It looks like the recent Congress proposals for internet gambling legislation are already having an effect throughout the private sector, even before they've been debated. Apparently last week Visa implemented a policy to proactively block some internet gambling transactions from going through, including many legal transactions.

Account-wagering providers such as AmericaTab, TV Games Network, XpressBet, and Youbet.com are licensed state-regulated entities. The offshore operations are not. The Los Angeles Daily News, which first reported the situation in its May 24 edition, cited industry experts who said Visa and the banking industry are targeting Internet gambling because it is a "suspected source of cash flow for terrorist groups."

Link

After the fiasco with the terrorist anti-drug ads, I'm surprised to hear the terrorist card being played here. Nevertheless, it's a sign that the big financial organizations are starting to take measures of their own regardless of whether the legislation goes through this session.

Prediction: international Paypal-like businesses will start to see their turnover go through the roof as online gamblers scurry to find safe intermediaries for opening accounts.

There is so much going on with individual states' gambling propositions it's almost impossible to keep up. Here's just some of the recent activity:

• California: A new massive casino to open outside of LA in 2005
  
• Massachusetts: Despite the governor's opposition, they may authorize slots
  
• Nebraska: A senator proposed going to war with Iowa over gambling revenue, but the bill to expand gambling there still failed
  
• New York: Downtown Buffalo is likely to get an Indian casino
  
• New York: An attempt to stop Pataki engaging in gambling compacts with tribes failed
  
• Rhode Island: The general assembly is going to go months longer than normal, in part due to casino proposals and a proposal for the state to take a larger chunk of revenue from slot machines
  
• Texas: may get Powerball (and $100m in increased tax revenue)
  

Even though more Americans are gambling or gambling-friendly than any time in our history, what's really driving these latest pushes are the absolutely staggering budget deficits faced by almost every state in the union. Here are some depressing figures from "State Budget Actions 2002", a publication by the National Conference of State Legislatures:

In April 2002, 43 states reported budget gaps--the total of lower than expected revenues plus spending overruns--with the aggregate amount reaching $27.3 billion. By June 30, the end of FY 2002 for 46 states, the gap had grown to $37.2 billion.

Thirteen states reported FY 2002 budget gaps in excess of 10 percent of their general fund budgets.

Aggregate state balances fell 52 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2002, declining from $38.9 billion to $18.5 billion.

Balances as a percent of spending dropped. The $18.5 billion figure represents 3.8 percent of FY 2002 general fund spending. It is 4.2 percentage points lower than the FY 2001 balance of 8 percent.

Forty-three states saw their balances decline from FY 2001 to FY 2002, with some declines significant. Only five states saw improvement.

The number of states with balances above 5 percent fell. Fifteen ended FY 2002 with a balance exceeding 5 percent, the level Wall Street analysts recommend. Of these, four ended with balances exceeding 10 percent. The comparable numbers at the end of FY 2001 were 41 and 14, respectively.

Two states--California and Connecticut--reported that they ended FY 2002 with a deficit (1.7 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively).

State rainy day fund balances have fallen as states have tapped these funds. The aggregate balance dropped from $20.3 billion at the end of FY 2001 to $10.5 billion at the end of FY 2002.

Link

Nearly every state is in dire straits with respect to budget deficits and spending. Casinos (and various non-player-friendly gambling measures such as expanded slots and lotteries) are being proposed to attempt to make up some of these huge shortfalls. It seems infeasible to me for states to be able to sustainably make up their budget deficits by sucking money out of their legislatures at ever-increasing rates. At some point, something's going to have to give.

State budgets are totally out of hand, having gone through massive increases during the boom times of the 90's. Of course, now that a lot of that money is no longer flowing, governments would rather tax the stupid members of their states through the terrible odds of lotteries and slots than accept that they're just too big and need to cut some of their fat.

Sorry for the out-of-place political rant, but I strongly urge you to read what's been going on with state budgets over the last decade and where they are now. It's scary stuff. I'm not economist but there are some seriously in-the-hole states out there. Gambling propositions are only one small part of the states' strategies to avoid cost-cutting.

