There has been some off and on discussion about Intrade (a trading/gambling platform) over the years on the forum...Back in 2008 I made some money by betting a reasonably large sum against Ron Paul getting the republican nomination (I never made any more bets as it occurred to me that giving a questionably legal internet website your money probably isn't wise). DGuller always talked a big game as though he could make money on the site, but never had the balls to deposit anything. I also had some message board discussions with the founder of the website before he died climbing Mount Everest.
Anyway, it seems the worst fears about the site might have been true.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_%28businessman%29
:yeah:
So what was so illegal about this compared to betting sites?
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2013, 02:24:10 AM
So what was so illegal about this compared to betting sites?
Embezzling, for one.
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2013, 02:24:10 AM
So what was so illegal about this compared to betting sites?
Betting sites are of dubious legality in the US, and this one seemed to cater to Americans (by far the most activity was on US based events). Also, it was mimicking financial market activity, but was doing so under the guise of gambling.
But I'd describe other betting sites catering to americans as questionably legal too (from an American pov).
"questionable legality" of gambling sites in the US is because brick and mortar casinos effectively bribed... sorry I mean lobbied lawmakers.
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2013, 09:51:44 AM
"questionable legality" of gambling sites in the US is because brick and mortar casinos effectively bribed... sorry I mean lobbied lawmakers.
I don't think it is so simple.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2013, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2013, 09:51:44 AM
"questionable legality" of gambling sites in the US is because brick and mortar casinos effectively bribed... sorry I mean lobbied lawmakers.
I don't think it is so simple.
:yes:
elaborate plz
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2013, 10:18:03 AM
elaborate plz
Many Americans genuinely believe that too much access to gambling is a bad thing for society, and that Internet gambling is pretty much unrestricted access to gambling. Personally, I'm very ambivalent myself. Politicians don't need to be bought to prohibit Internet gambling.
ah, I see.
I can understand that, and will not start a debate, it's just that's kind of an interesting take on personal freedom.
The one other factor is that casino gambling is regulated to hell (rightly so IMO) to guarantee that games are fair and winners get paid. That is one legitimate concern about overseas betting sites.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 10:27:47 AM
The one other factor is that casino gambling is regulated to hell (rightly so IMO) to guarantee that games are fair and winners get paid. That is one legitimate concern about overseas betting sites.
fair point, altough on that basis you could ban online purchases from outside of US borders
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 10:27:47 AM
The one other factor is that casino gambling is regulated to hell (rightly so IMO) to guarantee that games are fair and winners get paid. That is one legitimate concern about overseas betting sites.
And, as practice shows, without regulation, it's almost certain that sooner or later the gambling site operator is going to start pocketing money that should be segregated and set aside. It's not an argument against prohibition of Internet gambling, though; in fact, it's an argument for legalization of Internet gambling. Justifying ban on Internet gambling because of lack of regulation of sites is like justifying Prohibition because only gangsters are involved in the liquor trade.
That makes no sense at all to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 10:46:44 AM
That makes no sense at all to me.
:huh: Legalization will lead to regulation, and regulation will vastly reduce the likelihood of criminals, fraudsters, or incompetents embezzling from the gambling sites.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2013, 10:51:03 AM
:huh: Legalization will lead to regulation, and regulation will vastly reduce the likelihood of criminals, fraudsters, or incompetents embezzling from the gambling site.
How will legalization of overseas betting sites lead to regulation? It's not a law of physics that activities that are legalized spontaneously regulate themselves. You need an authority in the host country poking around in the black box.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2013, 10:23:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2013, 10:18:03 AM
elaborate plz
Many Americans genuinely believe that too much access to gambling is a bad thing for society, and that Internet gambling is pretty much unrestricted access to gambling. Personally, I'm very ambivalent myself. Politicians don't need to be bought to prohibit Internet gambling.
There is that factor. Also, the states that have lotteries don't want the competition. Some people that might be okay with casino gambling worry about difficulties regulating internet websites, making gambling too "easy" for problem gamblers, or underage gambling.
Basically private gambling businesses are generally banned in the US. It isn't just picking on internet websites.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 10:54:02 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2013, 10:51:03 AM
:huh: Legalization will lead to regulation, and regulation will vastly reduce the likelihood of criminals, fraudsters, or incompetents embezzling from the gambling site.
How will legalization of overseas betting sites lead to regulation? It's not a law of physics that activities that are legalized spontaneously regulate themselves. You need an authority in the host country poking around in the black box.
