Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Profile of An Internet Bookie 245

Posted by Hemos from the so-yous-wants-to-make-some-monies dept.
prostoalex writes "The New York Times Magazine has a story about one of Internet's most lucrative businesses - online bookmaking. Writer William Berlind travels to San Jose, Costa Rica, where the offices of such online powerhouses as BetOnSports and SkyBook are located. Quite an interesting story about numerous Americans traveling to Costa Rica with the grand business plan of online gambling, US government trying to shut down the offshore gambling operations, and how the bookies operate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Profile of An Internet Bookie More

Profile of An Internet Bookie

Comments Filter:

  • how silly is the government? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by havaloc ( 50551 ) * on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:46AM (#6722429) Homepage
    There's a tremendous oppurtunity for the government to regulate, tax, and profit from this by legalizing it and bringing it back on shore, and help make up budget short falls.

    • Re:how silly is the government? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They do. It's called the state lottery. Why would then want to allow competition?
      • It's funny how there are state-run lotteries, and yet people get up in arms whenever there's talk about letting anyone else run gambling operations. The arguments against private gambling operations would apply just as well (or as poorly, however you want to look at it) to the state lottery.

        A long time ago, there was a story on slashdot about this---from the so-immoral-the-government-has-to-run-it department.

    • In the war between the government and the bookies, I will give 5 : 1 odds on the bookies...

    • Re:how silly is the government? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by The Brain Murderer ( 641875 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:56AM (#6722494)
      But now you are expecting rational thought from people that are elected by the populous and work for business whilst trying not to get caught out with their fingers in the pie or doing something that is 'immoral'.

      Were it not for the twisted religous aspects that creep into public life, not only would gambling be licenced and controlled, so would prositution. Imagine the health implications that regular medicals would mean to both the ladies and their clients. That is to say nothing of cutting out the people that introduce drugs as a method of control.

      The Brain Murderer

    • "Gambling isn't wrong, it even says so in the Bible!"
      "Where?"
      "Ehh...somewhere in the back"

    • Re:how silly is the government? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:58AM (#6722509)
      The same thing goes with drug prohibition.

      There's ample, untapped, opportunities for our government to legalize and tax commodities that have no real harm on society, but are illegal for moral concerns.

      A 2000 year old book tells you gambling is a sin, so we've got to make sure it's illegal in 2003. It's amazing how far we've come as a society in some aspects, and how badly we've done in others.

      I say we ditch all the 'moral' laws and stick to the ones that actual cause harm to others. End entitlement programs (hand outs, section 8, etc). Separate church and state for real. Ditch de-regulation of utilities. Make punishments for government employees who let contributions change a vote extreme. Then sit back and watch America become a better place to live.

      Sorry for the bad grammar, it's the thought that counts. :)
      • synopsis:
        Let's all become libertarians.

        I like it :)

        -Ab
      • 1) Actually, only certain interpretations of the Bible declare gambling to be a sin.

        2) Gambling causes social problems that have nothing to do with religion or morals. This makes it something that the government should have a hand in.

        Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-gambling, but your arguments don't make sense in this case.


      • I say we ditch all the 'moral' laws and stick to the ones that actual cause harm to others. End entitlement programs (hand outs, section 8, etc). Separate church and state for real. Ditch de-regulation of utilities. Make punishments for government employees who let contributions change a vote extreme. Then sit back and watch America become a better place to live.

        How exatcly would limiting section8 and handouts help america. Nowadays there are so many people out of work, with degrees let alone what I think

        • I guess I'll have to come right out and say it...

          First off, why should I work to support someone's grandmother, bastard children, unemployed mother, mexican immigrant, etc? I'm sorry, but that's not MY responsibility. I disagree with taxation to support anyone. Taxes should be to pay the expenses of running a government, not supporting a nation.

          How exatcly would limiting section8 and handouts help america.

          Very easy.. It would put money back in the pockets of the people that worked for it. These are the
          • "I know there's sweet little old ladies out there that need our help. I just don't think the government should play a role and force others to help"

            Sorry, but that's the price you pay for living in America. We as a nation have decided that helping those in need is a worthy goal. If you don't like it you'll have to find someplace to live. It's not just "little old ladies" who help help either.