"Casino Has a Great Night":

"We've got a system," Brant said. "Our strategy is to bet against all the customers who come in here. Then we spread our bets around to each and every table and machine in the casino and keep at it for the long haul. We were down about $200 at one of the roulette tables, but were up on everything else, so we came out pretty much ahead. Actually, more than half a million ahead."

Link (via Alberta Gaming Research Institute Library Weblog)

Pending approval, MGM Mirage is going to take a 25% stake in Metro Casinos in the U.K. This is a great development for U.K. casinos and U.K. poker. MGM Mirage knows how to run a casino, and they know how to run a poker room. They run two of the best in Vegas -- if not the world -- at the Bellagio and Mirage. It remains to be seen how much management say they'll have through their 25% ownership. Hopefully quite a bit. Link

Good story on how revenue from the Commerce Casino (probably the top poker spot in LA) has made the town of Commerce one of the wealthiest in proportion to its residents:

When Georgina and Tony Escalera moved back to Commerce 10 years ago, they knew one thing: It's a place of plenty when it comes to city-provided perks.

Their three children attended preschool for free. The family pays nothing for trash service. While they added a second story to their home, the city sent them $22,000 in home-improvement rebate checks.

It's good to see some coverage of the upside of legalized poker. California is a fascinating study in gambling because most legalized (non-Indian) gambling there is poker. I'd like to read some comparisons between the effects of legalized card rooms in California versus legalized wider gambling in other areas. California is apparently be able to sustainably support its over 200 legal cardrooms, in contrast with other areas where just a small number of casinos with banks of low-payout slot machines and table games seem to cause more widespread social problems. Link (via Calblog)

Unusual column on Moneymaker's win at the WSOP in The Guardian:

The geeks had had their day and if Moneymaker has gumption he'll have invested all his winnings on Norway at 14-1 to win the Eurovision Song Contest.

Whatever happened next he would benefit. If Norway won, and it would be a travesty if a Scandinavian singing a cover of Gilbert O'Sullivan's Clare were not to prevail, Moneymaker, with more than $30,000,000 in his pocket, will be set for life.

If Norway don't win, then, having blown two-and-a-half million dollars on a sports bet he will be able to call himself a 'professional gambler'.

Link to column; more generic AP story here.

The 34th World Series of Poker ended Friday, with unknown Chris Moneymaker taking home the bracelet and the $2.5 million in first place prize money.

What's most amazing is that Moneymaker entered the WSOP by winning an online tournament with a $40 buyin. He claims it's his first ever live-action tournament which is not only quite amazing, but pretty good for the publicity of the series as well. There's also an interesting thread going on rec.gambling.poker about the legality of his winnings, given that he qualified by playing (presumably illegally) on an online poker site.

There's also an ongoing debate about whether Moneymaker is a pseudonym or not. At first I thought it had to be; but there are over 200 Moneymakers listed in the white pages, including several in Tennessee, where Moneymaker hails from. Seems like it is probably legitimate.

I was in Vegas for the final day and caught some of the tournament at Binion's when Moneymaker, Harrington, and Farha were left. If you are ever in Vegas during the main event, I highly recommend you go to Binion's to check it out. The atmosphere is amazing. The tournament room at Binion's was packed out with spectators, and there were a bunch of commentators and reporters there, including ESPN crew. Link

My observations from the weekend:

• Sam Farha is one cool mutha. He looked like he was straight out of a James Bond film, with a perpetual slight smirk and unlit cigarette dangling out of his mouth, wearing a nice shirt and sports jacket.
  
• Erik Seidel eats at Sam's Snacks in the Bellagio, my favorite poker-bender hangout.
  
• I need to play more poker and less blackjack on these trips. Meeting up with high-rolling friends who have forsaken poker in favor of table games does not help the situation.
  
• 1-2 no limit hold'em is my kind of game. It was my first no-limit ring game experience in Vegas and went quite well.
  
• Everyone who plays blackjack needs a basic strategy card. I always carry one with me, and consistently have people betting $300 and above asking me what to do.
  
• The new waitress uniforms at the Rio are amazing.
  
