Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Legal Online Gambling Could Return To the US (digitaltrends.com) 103

A new report says legal online gambling may be coming back to the U.S., not from an casino magnate such as Steve Wynn or Sheldon Adelson, but rather a headphone industry executive. From a report: Now Monster, the same company that turned the headphone industry upside down with Dr. Dre, plans to revive online gambling in America by enlisting someone with a different kind of notoriety: Fred Khalilian. He's a former telemarketing kingpin, wannabe reality TV personality, two-time FTC loser -- and now, the new COO of Monster. He plans to open the company's gambling site, PokerTribe.com, on or before December 15. And he might just make the company billions. So he might also be a genius. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Gambling is illegal, right? Sort of. How will a headphone maker succeed in online gambling where Trump, Branson, and others have failed? "The roadmap is unbelievable, fraught with laws, certifications, international law, gaming commissions, all that stuff. Very, very complex," Monster CEO Noel Lee exclusively told Digital Trends. "But [Fred] has overcome. He's found his niche, he's worked his way through the government, through the Federal Trade Commission, through all of that, with a strategy that's built around the American Indians."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Legal Online Gambling Could Return To the US

Comments Filter:
  • Why would Monster [monster.com] (a job search website) get involved with online gambling?
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday October 12, 2017 @11:05AM (#55356345)

    On one hand, why not?

    On the other hand, do I want to side with someone who is "a former telemarketing kingpin, wannabe reality TV personality, two-time FTC loser"?

    I feel kinda reminded of the whole "MAFIAA vs. Kimmie Dotcom" deal. There, I just wanted both sides to lose. Here, I wouldn't mind legalized gambling, but at the price of having such a slimeball getting his way?

    • by H3lldr0p ( 40304 ) on Thursday October 12, 2017 @11:30AM (#55356531) Homepage

      I think it's safe to be against the pro-gambling this time around. Not only because it's gambling we're talking about and we all know how bad humans are at figuring odds, but they're also hinting in the blurb that it involves further exploiting the already exploited.

      • Not only because it's gambling we're talking about and we all know how bad humans are at figuring odds,

        Some are, some aren't. Some are good enough that they succeed as full-time professionals. Some are so bad that they might as well just toss the money on the table and walk away. But it is entertainment, and those who want to do it should be allowed.

        Some people are terrible at controlling their consumption of alcohol. Do we ban alcohol to protect them from themselves, meanwhile denying it to those who have no problem? Been there, done that, failed.

        but they're also hinting in the blurb that it involves further exploiting the already exploited.

        I don't see that in "the blurb". Where is the exploitation?

      • by Alok ( 37687 )

        Not so sure its about 'exploiting' the American Indians, I expect they will be using a similar loophole to what all the IP companies are doing with assigning their crappy patents to some tribe to avoid IPR fast-track reviews. Then have a revenue share, so they extort other companies being patent trolls, the victims can't resolve the issue quickly, and the 'sovereign' tribes get millions of dollars for their help in doing an end run around the law.

        Imho either get rid of their sovereign immunity, or have them

    • Deciding which principles to defend based on who else will be "on your side" is a throwback to the elementary school playground where everyone wanted to be picked on the team with the cool kids.

      Pick the side whose principles you believe in. Don't worry about who else is on your side - it simply doesn't matter. I believe in free speech so I defend it, even though it sometimes puts me on the same side as Nazi sympathizers. MAFIAA vs Kim Dotcom was easy because there were long-established rules for forei
      • It's not a matter of popularity, more one of consciousness.

        I'm in favor of allowing people to do what they want to do, including gambling. I just don't feel that someone like THIS should run it.

  • likely to be a state by state thing and WI and others may give them a had time.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Smithers: Sir, you haven't slept since the casino opened five days ago.
    Mr. Burns: Yeah, well, I've discovered the perfect business: people swarm in, empty their pockets, and scuttle off.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Well, with his track record, it isn't so much that he has "overcome", it is that he has ignored the law.

  • You can easily tell this because it uses the Monster position that they changed the world with Beats, however when Beats dropped them as the manufacturer they also tried suing and lost...
  • Is this the Monster of Monster Cables infamy?

    That'll go well.

    • Is this the Monster of Monster Cables infamy?

      That'll go well.

      Yes, it is... It's not the monster of monster.com, or the monster of monster fish keepers https://www.monsterfishkeepers... [monsterfishkeepers.com] , or the monster of monster energy drinks. Heck it's not even the monster of "there's a monster at the end of this book".

  • I've always wondered if you could somehow structure some kind of super-short-term set of futures contracts that would roughly approximate a roulette wheel. Instead of placing a bet you'd simply buy a futures contract that would either pay out handsomely or return absolutely nothing a few minutes later.