            "Give that money back to the people it belongs to, they'll spend it on something besides alchohol, drugs, crap food
      • You need to visit a gambling addict (preferably one with a family) sometime.

        Obviously a lot of people suffer immensely from gambling. Yes it's "voluntary", just like taking drugs is voluntary (which is to say, not at all).

        • Re:Gambling doesn't hurt ? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mosch ( 204 ) *
          We can't set laws for general society by what the least responsible among us do. Should we criminalize extramarital sex, because some girls are self-destructive sluts who use sex as a substitute for love?

          Should we criminalize ice cream, because some lardasses can't stop eating pint after pint of chunky monkey?

          Should we criminalize marathons, because many habitual runners end up with a variety of debilitating injuries?

          I understand that gambling addiction is terrible, but the answer is for the addicts

    • You're missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:02AM (#6722543)
      Vice-law enforcement is a multi-billion dollar a year industry (AFAIR anti-drug enforcement alone is a >$10,000,000,000 a year industry in America): if these things were legalised, that industry would vanish overnight, and put many government workers and their cronies out of jobs. That will not be allowed to happen until and unless a major crisis occurs, no matter how sensible it may be.

    • sports betting and lotteries aren't at all similar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mblase ( 200735 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:08AM (#6722582)
      I don't see the government's ban on sports betting as hypocritical at all. The problem with sports betting has always been one of authorizing the results: if anyone has a lot of money riding on a particular game, then he has a motive to rig the game or otherwise pressure the players involved to throw the game. This ruins the betting practice, the game, and everyone else's fun--not to mention making a lot more work for the government's law-enforcement agencies.

      Lotteries and gambling devices like slot machines, on the other hand, are required by law to be completely random regardless of who's playing. It's awfully hard to "rig" a lottery when the numbers are being selected by ping-pong balls being bounced by random air jets on live television.

      In other words, the government (on the average) has no problem with gambling, provided it doesn't increase the level of associated crime.
      • Just because someone has $10,000 riding on a game offshore doesn't give him any less incentive to rig the game. Because the rigged games are still a problem, we still have to spend dollars to detect these crimes. Therefore, we'd be better off getting the tax dollars here in U.S. to offset that cost.

      • Lotteries and gambling devices like slot machines, on the other hand, are required by law to be completely random regardless of who's playing.

        Then I guess every slot machine in Vegas is breaking the law. The only thing random about modern slot machines are who might be playing when a particular pay-out comes up.

        How much the machine pays out is a fixed percentage of how much it takes in (casinos even advertise these numbers) and larger pay-outs may even be coordinated between machines.

        Slot machines are

        • The only thing random about modern slot machines are who might be playing when a particular pay-out comes up.

          Er, I believe that's exactly what I said.

          How much the machine pays out is a fixed percentage of how much it takes in

          Well, this makes sense. I'd hate to be the one designing a slot machine which could, conceivably, be asked to pay out more money than it has inside.
      • Do you think companies should not be publicly listed then? Since ownership of stock by executives gives an incentive to manipulate financial results...

        Oh, I forget...

    • Re:how silly is the government? (Score:5, Informative)

      by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:12AM (#6722610) Journal

      Number one reason sports betting is nog going to be legalized in the US:

      It will kill the state lotteries.

      Why? Look at the vig on sports betting versus lotteries (the vig is the amount the bettor can expect to lose and is the difference between the money returned by a winning bet and the actual probability of winning). For a typical Vegas-style bet on football against the spread or on an over-under, here's basically the way it works:

      A line is set. For instance, tonight's preseason game between the Rams and Bucs has a line of "Rams - 2.5". A bet on the Rams means that, after deducting 2.5 points from their score, you are betting on them to win; a bet on the Bucs is a bet on them to win if 2.5 points is added to their score. Thus a bet on the Rams loses and a bet on the Bucs wins if the score is Rams 35, Bucs 33. Bets (assuming standard Vegas payouts, though many times the payout rates will be adjusted to encourage betting on one side or the other) are paid out on an 11-10 basis, i.e., you're betting 11 to gain 10.

      The house will thus (if an equal amount of money is bet on both sides) make a $1 profit on every $22 bet (ie 4.5%).

      Now, contrast this with a state lottery. In Massachusetts, 50% of the bet is the state tax on lotteries. An additional 10% of what's left is taken by the lottery as their share, for administrative expenses. Thus only 40% of the money bet on any given game will be returned to bettors in the form of winnings. These figures are not significantly different from state to state.