• I witnessed the largest ever pot I've seen in Vegas in proportion to the betting limit. It was at 80-160 hold'em in the Bellagio, and there were at least 50 people gathered around the table witnessing the pot, which grew to about $10,000. At the end, there were four players still in, with betting capped at each round the whole way. Two players held AA; one player held KK; and one player held 37 of clubs. Board was something like Jc8c4s-9h-Td, giving 37 his gutshot straight and the whole pot (along with a lifetime of heckling).
  
• Bad beat of the weekend: 1-2 no limit, I play AK offsuit in late position for a raise, and get one caller, a weak player who had been playing everything that came his way. Flop comes KK7. We get it all in on the flop, and my opponent flips up pocket 7's.
  
• Gift hand of the weekend: 1-2 no limit, I play 10-J off in late position. Flop comes 7-8-9 rainbow, giving me the top straight. I raise it up and get two callers. Next card is a 7, pairing the board. The same weak player from above bets out, I make a small raise and he makes a small reraise. The final card is an 8, two-pairing the board. He bets out for about $30, and I crying call figuring he must have me beat but having enough doubt to call. He flips up A-5 and says "straight" -- and then realizes that he doesn't have a straight, he has a big fat nothing and I take down the nice-sized pot with an astounded grin on my face. I think he thought the second seven was a six.
  

e-Vegas Exchange has a surprisingly good collection of contributors and regular articles about Vegas and gambling, despite being overpopulated with banner ads for online casinos. Mark Pilarski writes this little gem about casinos increasing their edge on three-card poker:

Ordinarily, Three Card Poker is a better play than Caribbean Stud (-5.3%), better than Let it Ride (-3.5%), and even better than Pai Gow Poker (-2.5%).

As to the best bet in Three Card poker itself, it depends, Hilda, on whether like your cards or not; I'll rephrase that-on whether you should like your cards. The house edge is 3.37% against the Ante alone, but only 2.01% against your Queen-6-4, if you decide to make the Play bet. With a Pair Plus wager, the casino advantage is slightly higher at 2.32%.

But just when you think you've got your juju flowing over the low house edge of Three Card Poker, take a quick look upstream. Most casinos are now tightening the screws on Three Card Poker by reducing the payoffs on straight flushes and three-of-a-kinds. It's screamingly worse on the Pair Plus payoffs. For example, by making a crafty change on what you're paid for a straight flush from 40-to-1 to 35-to-one, and nibbling down three-of-a-kinds from 30-to-1 to 25-to-1, the house edge jumps to 4.58%, making this originally good game go bad, way bad.

Link

Even more craps-filled hilarity in today's Get Fuzzy. They're on quite a roll... Link

Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who just weeks ago suggested the state taking over casinos to boost revenue, has thrown the gauntlet in Illinois on a strong no to any expansion of gambling:

"...his long-delayed answer to critics who expected him to abandon his campaign pledge and permit the expansion of gambling in Illinois: No dice. His top aides say that means no 11th or 12th casino licenses, no more positions for gamblers at existing casinos, no slot machines at horse tracks, no video poker."

At first this sounds contradictory to his stand on taking over casinos, but the two strategies could be complementary: stop gambling expansion - gambling is bad - gambling companies are bad - let's take over the gambling companies. I still can't see that ever happening, though. Link (free registration required)

Certainly his tone is completely different than this statement he made less than a month ago:

Blagojevich also said that allowing video poker and increasing the number of slot machines at casinos or adding them to horse tracks would not necessarily be an expansion of gambling.

Huh? Guess he decided the anti-gambling lobby is worth more votes than the pro-gambling one...

The gambling regulation arm of the U.K. government released an internal paper recommending special legislation for appropriate licensing of sports exchanges like Betfair and Tradesports. While this doesn't yet change the fact that in the U.S. exchanges are treated no differently than any other betting activities, it's great to see a major nation realizing that exchanges are a different entity from the traditional bookmaking operation and beginning to react accordingly:

As to the proposals contained in the paper, it is considered that betting exchanges merit a specific licence for their activities. This licence will permit them to establish betting markets and to hold monies on behalf of their users.