    Add some pretty animations to show which contract was successful and the whole thing could look like a roulette wheel while you are really just trading some kind of derivative.

  • Its just that they call it by another name, "The Stock Market". The best part is its not even rigged in favor of the house! Just try getting those odds in a Trump casino.

    btw - What are the odds that Trump wants a piece of this action?

    • Its just that they call it by another name, "The Stock Market". The best part is its not even rigged in favor of the house!

      In poker, the money is mostly traded between the players. The losers pay the winner. The house takes a rake on each pot to pay for the dealer and facilities, and usually the small blind to pay for jackpots.

      Compare this to the stock market where the losers pay the winners, and the trading house takes a rake, I mean "sales fee", on each sale. I'd say that the stock market is rigged for the house to the same extent that poker is.

      btw - What are the odds that Trump wants a piece of this action?

      Zero. But nice try at making this a Trump rant.

      • by lgw ( 121541 )

        The problem with the analogy is Goldman-Sachs - where parasites like that are involved it's more like slots than poker. Fortunately, that's not every market.

  • by Lucas123 ( 935744 ) on Thursday October 12, 2017 @11:51AM (#55356723) Homepage

    Government sanctioned gambling -- the ultimate tax on the poor, who have such high hopes that by throwing what little money they have at high-risk lotteries, casinos and now online gambling, they can someday see all their financial troubles vanish in the blink of an eye.

    The great thing about lotteries and casinos is that the government can capture significant revenue from the poor and lower middle class without having to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for stuff like, you know, schools and roads.

    It's an awesome scheme to keep the wealthy in good standing while sucking the last ounce of blood like a vampire from those who can least afford to lose a drop.

    • Government sanctioned gambling -- the ultimate tax on the poor,

      Other than the fact that taxes are involuntary contributions and gambling is not, you're right. You have a hard time avoiding income taxes except by foregoing income. You can trivially avoid gambling losses. For the latter, you have lost essentially nothing by giving up gambling because you were losing anyway. If you are a winner then it isn't a tax, it's income.

      The great thing about lotteries and casinos is that the government can capture significant revenue from the poor and lower middle class without having to raise taxes on the wealthy

      The great thing about lotteries and casinos is that the government can capture significant revenue from people who want to give away their money in

  • _and_ two-time FTC loser with a history in gambling? I think we just found our next president.
  • by Ghostworks ( 991012 ) on Thursday October 12, 2017 @12:00PM (#55356807)

    Even if they try to do a legal run around based on tribal sovereignty, the simple fact remains that it's against Federal law for credit card companies to do business with casinos. This is what originally killed the American online gambling industry. (And while I think that basic goal was short sighted, it is what it is.)

    Credit card companies care a lot more about pissing off the Feds than they do about doing business with what they admit is a shady, untested casino scheme. The money is good, I'm sure, but the legal theory would have to be rock-solid to convince them that they're not going to just burn through it all in legal fees and penalties.

    It would actually be easier to go to President Trump -- literally the most sympathetic possible person for this cause -- and bitch about how all those casino dollars are going off-shore to GoldenPalace.com, and get him to put a pet bill through a Republican-controlled Congress.

    • True, but Bitcoin is nearing mainstream enough to possibly offer a path around that...

      • that's basically how Japan does gambling. You play Pachinko to gamble. You get little balls that you trade in for stuffed animals and such and there just happens to be a shop across the street that buys said stuffed animals for exorbitant prices. People are doing this with video game skins too. The only question is will the government (at the behest of Las Vegas) start cracking down on bitcoin & crypto currency.
    • the simple fact remains that it's against Federal law for credit card companies to do business with casinos.

      Citation required. I find a lot of online information saying that some casinos won't accept credit cards for chips, and that some credit card companies won't deal with casinos for the same thing, but no federal law that prohibits credit card companies from dealing with casinos. In fact, the local casino is quite happy to accept credit cards for various things other than gambling chips.

      If you are referring to Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), then you need to consider that this act deals w

  • If this goes through, I'd like to start funding my retirement with a bunch of climate bets [theguardian.com], tax-advantaged or not.
  • Anything gaming involving the internet either is or will be corrupt.
  • They'll lose their Indianity license.

  • of course the organization against legalizing sports gambling nationwide (in the United States) tends to come from casino's and other gambling institutions - so obviously just because people are in favor of something doesn't mean it is going to happen ...

  • And it's called Counterstrike Global Offensive and you don't need to be 18. I can't wait for congress to drop the hammer on that garbage.
  • What the fuck does Monster have to do with Dr Dre? Dre and Jimmy Iovine started BEATS. I'm not aware of Dr Dre doing fuck all with Monster. What is this shit?

It is your destiny. - Darth Vader

Working...