      The end-result of this is that you only need to be right (or lucky) 53% of the time to make a profit betting on sports (when, picking totally randomly, you would be right 50% of the time), but you need to be right 2.5 times as often as random selections would be in order to reasonably expect to break even in a lottery.

      One of the great appeals of sports betting is the better odds of making a profit doing it. Indeed, Oregon tried a few years ago to create a "sports lottery", which was sports betting but with payout rates similar to the lottery. No one bet with it.

      • Sports gambling is fully legal in the UK and the UK National Lottery is one of the most successful in the world.
      • Then please explain why people play slot machines or roullete in casinos or those stupid card games such as let it ride and carribean stud. Those games all have worse player odds than black jack and craps (which i believe is the best player odds), yet you cant walk into a casino and hear the ching ching ching of losers and the money being parted on slots.

        Lotteries will still well because they easy and cost a buck or two, so it seems harmless if you lose. However sport betting means you should know someth
      • Another reason sports gambling is popular is because it takes knowledge on the gambler's part.

        Before you bet on horse races, you consult two pages of very small text giving information about all the horses in the race and what lane they're in and how well they've done in previous races, etc.

        Other sports like football are similar -- you look at who's playing that night, what players on that team are playing, etc.

        Sports gambling is alluring because the more familiar you are with the sport, the better the o

        • Sports gambling is alluring because the more familiar you are with the sport, the better the odds are that you'll pick the winner (Who would you bet on? Notre Dame or South Dakota State?)

          In theory, handicap betting eliminates some of that. Not knowing much about either school (I don't really follow college football... NFL is more my style), I'd conservatively say that the line in Notre Dame/SD St. would be something like Notre Dame giving 21 points. With a line like that, a rational observer may be te

  • There was a show about college bookie (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:47AM (#6722430)
    It was a couple years ago, I think. Anyway, they were showing these college students at places like Ohio State and wherever making $10k a week. I always thought it would be awesome to be a bookie, but you gotta have enough capital upfront to get started.
    • Being a college bookie is difficult. Not only do you have to have the right audience (i.e. this would work great at Texas A&M but not at say, MIT), but you also need the startup capital, and some kind of enforcement mechanism.

      That means you can't be afraid to go Joe-Pesci-In-Casino style on someone who won't pay.
    • I always thought it would be awesome to be a bookie

      No, it wouldn't be. If you are running numbers or making book, you are dealing in organized crime, not that i have any particular objections to that. (note to self, check slashdot username lists for "don", "vinnie", and "* the *"). Think your town doesn't have mob connections? Ask around about putting some cash down on this weekend's games. Someone will know someone, and there's a very good chance that person has some connection to the organized crime ope
      • I actually work in semi-pro gambling - and the system is nowhere as crooked as you suggest (here in the UK at least). With the growth of exchanges (betfair.com, etc.) pretty much anyone can bet and/or lay - so there isn't any 'territory' to speak of. But then again that's what happens when you have 0% (recreational) gambling tax and an (electronic) gambling industry that is regulated by the FSA (sportingindex.com, and other complex bet semi-exchanges). The only problem is that traditional bookies close acco

  • why illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:49AM (#6722443) Homepage
    I know I tend to a somewhat libertarian bent, but why is online gambling illegal? It can't be the exploitation of citizens - these sportsbooks pay better than state lotteries (which are nearly ubiquitous now). They can't make the "There goes the neighborhood" argument either, as the worst case is some guy looks at porn AND gambles online, instead of going to a casino and getting a hooker. If anything, online casinos could put "real" (and illicit) gambling out of business.

    So what's the drawback again?

    • Re:why illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:52AM (#6722470)
      :So what's the drawback again?

      The government's not getting their cut.

      • Re:why illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by siskbc ( 598067 )
        The government's not getting their cut.

        That was sort of a rhetorical question, but it still stands as their "solution" is completely counter-productive. By pushing these guys offshore, they've made *sure* they get no tax money. Let them back, regulate it, and watch the cash roll in. Think of all the jackasses watching football on sundays (like me, for instance). If you don't live near a casino, you've got no legal gambling. And the house's cut is better than trying to get your buddies to pay up, or de

        • It's up to the state not the feds. Thats why there are casinos in Nevada but not in Alabama.