Link

If you ever bet on sports and do not know what a betting exchange is, you owe it to yourself to familiarize yourself with them now. Betting exchanges are quietly beginning to revolutionize the way in which sports and other similar bets are handled. Both sites above have explanations of what the exchanges are and how they work.

Key points:

• The "risk $11 to win $10" model of bookies is a handicap that even professional sports bettors have a very, very tough time beating. In sports exchanges, you pay a commission on your trades to the house, which ends up being much less. At Tradesports, for instance, the commission ends up being 1.6% on even money bets - 6 times less than bookies.
  
• The contracts are tradeable - say you buy a bet contract at even money, but the star player of the opponent's side gets injured before the game. The odds go up to 2:1 for the opponent, but you think their chances of still pulling off a win are higher than that. You can sell off that bet you made for a risk-free profit.
  
• Not only are the bet contracts tradeable, they continue to trade until the event is over. So the odds (bids and asks) constantly change while games are in progress, meaning you can make and offer bets at any time during the game. Some games have more than 50% of their volume happen while the game is in progress.
  
• You are offering or taking bets against other bettors, at prices (odds) set like they are on a stock exchange. I don't see this in itself as an inherent advantage; however, it does mean that you can take the "bookie" side of longshot bets and sell them to people who want to bet those longshots. This is good because longshot bets are often the most profitable a bookie has - they incur higher variance and risk, but at a higher reward. The odds on these exchanges are generally very close to vegas bookie odds because of arbitrage seekers. So that's good for you as a seller of those long bets.

Those are the four main areas that make betting exchanges vastly superior to bookies. About the only disadvantage of exchanges compared to bookies is that it is difficult to place single large ($1,000+) bets on an exchange - you would have to spread it out as new bids come in. But as exchanges grow, their liquidity is continuing to improve.

Once exchanges are made legal in the U.S., the bookie as we know him today will be obsolete.

"At Poker's World Series, 838 Jokers, One King" (via Joshua)

A little craps humor from yesterday's "Get Fuzzy" comic...

And today's follow-up:

The main event of the WSOP started today. Meanwhile the last five days have been an absolute star parade of tournament winners. Since my last post on the WSOP, We've had a Phil Hellmuth/Daniel Negreanu/Erik Seidel finish in the $3k no-limit holdem;
John Juanda (left) beat out a final table including Chris "Jesus" Ferguson and Phil Ivey in the $2.5k pot limit omaha; 2001 world champ Carlos Mortenson won the $5k limit holdem; and yet another win for Men "The Master" in the $1,500 A-5 triple draw lowball.

These big name finishes are great for poker, especially coupled with the WPO coverage. Getting a celebrity circle going is crucial for the popularity of any sport, and the number of big names winning events this year is pretty amazing. Although it makes me feel like more of a longshot to win one than ever, it's good for the game.

The main event has set new records with a huge 839 entrants ponying up $10,000, including around 50 entrants who won spots in online tournaments. (Never mind that they probably won them illegally if they were playing online from the US). Top prize is going to be $2,500,000 and second a cool $1,300,000. A few years ago top prize was just $1m -- it's more than doubled since then as interest in poker and the WSOP has ballooned in the USA and abroad.

The highlights: John Juanda is out with AQ against AJ; Negreanu made the first bust of the day with a J-high flush against kings; Hellmuth seems to be doing pretty nicely. There is some great live coverage at The Gutshot Poker Collective.

Update: Live Action Poker also has some pretty decent daily coverage on WSOP results. Latest: last year's cinderella story Robert Varkonyi busted out with KK vs. Scotty Nguyen's AA. Day one results at PokerPages here - Ivey, S. Nguyen and Hellmuth all doing pretty good.

Just got this text message tonight from a buddy who's in Vegas:

Up 100. Been to boardwalk aladin excalibur luxor. Lots of drinks and of course hoover dam! See u soon.

Vegas baby. This particular friend, who's doing the tourist thing because he's in Vegas with his parents, has a penchant for $5 blackjack at low-roller casinos (see above text message) and large quantities of scotch and diet coke. Which brings me to my next point.