FFS, by legalizing AND regulating, at the same time. You're laying on the dense act a bit too thick, IMO. Make it legal to offer Internet gambling if you can prove that you complied with all the regulations, and keep it illegal if you can't.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
FFS, by legalizing AND regulating, at the same time. You're laying on the dense act a bit too thick, IMO. Make it legal to offer Internet gambling if you can prove that you complied with all the regulations, and keep it illegal if you can't.
You're getting a little too shrill IMO. First legalization will lead to regulation, now they'll happen at the same time.
Ensuring that an overseas activity is regulated to your satisfaction is no minor matter. If the Bahamas tells us they're doing a top notch job of regulating their internet gambling sites, do we take their word for it?
I would assume a bunch of US based online game rooms would pop up almost instantly after legalisation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 11:12:21 AM
You're getting a little too shrill IMO. First legalization will lead to regulation, now they'll happen at the same time.
Well, you can't have regulation without legalization, that would be silly, so yes, legalization leads to regulation. I assumed that the link between legalization and regulation would be obvious, and didn't think there was a big risk of someone taking a big effort to idiotically misinterpret it, so I didn't take the time to offer triple-redundant explanations. Oh, well, even the best of us misprice risk at times.
QuoteEnsuring that an overseas activity is regulated to your satisfaction is no minor matter. If the Bahamas tells us they're doing a top notch job of regulating their internet gambling sites, do we take their word for it?
It's a matter of implementation. Draft the regulations so that it would be possible to ensure. That may involve having the servers in US, maybe not. I highly doubt it's an impossible task if there is a will to regulate for real.
Of course you can have regulation without legalization. We're talking about different jurisdictions. British and Irish gambling sites are regulated (I assume) but illegal in the US.
Now go ahead and tell me how I'm being a lunk head again, Shrilly McDershowitz.
Intrade was an irish website. The regulation may have been ineffective.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 11:25:24 AM
Of course you can have regulation without legalization. We're talking about different jurisdictions. British and Irish gambling sites are regulated (I assume) but illegal in the US.
Now go ahead and tell me how I'm being a lunk head again, Shrilly McDershowitz.
They're "regulated". What it means is that the gambling site pays one of those fake independent channel islands to say they're regulating them.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2013, 11:27:41 AM
Intrade was an irish website. The regulation may have been ineffective.
Maybe it was regulated by the same people that regulated their banks. :bowler:
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2013, 11:27:41 AM
Intrade was an irish website. The regulation may have been ineffective.
Maybe it was regulated by the same people that regulated their banks. :bowler:
:pinch:
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2013, 11:27:41 AM
Intrade was an irish website. The regulation may have been ineffective.
Maybe it was regulated by the same people that regulated their banks. :bowler:
:D
Looks like he ended his life, like he lived it, recklessly. <_<
Why does someone with a young family try something so dangerous; aren't kids the signifier of it's time settle down and be responsible ?
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2013, 01:19:17 PM
Looks like he ended his life, like he lived it, recklessly. <_<
Why does someone with a young family try something so dangerous; aren't kids the signifier of it's time settle down and be responsible ?
Something like that is usually planned well in advance of 9 months...it is probable he was commited to the trip before he was expecting a child. He could have called the trip off, but he probably had committed a great deal of funding at that point.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2013, 01:38:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2013, 01:19:17 PM
Looks like he ended his life, like he lived it, recklessly. <_<
Why does someone with a young family try something so dangerous; aren't kids the signifier of it's time settle down and be responsible ?
Something like that is usually planned well in advance of 9 months...it is probable he was commited to the trip before he was expecting a child. He could have called the trip off, but he probably had committed a great deal of funding at that point.
Actually that explains why he wasn't there for the birth of his last child. Doesn't really though answer mongers's question given that he already had two sons.
Who ended his life?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 11:25:24 AM
Of course you can have regulation without legalization. We're talking about different jurisdictions. British and Irish gambling sites are regulated (I assume) but illegal in the US.
Now go ahead and tell me how I'm being a lunk head again, Shrilly McDershowitz.
You've been really defensive lately.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 01:41:46 PM
Actually that explains why he wasn't there for the birth of his last child. Doesn't really though answer mongers's question given that he already had two sons.
:blush: Maybe he prepaid and got all his gear 10 years in advance? Could be why he died if his gear no longer fit.
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2013, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2013, 01:49:47 PM
Who ended his life?
The Mount Everest. :P
My question was actually "who are we talking about who ended his life?"
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2013, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2013, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2013, 01:49:47 PM
Who ended his life?
The Mount Everest. :P
My question was actually "who are we talking about who ended his life?"
The guy who owned intrade and may have been stealing money from it. I linked to his wikipedia bio in the first post.