          What you propose would be yet another example of the feds wrestling power from the states.

          The constitution gives very few powers to the country, more to the states, even more to municipalities, and the most to the individual.

          Slowly its turning to one big homogenous state, which is a bad thing. The way it is now, if you dont like Casinos and strip clubs and prostitution, you can decide to not live in Nevada, but
          • Slowly its turning to one big homogenous state, which is a bad thing. The way it is now, if you dont like Casinos and strip clubs and prostitution, you can decide to not live in Nevada, but still be an American. Soon, you'll have to renounce your citizenship and move to some filthy european country where they molest children for sport.

            Right, but that whole state thing doesn't work at all for the internet - it barely works (some would say still doesn't) for whole countries. You could give the individual s

          • Re:why illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by imadork ( 226897 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:45AM (#6722895) Homepage
            The constitution gives very few powers to the country, more to the states, even more to municipalities, and the most to the individual.

            I think you mis-spelled "corporation" at the end of that sentence...

            • Oh no, "Individual", "Person", and "Corporation" are all synonyms! (at least in the legal/gov't sense).

              This post is wholly owned by MEKKAB Corp, LLC.
              • Oh no, "Individual", "Person", and "Corporation" are all synonyms! (at least in the legal/gov't sense).

                I suspect you will find that all three of those are considered equal in the eyes of Congress...
                but some are more equal than others.

          • Soon, you'll have to renounce your citizenship and move to some filthy european country where they molest children for sport.

            But Vatican City has so few good Chinese takeout joints.
      • casinoonnet.com (888.com) tried/is lobbying the US to PAY tax on their online gambling operation - but the elected officials don't want the money since accepting tax would make online gambling legal and they think it's morally wrong...

        On the drawback side: www.drho888.com - a different company
    • Gambling == Satan

      At least that's what the preachers say down here in the Bible Belt. Tennessee, where even church bingo is outlawed, is about to get its first lottery. It took years and a constitutional amendment. The money goes to collage scholarships, and now preachers are urging their congregations not to accecpt the "sin money" if their children qualify for the scholarships.

      • Re:why illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jaredmauch ( 633928 )
        Here in Michigan the lottery funds the public schools. What they didn't make clear when selling this to the public was that it would not augment the school budgets, just take an equal amount of money away and put it back into the general fund.

        Here [mackinac.org] are [csmonitor.com] a few [michigan.gov] links.

      • Yeah, and in Pennsylvania the lottery money supposedly helps "older Pennsylvanians".

        Bullplop. All this is is a regressive tax that the legislature can use as an excuse to not spend as much as they normally would on some particular service or other. It doesn't increase the total amount spent on that service, it just changes the tax profile so that a larger percentage of the burden falls on the poor.

        As far as I'm concerned, the only conceivable justification for a state-run lottery is that it removes the
    • "these sportsbooks pay better than state lotteries"

      Precisely. Why would anyone play the state lottery if they could gamble online instead with much better odds?
      • Britain has a national lottery and legal gambling. The government gets a cut on both (only indirectly with the national lottery - the way it works is that the national lottery hands out winnings to various charities - the government wins insofar as they've got fewer charities begging them for money).
        • Actually, according to:

          http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S1/whats_happ e ni ng/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-72.pdf

          the government takes 12% directly in tax, and the lottery income was falling, at least up to 2001, presumably as people have realised what a rip-off it is, with only 50% of the money being given to the winners... also, isn't it true that the big prizes are not given as lump sums, but paid over several years?

          Also, is online gambling legal in the UK? The big thing the lottery offers is easy acces

          • You are correct about the government taking a percentage from the lottery. My Economics teacher used to love it, he thought it was brilliant that he could go to supermarket on a Saturday afternoon and see long queues of people waiting to voluntarily pay taxes.

            You are wrong about the payments though, they get one big cheque.

            As for online gambling, it's fine in the UK, there are loads of companies that offer it. Some are the online version of highstreet bookmakers such as William Hill [williamhill.co.uk] while others such as

          • Yes, online gambling is legal in the UK. But the tax structure there is truly intense, leading to some oddities. Some of the largest online sports-books have there servers and banking operations in the Caribbean (Antigua, in particular). This allows them to settle the bets offshore and just repatriate (and pay tax on) the net profits, rather than on the gross revenue.
    • "The government" will tell you the lottery is okay because half of the money collected ends up supporting whatever it's earmarked for -- usually education.