The Reverse Cowgirl posted a link to this decent list of gambling jargon. Which is a nice coincidence because I was about to post my own short list. Inspired by my $5 blackjack friend, and a recent episode of Lucky where Lucky's two buddies simultaneously yell out "Monkey!!" at the blackjack table. So I present

Things to shout at the blackjack table

Ask for a face card
  Monkey!
  Pick-cha!
  Brick!
  Give me some paint!
  Big-ah one!
  Face me!

Ask for a small card
  Little!
  Baby!
  Doo! (deuce)

Ask for an ace
  Bullet!
  A...!

After you've busted
  Ai-ya!
  22. I stand. (grin)

When doubling
  Down and dirty please. (to have your double card dealt face down)

Perhaps later I'll write up a primer on how to properly hand gesture when playing blackjack, including my patented moves: the cross-table stand (guaranteed to irk anal dealers everywhere), the teeny-pinky-scratch-please-give-me-a-four hit, and the fake-hit-on-blackjack-ha-ha-i'm-hilarious. Pure gold.

I heard this great quote from a caller on Jim Rome's sports radio show:

There's no question Shaq has to drop 50 pounds. By the second quarter he was puffing and sweating like Dom DeLuise over a hot bowl of soup. If he doesn't drop some weight soon by age 40 he's going to look like Buster Douglas ate Charles Barkley.

Ahhh talk radio.

I have a rule that my brother doesn't know about... if he suggests anything more than once it's guaranteed to be good. The Gillette Mach 3. "Scrubs". Switching from vodka-sprite to vodka-soda. Quite a track record. The rule probably applies to other people who rarely repeat themselves, I just don't know any. His most recent repeat-recommendation: the latest Sports Guy column on espn.com, which is absolutely hilarious. Link

...I couldn't allow another unchallenged week for Charley Rosen on Page 2, not after his "How the Celtics could come back against the Nets" column last week. Really, this is how Page 2 replaced me as their basketball guru? The Celtics couldn't have taken 4 games from the Nets if it was a 27-game series. If you're not starting that column, "Suggestion No. 1: Try to knock Jason Kidd unconscious every time he drives to the basket," why even bother?

and this gem:

+ Dirk Nowitzki .... for that goofy goatee thing. Maybe the most enjoyable facial hair on an athlete since Jeff Hostetler's cheesy porn mustache. I'm not just asking for an episode of "The Life" that just follows Dirk and Steve Nash hitting Dallas nightspots, I'm demanding it.

The Sports Guy also wrote a great six-column series a while back on a gambling bender in Vegas. Apparently in addition to his writing skills, he's not too bad at the poker table. 1 2 3 4 5 6

The Alamo Drafthouse continues its Austin expansion - yay! - and today opens the doors of Alamo Lake Creek (off 183 N, between Anderson Mill and 620). I live close to the Alamo Village but it's good to see a local independent theater doing well. From "Drafthouse Henri", they're showing A Mighty Wind along with some "rare" Christopher Guest footage:

Our big ad in the Chronicle this week says the Alamo Lake Creek is the ONLY place to see A Mighty Wind, the latest from the director of Best in Show, this week. That isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally, cause the movie is playing in a few other theaters around town, but if for some reason you decided to go to one of those other theaters, you would not see rare Christopher Guest clips while you were waiting for the feature presentation. Instead, you would see yet another message from the Foundation for a Better Life and a whole bunch of ads for Pepsi. Why would you want to see that? And who is the Foundation for a Better Life, anyway? They creep me out.

Rare Christopher Guest clips... that's almost enough to make that the fourth movie I've ever seen twice in the theaters. Link

The World Series of Poker is gearing up to the main event next week -- the $10,000 no-limit hold'em tournament.

A lot of big names are doing very well this year in the WSOP. Former world champ Chris "Jesus" Ferguson has won an incredible two events and one $115k second place. Toto Leonidas won a bracelet. Erik Seidel beat out Men "The Master" (who has 2 second places so far) in a thriller. The grandfather of poker literature, Doyle Brunson, even won one! Layne Flack, who's had a great couple of years, won the Omaha hi-lo event. My favorite player, John Juanda, has had a couple money places as well as a bracelet in 7 stud. Phil Hellmuth Jr. continues to excel, after winning a gold bracelet and $171k in the $2500 limit tournament. Huck Seed, Annie Duke, the list goes on -- I really wish that pokerpages was doing net broadcasts like they did last year because there's a lot of starpower in these events.

