Casino online games lose out to the real world

In many ways, the US has the best and the worst system of federal and state governments in the world. Arguably it has the qualities of being the best because, even though it's a two-horse race, there's enough of a difference between the political intentions of the successful candidates to make life interesting. But it's one of the worst because of the level of corruption in the lawmaking following elections. Money speaks loud behind the scenes with different lobbying groups pressuring the elected representatives to deliver on the promises they made to get the campaign funds. For these purposes, it makes no difference which party you look at. All the individuals at every level in the political system depend on "donations" to get elected. When it comes to the world of gambling, the politics get particularly complicated.

For individual states, the revenue derived from the different forms of licensed gambling helps avoid complete financial meltdown. Yes, there's a recession, but this has only slowed the flow of money into gambling. Unlike other sources of tax revenue, the gamblers of America are helping balance budgets. But there are different interested parties. In one corner stand the real world casino operators who want the least possible regulation on their activities. Their group is not united because the casinos on Indian land have advantages and, some say, represent unfair competition. We should not forget the other sites who can get licences to run slots. In another corner stand the racing interests. They are long-standing political players and also want the maximum freedom to run their own betting operations with the least interference from states. This blurs into another group that runs betting operations on other sporting events. While a more distant group runs online casinos.

As an example of the conflict of interests, let's go to Massachusetts where there's a new bill in the state House to establish two new real world casinos. As always, the declared intention is to generate more revenue for the state. To maintain a monopoly for the land-based casino operations, the bill proposes to criminalize all online gambling. It will be an offense for any resident of Massachusetts to place or accept a wager placed by a telecommunication device, no matter where they may be located. You will realize, of course, this includes all telephone betting and would hit the racing and sports betting operations. Not surprisingly, this has stirred up an intense lobbying exercise.

Real world operations are preferred because they are easier to police and monitor when it comes to collecting the tax or levy. Once operations disappear down telephone lines or into the internet, they can be based anywhere. This seriously complicates the collection of any tax. States like to keep their worlds simple. They want the maximum revenue from licensed gambling with the lowest possible cost for collection. Just crossing state lines makes collection more difficult. If casino games are offered from outside US territory, tax cannot be collected. That's one of the reasons why the federal government clamped down on the use of credit cards and other easy payment methods. It forced more operations onshore where they could be taxed. Whether you agree with this approach to balancing the budgets is irrelevant. Casino games are seen as the easy way to raise money without upsetting the electorate. Imagine a world without gambling and hear the roar of anger if states announced an increase in sales tax.

Should lawmakers ban smoking in casinos

This site is not Libertarian but we know what we like about gambling and the experience of going into casinos. While we can all approve of regulations to keep gambling reasonably honest and fair, there comes a point when enough is enough with the lawmaking. Let's take the issue of smoking as an example. Most of us probably believe the science linking tobacco with fatal diseases. Whether you smoke or draw in the smoke second-hand, the risks of cancer and heart disease are even admitted by the tobacco industry. So, on New Year, we all repeat our resolution not to start or to quit. It's all down to us - a personal decision. If we do decide to smoke, this is a "victimless crime". No-one is forcing us to do this and it should not be for the law to get involved in making any part of smoking a crime. There are no laws criminalising overeating even though the obese die younger, or threatening to put alcoholics in jail because they are damaging their livers. People own their own bodies and should be allowed to do what they want with it.

So what do we make of all these laws banning or restricting smoking in public places? There are no federal laws. It all comes down to the lawmakers in each state. Some have fairly comprehensive laws restricting smoking in the workplace. Others go on to include some bars and restaurants. But, so far, most states have avoided any kind of restrictions on the operation of casinos. The consensus view has been to avoid anything that might reduce the revenue from gambling operations. As the recession has taken hold and the tax-take from conventional businesses has fallen, maintaining the flow on money into the state coffers has become even more important. So far, the need for money has outweighed the health concerns. After all, no-one forces people to go to a casino. If you are not a smoker and want to avoid passive smoking, do not go to a casino.

Based on the experience in Atlantic City which went through a two-week ban on smoking, casino operators estimate their gross revenues would drop by more than one-third. Where would these gamblers go to play slots? There are two obvious alternatives. The Tribal casinos stand outside state laws on smoking, and people can always stay home to gamble online. There are no laws to restrict what people do in the privacy of their own homes. We could also get into a kind of bidding war where some states with high costs on the healthcare front may clamp down on smoking only to find their own citizens drive into neighboring states to play there. That's a double whammy because the lawmaking states lose tax revenue and still have the health costs of treating their citizens who fall ill because of their smoking. There should be federal legislation to replace this current patchwork of different laws. Health is a national priority. Washington should decide the limits on what people should do in public places. As it is, drinking and smoking goes with casino games just like turkey goes with Thanksgiving. Breaking the link is going to make one set of lawmakers really unpopular. Shall we bet on whether federal laws are introduced?

How will live dealing affect online casinos?

Whichever time you look at, there has always been gambling. For example, there is evidence of keno, dice and mahjong being played in Ancient China from 2,000 B.C. onward. Different forms of gaming were also a popular pastime in the other major ancient civilizations of India, Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome. Despite attempts to ban or control gambling because of its addictive nature, it has persisted until today. Sometimes it went underground, while other governments allowed commercialisation. Throughout, gambling has been seen as a social activity. The rich would gather in each others palaces and mansions to play or attend exclusive clubs. The poor would flock to "dens of iniquity" which were often run by criminal gangs tied into the worlds of prostitution and street drugs. This history is one long transfer of wealth from one individual to another. Before regulation, it was usually the criminal gangs that became rich. After regulation, those in positions of power took their commissions while governments subsidized the taxpayers through levies and taxes. But there was one constant thread. Whether you were an aristocrat lounging in a casino in an exclusive spa town in Europe or panning for gold in the 1840's and 50's, the majority of games depended on live dealing or the supervision of the betting by an employee of the House. In the more modern clubs and casinos, the dealers and croupiers have often been beautiful women, dressed attractively. In their own right, they were part of the attraction of the "place". The men would come, leaving their wives at home, to lose their money while ogling the girls.

Then along came the internet. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the graphics, animation and soundtrack. In most cases, they represent a brave attempt to create an experience similar to a real-world casino. But players can never suspend disbelief. They continue to sit at home or nursing their laptops in a hotspot with their attention fixed on a small screen. Nothing can replace the smell, noise and crush of people in a casino. Except, as the technology has matured and bandwidth improved, online casinos have begun to introduce live dealers for a range of your favorite casino games. This has two advantages. Many people prefer to avoid the random number generators that drive the software versions of the games. RGNs are too perfect. They feel it is better to gamble where human beings shuffle the packs or spin the wheels because human beings make mistakes and are inefficient. Secondly, animations only go so far. Even though it is a small screen, a live video feed of a sexy lady dealing blackjack or running a roulette table brings in the business.

Live dealing has been increasingly common on sites serving Europe but the first online casinos in the US are now recruiting live dealers and launching their own service. You can only go so far to compete on animation and welcome bonuses. Web cameras are cheap and not much of a studio is required to create interactive play between dealer and you sitting at home. With your favorite casino games now coming to you live, the pressure will be on the majority of the other casinos to innovate ad improve the interface and user experience. As bandwidth improves, your gaming experience will improve.