      Vegas (i.e. its casinos) has an interest in shutting down -- or at the least, squelching the notoriety of -- online gambling sites. Sure, the casinos will still see plenty of tourists and plenty of money, but it is a threat to their bottom line.

      Unfortunately, there is still a thick vein of puritanism in this country that believes it needs to not only se

    • Re:why illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jonathan_ingram ( 30440 )
      Online gambling isn't illegal if you live in a country which believes in personal freedom, such as the UK. And being legal doesn't make it any less profitable.
  • Why would a bookie, an eight-foot-tall bookie, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Jamicans. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself - what does this have to do with this case?

  • Or you can make it legal... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by akiaki007 ( 148804 ) <aa316@@@nyu...edu> on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:52AM (#6722469)
    TraderSport [tradesports.com] is an online exchange based out of Ireland that basically creates a market on Future Contracts. Very cool because you can buy and sell contracts on a LOT of different things, ranging from Index (DJIA, SPX, etc) to Superbowl winners.

    The beauty of it being a true exchange is that you can sell your contract at some point if you don't want to hold on to it anymore. Example: You buy Giants win 2004 Superbowl today which is valued very low, and say the Giants win their first game and the value goes up, you sell it make a couple of bucks and invest it elsewhere.

    So...legalized gamling?

  • Confusing (Score:3, Funny)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:02AM (#6722551) Homepage
    So I read the headline talking about "bookies" and think it's going to be about online gambling. Then I read the description, see the word "bookmaking" and think "so I guess it's about people that make books -- that's a stupid headline, it's very misleading". Then I read further in the description and realize that it is in fact an article about online betting/gambling and think "Why do we call those guys editors again?"

  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by indros ( 211103 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:12AM (#6722608) Homepage
    how do you break someone's legs when they don't make good?
    • Steal their identity.

      I know i'd much rather have a leg broken, than my bank accounts drained to some anonymous swiss bank account.

  • Will answer questions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yamla ( 136560 ) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:24AM (#6722722)
    I worked for a company in 2000 and 2001 that wrote and sold the software to run these companies (well, some of these companies... BetOnSports was using our software at least for a while, several others were as well).

    The software isn't particularly interesting but it means I have direct knowledge of a number of items... whether Wise Guys actually exist, how you really can regularly make money as an informed gambler (and why the gambling houses don't care), whether there's any back doors in the software, what language the software was written in, etc. etc. etc.

    Ask away if you wish, I'll try to answer any question to the best of my ability. I'm well outside of the NDA now.
    • Why not just give a little rundown of the system? I dont mind reading a long post if its interesting...
    • How gambling software works - how to beat it, etc sure sound like "news for nerds, stuff that matters to me." Write an article, if Taco doesn't want to publish it K5 probably will!

    • Re:Will answer questions (Score:4, Informative)

      by Knife_Edge ( 582068 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @11:03AM (#6723030)

      Thanks for offering, but I already have an unbeatable roulette betting system. You know how you are allowed to bet on colors in addition to numbers? Bet on one, at the minimum bet. If you lose, double your bet to make up your loss. Every time you lose, just keep doubling your bet. Once you win back your loss, return to making the minimum bet.

      Yeah, it's a joke. But a serious-faced business major explained this to me. He actually asked to write some stuff down; I thought this meant he had a really complicated system. So I give him the paper, and he starts writing:
      5
      10
      20
      40

      etc.

      Of course the obvious problem with the system is that the probability of winning by betting on a main color is slightly less than 50%, because there are two main colors and then one or two thingies (don't know the technical term) with a third one. Also, while if you win you gain money slowly, if you lose, you lose it very quickly. I wrote a little program to use this method. It would stop once the doubling of the bet would take away more money than it had if it lost (otherwise it would really lose spectacularly). After many runs of this system, the result I expected became apparent. It made money with the same probability as a single bet. The amounts were widely different - but with no change in the likelihood, betting everything you had on one throw was just as legitimate a strategy. This was faster, too.