This year has the widest collection of "big names" on the winner's list of any WSOP I remember. And as I write, Phil Ivey, the child prodigy star of Atlantic City poker, is chip leader at the final table of the 7-stud tournament.

Link to full schedule and results

Update: Men "The Master" Nguyen won the 7-stud tournament, overcoming a daunting 4-to-1 chip deficit to Phil Ivey when he came to the final table. I've played with Men a few times in tournaments, and he's undoubtedly a great player. He came into this final table a huge underdog and took it away from several of the best stud players in the world fair and square.

I've been watching some of the new TV show "Lucky" starring John Corbett (of "Northern Exposure" and "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" fame).

There hasn't been a successful TV show about a gambler since Maverick, and I'm not sure if Lucky is going to appeal to enough people to keep going. On the other hand, several people I know who don't like gambling at all seem to really enjoy the show so far.

On the upside, the episodes have all been very entertaining. Lucky's two hustler buddies provide the comic relief for the show, although at times the jokes don't really work. Dan Hedaya is great, although like most things in the show his acting gets a bit over the top sometimes. John Corbett is good, but not as good as he has been in past roles, I think because the direction of this show is not nearly as focused as Northern Exposure's was.

One of my biggest peeves with the show is that the writers/creators supposedly are big gamblers and poker players, but the attention to detail around the gambling and poker scenes is pretty lacking to anyone who's played poker in a casino before. Examples:

The poker chips in most scenes are extremely low-grade plastic unmarked chips that I've never seen used in a casino cash game. I've only ever seen chips like them for tournament play at really low-budget casinos.

Lucky says he's leaving a full poker game for half an hour, and ends up leaving for many hours. When he returns, his seat is still there. In any full game at any stake, you will be picked up by the floorman after somewhere between 40-90 minutes.

In a scene where Lucky is in a hold'em hand, there's a huge pot and he's playing with some old Texas boys. He shows 3-9 offsuit (one of the worst possible starting hands in hold'em) and says "two pair". They simply push him the pot and nobody reacts. In any hold'em game anywhere, if you show 3-9 offsuit to win a pot, you'll at least get a bunch of laughs, and at most the guy will profusely berate you for beating him with such incredible crap. And any hard-core Texan guy over the age of 50 won't let you forget you won with 3-9 for at least an hour (trust me).

Lucky has pocket kings, and the board has two kings on it -- giving him four of a kind, a monster of a hand. The pot is huge, and he finally raises all of his chips in there. The pot is thousands of dollars, and he's about to win it. Then this woman he barely knows, but is a recovering compulsive gambler and thinks he is too, walks by and notices him, and runs off, realizing he lied to her. He gets up from his seat, says "I fold", and runs after her, forfeiting the entire huge pot just to talk to her! He has her phone number, she has his, and he knows where she lives. And he could easily have finished the hand and still caught up with her. Just a really stupid scene that should be stupid to anyone, even non-poker players.

Not poker-related, but in one scene he serves his girlfriend a steak he says is a filet, but it is clearly not a filet -- it looks more like a strip. He's a meat salesman in that episode.

Like most movies and shows about poker and gambling, it focuses on the seediest side of the lives of the gamblers to the point of being incredible. Lucky is a past World Series of Poker millionaire, but he's gambled all his money away. His two best friends are 2-bit hustlers who run in front of cars to scam money from the drivers. He is constantly assailed by a hard-hitting loan shark. He has a weird relationship with a strung-out crystal meth addict who robs him at gunpoint one week, and then in the next episode Lucky forgives him $8,000 of debt if the guy simply tells him why he tells people he's clean when he isn't.

Anyway, for now I'm going to keep watching it as it is pretty entertaining, but it's not quite the show I would make if I made one about a past WSOP winner.

