to use up all there money because they were allowed to and they dont have a problem its the sites fault ect ect.

I hoped eejit would have been interviewed giving his take on it and how easy it is for any1 to make a few pound ot 56k.

the bbc have had a message board running and a few quotes for and against have appeared. lots of thought and effort to just sign up and then again the usuall braindead posts,

If two players each have a finite number of pennies and begin to toss them with the winner keeping the penny. Each player has a 50% probability of winning. Now repeat the process until one player has all the pennies.
If the process is repeated indefinitely, the probability that one of the two player will eventually lose all his pennies must be 100%.
P1 = N2/N1+N2
This means that the probability of winning is linked to the number of pennies. Casinos have more pennies so will always win.

American attempts to prohibit alcohol failed. You cannot dictate to people and legislate against gambling it won't work. Not being a gambler myself I fail to see the attraction in giving aways money for an illusary gain. Leave these people to get on with their lives. We are only here for a short time make the most of it.

f the government can make money out of people gambling, then I'm all for it.
Maybe it'll distract them from thinking up new taxes to impose on normal folk.

I have just read the article about Vicky Clark running up a £27000 debt via internet gambling. I'm sorry but I don't have an ounce of sympathy. Why should the Government put restrictions on these if people like Vicky can't take responsibility for their actions -tough!

this last made me laugh the site gave her back the money she lost, because they didnt want bad press...fucking stupid I think..

"I think all form of gambling should be outlawed there will be fewer people with gambling addiction and fewer people with gambling debts" - dianna lyew, birmingham

I suggest you read up on 1930's prohibition in America. People will gamble if they want to, it's their right if that's what they want to do with their life.

Banning only puts it in the control of criminal gangs.

So there we have it,,Gambling Online is great,,If you live in the UK pay your taxes and spend what you cant afford..I did notice though that the Media didnt interview any players who were winners at all, perhaps we have NONE.

[Penguinfan]

I'm probably in the minority, especially on a board like this, but I am all for taxing things like gambling, cigarettes, alchohol, resturaunt food, sporting event tickets, concert tickets, etc...

I see no reason not to tax the things people are spending their extra money on, IE, things they don't need. Why just blanket raise the property or income tax that will affect people who can't afford it and probably will see zero benefit from the tax.

I just got my partial season tickets to the Penguins in the mail and I have no problem with the extra $3-$5 a ticket I paid in taxes on them, I would have bought the seats at $85 as opposed to $80 anyway, and it's something I don't have to have.

Let the people who have/spend the most money pay the most taxes, I will never have a problem with that.

Funny that people who gripe about cigarettes going up 20 cents a pack really never look twice at the $6 ATM fee in a casino.

[Tony Cheval]

Horrible timing from the standpoint of US participation, another couple weeks and our politicians will be back to 'squeeze money from every rock in sight' mode.