      I never bothered trying to correct the guy. I was so flabbergasted when he showed me initially that I really could say nothing, especially since it was obvious he wouldn't understand me. I suppose the problem was he was having trouble imagining the probability of losing eight or nine times in a row, which, while unlikely, is not that unlikely. It happened every simulated time, of course, usually within a hundred throws, frequently in far fewer, once in the initial eight!

      If you are interested in making easy money, I think running a casino to cater to people like this would be much easier than 'informed gambling', whatever the hell that is. Let them think they are gaining some sort of advantage when all they are doing is moving risk around.

      • This is the so-called "Martingale system" (presumably named after the inventor) and it has been proven many times to be a disastrous strategy. A limitation that usually kicks in before your bankroll runs out is the table maximum bet. If the betting range for the table is $5-$100 you can only lose 5 times, then you're out $155 trying to earn a measly $5. No thanks.
        • Well, the range for a $5 table is usually $5-$500, from what I've seen, but that's still just seven bets until you're no longer able to continue with your system. Of course, you can always get up and go to a higher-limit table and continue where you left off, but neither my heart nor my bankroll can handle that. I seem to recall that the $25 minimum tables had a $5000 maximum the last time I was at the casino. Even with that, if you lose ten hands in a row, you can no longer double your bet within the li
    • "why the gambling houses don't care"
      Why do we get accounts with bookmakers closed down after betting regularly and making steady gains over time?

      Did you ever get to predicting true probabilities of a win? Or did you just focus on hedging the public's bets (set prices given volume so that the house wins regardless of outcome)?

      Outside the NDA, what are the odds on you sending us the code then :)

      • Re:Will answer questions (Score:4, Interesting)

        by yamla ( 136560 ) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Monday August 18, 2003 @12:16PM (#6723750)
        I'll probably post a more detailed message later as a reply to my initial post, going in to a bit more detail.

        As to why accounts get closed down, that is entirely up to the specific gambling house. Our software provided them only ways to help determine if the account was a wise guy or not. The only real explanation I can come up with for a legit house to close you down is that they are finding it hard to keep both sides of the line equal. That is, they need about as much money on X-to-win as on Y-to-win. You have to remember, though, that many (most?) gambling houses are run by organised crime so sometimes they're just going to be bastards.

        Gambling houses are not generally interested in the true probabilities (which is why some people can continue to make profit). So long as they can collect their juice, they are happy. That way, the house wins regardless of which side of a line wins. Now, NOT every house runs like this... some try to get closer to the true probabilities. However, this is much more risky if the house is wrong. If they instead just try to balance the money bet on each side of the line, they are guaranteed to make a profit.

        You wouldn't want the code, trust me. I don't have the code any more, of course, but when I was still working for the company, we had roughly a third of a million lines of code. In Visual Basic 6. Now, I don't like VB at the best of times but I acknowledge that it has its place. Also, VB.Net is meant to be much better. But there's no way you should have that many lines of code in VB6. Maintenance was a nightmare. Although we did put an effort into using a decent design, nowhere near enough effort had gone in at the beginning. That we could maintain it at all (while continuing to add features) was impressive, to be honest.

        At least we did use a bug tracking system.

        That said, there are no known backdoors. I'm not saying the software was secure because I know full well that it wasn't. But there were no backdoors that we knew about and we minimised the potential security issues for the web-enabled version as much as was reasonable.

  • What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2NO@SPAMearthshod.co.uk> on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:38AM (#6722851)
    Gambling at the racetrack is legal. Gambling in licenced betting shops is legal. Gambling in casinos is legal. What's the problem with gambling on the Internet?

    Maybe some jurisdictions don't have the same rules of fair play or something ..... I can understand someone might want to limit offshore betting, but surely the proper way to do it is to use a domain name over which you have jurisdiction. EG. William Hill use a secure server with a .uk domain name. They could have that domain name withdrawn if they get a bad reputation.

    I certainly can't see anything wrong with gambling per se ..... it's only a problem if someone starts spending more money than they could afford to lose, but you can do that in any number of ways ..... drink ..... fags ..... having kids ..... all of which are perfectly legal!