May 12 2003 11:55 PM | permalink (2 players) | 0 pointers

David Schwartz (blog), coordinator of the UNLV Gaming Studies Research Center, is coming out in July with what looks to be an interesting book on the rise of legal gambling in Vegas and beyond:

The lures and promises of the casino have evolved dramatically over the course of the past century, and the suburban oasis of today's casino resort is hardly the den of iniquity castigated by anti-gambling critics or romanticized by casino operators. Today, we live in a veritable "casino archipelago" in which most Americans live within a four-hour drive of one of the all-inclusive hotel/restaurant/and entertainment complexes. So what are the forces behind this phenomenon?

Link

I came across a really interesting dissertation on the gambling behavior of kids. 130 4th-6th grade children were given $500 in play money, given a computer-based roulette simulation and tried to get in a drawing to win candy and prizes by making money. They first played by themselves, then were put into groups of various configurations as their behavior was studied.

...for females, simply playing in a group, regardless of gender, seems to increase wagering. The finding that males do not appear to exert an influence on each other may indicate that they are already high wagerers by nature (i.e., not only in the group condition) and are not as susceptible to external influences.

Of the many interesting tidbits:

Girls playing by themselves bet an average of $28.25, but when put into groups their average bet went up to $51.01, and then went back down when they went back to playing by themselves. Boys bet an average of $82.79 by themselves, slightly increased to $90.69 in groups, and then slightly increased again when back to playing by themselves.

Girls who played by themselves and then were paired with a boy barely increased their bets at all; in fact, the boys who paired with these girls adjusted their bets down almost 50%! (trying to make a move?) Girls paired with one other girl more than doubled their bets, but when grouped with two other girls increased their bet by less than 50%. Guys in groups of other guys demonstrated no apparent change in their behavior.

The study has some interesting data on the role of competition and peer influence in risk-taking behavior.

The dissertation doesn't appear to be available online anymore, I found it in the google cache, so I put it on my site. Link

In honor of Tuesday's entry, and recent public events, I offer you my own top ten list.

10. Refers to himself in interviews as "one hot pony"

9. Overheard saying to his opponent, "I'm going to bust you like 22 against a 6"

8. Entertainment at his victory party: Carrot Top and Siegfried & Roy

7. Platform is education, economic reform and "comped steak and shrimp buffets for the homeless"

6. Re-election posters are all done in bright, flashing neon

5. Hands out coupons giving you 5 "match play" votes for every 5 you make

4. His desk is covered in green felt; every 30 minutes he claps his hands and takes a smoke break

3. Introduced a bill to put slot machines into public bathrooms

2. His wife dresses in a skimpy outfit, wears a nametag and serves free drinks to campaign staff for dollar tips

1. Campaign fundraising goal: $8.1 million. Campaign budget: $100,000.

It's really looking like this is going to be a huge year for expanded video and slot gambling in a bunch of states. Arkansas is the latest to make a move toward adding video poker to two racetracks:

With no dissenting votes the House Rules Committee endorsed the proposal by Representative Steve Jones of Marion. Unlike its predecessor that failed in the House in the regular session, Jones' updated bill would allow local votes on whether to authorize the new form of gambling.

Link

The other difference in this bill from the last, defeated one? It increases the state's revenue from the new machines from $18m to $26m -- nearly a 50% increase, which at a 20% tax rate means that Arkansas gamblers need to lose $130m a year ($65m per racetrack) on these machines to reach that taxation goal.

What really alarms me about these state-sponsored initiatives to increase revenues by expanding gambling is that they have two dangerous masters: on the one hand, the states have to make a certain amount of money from the new measures. They have huge deficits, and have to make money - and LOTS of it - from gambling to make the bills palpable.

On the other hand, in order to make the bills acceptable to the more anti-gambling constituencies, they have to limit the reach of where they expand gambling. So they just approve a few hundred slot machines in just a few racetracks. But their economic goals aren't tempered by this.

So you have tracks like Oaklawn Park and Southland Greyhound Park, with an annual attendance of around one million each, being in a position where they're now expected to have their customers dump an additional $65m per year in slot machine losses to finance $13m in state revenue.