    A proper bet at a bookie's is about one thing: can you weigh up the odds more accurately than the bookmaker? If you believe the probability of an outcome is greater than the odds would suggest, then the bet is justified. On the other hand, if the probability is worse than the odds would suggest {UK Lottery: 1 chance in [49*48*47*46*45*44*43]/[6*5*4*3*2*1] = about 14 million, as opposed to a payout of about 3.5M to 1} then you should steer clear.

    And it ain't the government's job to stop people from doing stuff that might be bad for them ..... let 'em learn the hard way .....

    • Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by wmajik ( 688431 )
      There are many reasons, but a main one is money laundering. I'm an relatively big online poker player and I can tell you that many of the online casinos are very shady operations. Not all, but a good deal.

      To launder money, you need to keep it out of the financial system that is the US banking network. Have a bank account? Credit card? Debit card? Took out a loan? When the IRS comes to audit you, they have immediate and full access to all of this. So if Mr. White sells a ten-kilos of cocaine to Mr. Pink a
  • As far as I can tell, the Internet Casino/Bookmaking business is one that is well past its prime - unless you got into the business several years ago.

    Once these casinos started generating large sums of cash, anyone able to raise the capital decided it would be a great idea to start their own Internet Casino. Consequently, the market has become extremely diluted. If you don't believe me, just go to Google or Yahoo and look at the number of Internet Casinos available.

    Another side effect of these large
  • Bah. I thought it said "Internet Nookie" ...
  • With a 3% profit margin, life as an exile in a foggy central American jungle, too much drink, too much stress and not even enough time to learn Spanish and enjoy the local nightlife?

    Merde, someone's idea of lucrative ain't the same as mine.

    I almost have pity on the poor bookmakers, humbly trying to make their million the only way they know how. What amazes me is the Fed's repressive attitude to what is after all simply a service industry. Creating criminals always seems to be good business for government agencies. Allowing adults to do what they want without hurting others, damn, that can't be allowed, can it?

    My choice of "lucrative Internet business" would be something involving porn, I guess. That, or selling routers and firewalls.
  • Several lines of logic show up here.

    1. Gambling is a personal choice and should not be restricted.

    2. Governments should get a percentage.

    Prohibition showed us that some moral (religious) judgements go against the will of the people and that opens up an industry for gangsters. This has been shown to be true.

    One of the benefits of legalizing alchohol was to make those gangsters find other businesses go to into. Drugs for example and gambling. Not sure that there was a long term benifit here.

    The cost of c

    • Re:Wheres the cost (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JimBobJoe ( 2758 )
      So there is a cost to allowing gambling. I have a problem with the government getting a vested interest in what could be viewed as also having a negitive societal cost. Seems like dirty money to me.

      It's interesting to note here that, while Nevada has had legalized prostitution (in some counties) since 1955, the government has chosen to regulate but not tax that industry--which is amazingly lucrative. I suspect that they were indeed bothered by the idea of making money off of it (apparently Nevada's curren

  • Ah, yes, San Jose (Score:5, Funny)

    by K-Man ( 4117 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @11:06AM (#6723055)

    The newly remodeled airport is surrounded by chain hotels, freshly paved roads and shiny corporate plazas. After that it goes rapidly downhill.
    Yes, that's San Jose in a nutshell!

    Wait...Costa Rica?

  • Everyone seems to be missing the point that this is outside the US and therefore just fine.

    Of course the congresscritters will tell you it's not fine, but if they don't like it, they should legislate to have ISPs block said sites, and Credit Card compainies report offenders. Unless the sites are dealing with US soil, their not breaking the law...even if they are communicating on US soil, the customer is breaking the law, not them.

    For a republican govt to threaten this is stupid..after all, these are ju

  • TV: So call me now! $5 for the first minute, $2 for each additional minute!

    Homer: [dials the number]

    Voice: You... have reached... the Coach's... Hot-...

    Homer: Line.

    Voice: Line.

    Homer: Yeah, lay it on me, Coach.

    Voice: In the game... of... Mi... am... i...

    Homer: Mm hm.

    Voice: Versus Cin...

    Homer: Cincinnati.

    Voice: cin...

    Homer: Cincinnati.

    Voice: nat...

    Homer: Cincinnati.

    Voice: i...

    Homer: Come on, come on, don't you realize this is costing me money!
  • This story's perfect for this:

    http://bookiejoint.org/ [bookiejoint.org]

    While it doesn't use real money, you can get cash for karma ;)

    tf23

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close