You may say, not bad, huh? That's only $65 per customer per year, which is like a dollar a week. Think again.

The million customers is how many times their turnstiles tick over -- not unique customers. So that means - if every person who visits the track plays slots - that they need their customers to lose $65 per visit on average. If, say, one-third of their customers play slots every visit, they need those slot-playing customers to lose an average of $195 per visit. Yikes!

Racetracks like this have a lot of repeat business. Say they have "casual" customers who go there twice a month, and "frequent" customers who go 5 times a week. For those customers who play slots, their frequent visitors will be losing - on average - $15,600-$46,800 per year, and their casual visitors will be losing an average of $1,560-$4,680 per year!

Let's contrast this with blackjack. If you are playing $10 per hand, 6-deck blackjack "common rules", and following basic strategy, the house edge is 0.4066%. Your average loss after playing a 4-hour session (at 80 hands per hour) is merely $13. It would take a session of $50 per hand blackjack to have an average loss of $65 per visit, and a session of $150 per hand blackjack to have an average loss of $195 per visit!

So a bill like Arkansas' is like having every customer of a track play four hours of $50 per bet blackjack, every visit.

States and tracks love video poker and slots because they can transparently crank down payouts such that players don't realize how badly the odds are against them. The irony is most people see them as less objectionable than table games.

I'm opposed to measures like this because they exaggerate the apparent ills of gambling by predetermining that people are going to chronically lose unreasonably large sums of money, thereby greatly increasing the social problems associated with gambling.

From Letterman way back in '95:

10. Keeps asking if he can double down on some cookies

9. Has converted hamster's treadmill into a crude roulette wheel

8. For a six year old, he seems to know too much about jai-alai

7. His school lunches are comped

6. Knows the Vegas odds on where Waldo might be

5. There's a bookie sleeping in his tree-house

4. Changed his middle name to "The Greek"

3. He's 9 and he's dating a showgirl

2. Says things like "Daddy needs a new skateboard"

1. He likes to ride Amtrak

Link (via Alberta Gaming Research Institute Library Blog)

Sign up for free, apparently no-catch 2-year subscriptions to those bastions of male chauvinistic journalism about ladies, drinking, gadgets and gambling, Maxim and Stuff. (via Daze Reader)

Good three-article retrospective on the first 25 years of casinos in Atlantic City:

A seat at a gambling table was so valuable, some reportedly sold theirs to the next person in line for $100. Men relieved themselves into plastic coin cups or empty cocktail glasses rather than lose their seat by walking to a restroom.

Link

"...and then my queens got beat by bullets."

Many casinos operate in jurisdictions where they are allowed to ban any player for any reason. This privilege is usually invoked to ban card counters and cheaters. Greektown Casino in Michigan took it to a whole new level by banning people for making money and comps at video poker:

The casino removed video poker players in November 2002, because their winnings and mounting incentives made them unprofitable for the casino to host, The Detroit News reported Thursday.

The article claims that the Michigan Gaming Control Board found no evidence that they were doing anything illegal -- these were just players who played a perfect video poker strategy (yes, there is such a thing) on the best payoff machines. On the right payoff schedule, certain video poker machines can reach a positive expectation when the player knows the perfect strategy. Even if they're not quite positive EV, if the casino has a liberal comp policy the player could still end up with a reasonable upside.

This is the first case I've heard of with players getting barred for playing video poker well. It is akin to barring a blackjack player because he's playing basic strategy. Most likely the casino should have changed their payoffs / comps policies rather than banning players and getting bad press. Link to an article on it. Link to an older article about slot players getting barred from Mirage resort properties. This editorial mentions that players were getting barred from Greektown just because they would find the best pay tables at video poker and play them.

Archives:   September 2005   August 2005   July 2005   June 2005   May 2005   April 2005   March 2005   February 2005   January 2005   December 2004   November 2004   October 2004   September 2004   August 2004   May 2004   April 2004   March 2004   February 2004   January 2004   December 2003   November 2003   October 2003   September 2003   August 2003   July 2003   June 2003   May 2003   April 2003   March 2003   February 2003