A Few Bits of Online Gambling News

[Vallerius]

Hi folks,

Today I scoured the net checking out some of the top news stories as far as the online gambling industry is concerned. What I've done below is briefly explained each development and then speculated what I think it could mean for webmasters. Please keep in mind that I am actually new to dealing with concepts relating to webmasters and affiliate programs, so if I'm not quite right about something feel free to correct me. I'd also appreciate feedback as to whether you guys would like to continue see posts such as this one on a regular basis.
-
On Saturday the San Francisco Chronicle ran an article (<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8/27/POKER.TMP>) that focused on the Poker Players Alliance and what it is doing to fight Internet gambling prohibition bill HR 4411. As far as updating the status of the bill and its chances of success, things remain the same as they were a couple of weeks ago. The Senate has been in recess since the first week of August and will remain so until next week. When the recess began, the Senate had a very packed schedule of several items that are both more important and less controversial than online gambling to deal with before the end of the year, and the same will remain true once the Senate reconvenes next week. Overall, it seems pretty safe to assume that the bill will not pass this year, due not only to the lack of sufficient time before the end of the year, but there is also reason to believe it lacks sufficient support. It is anticipated that Senate Minority leader Harry Reid, who hails from the union's largest gaming state, Nevada, could rally opposition to the bill, and recently two important organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Independent Community Bankers of America sent letters to the Senate voicing serious concerns about the impossible burdens the bill would place on the American banking industry.

The primary focus of the Chronsicle's piece, however, was San Francisco-based lobbying group the Poker Players Alliance, with whom I assume most of you are familiar. The article estimates that the Poker Players Alliance has about 100,000 paid members, 30,000 of which the organization says jumped aboard during the World Series of Poker after a rally three weeks ago. Anthony Cabot, who is revered as one of the most knowledgeable and competent lawyers in both the land-based and online gambling industries, is quoted in the article as saying, "At the rate [the PPA] is growing, the could become a legislative force to be reckoned with. Not as big as the NRA, but when you think in terms of how many people play poker today, it's that kind of power that comes from a grassroots organization."

I bring this to your attention because perhaps it may be valuable to spread awareness of the Poker Players Alliance if you are able. No, you won't benefit monetarily, but the group is today one of only a few that are lobbying for a somewhat reasonable approach to online gambling in the U.S. The benefit comes in informing the public of an entity that can fight the prohibition and in helping that entity grow better able to fight. After all, if a prohibition bill does pass all of your jobs become a little more dangerous.

-
eGaming Review magazine (login probably required, but registration is easy- <http://www.egrmagazine.com/cgi-bin/a...action=display>) reports that "Neteller is to combat the problem of thwarted sign-ups and abandoned transactions by simplifying its authorization process and creating pop-ups displaying customer balances."

I would have to say that I agree that some serious improvements are definitely needed at Neteller. I say this from personal experience. The first time I attempted to establish an account with them in order to gamble online it was a very painful process. It must have been 2003, and they were unable to open an account for me via the standard online route for some reason and ordered me to contact their customer service over the phone. I called but was put on hold for a long time, and then once my call was taken the connection proved bad and I could hardly hear the person on the other end. I did not complete the opening of a Neteller account at that time. I soon realized that I could make direct deposits through my checking account using ACH deposits.

A few month later I wanted to gamble with a different online site so I again attempted to open a Neteller account and was actually able to do so relatively painlessly. One thing that I am not fond of however is the fact that I have both a long user number and a long security password number that have been randomly generated for me, rather than an easy-to-remember username and password that I have created myself. Logging in to Neteller requires tracking down my login numbers, which is a hassle.

I've encountered more problems with Neteller recently. I've just moved, so I've been changing my address information and sometimes banking and credit card information on every site that I am a customer of. The first problem I ran into was that the Neteller system would not allow me to update my mailing address because my cell number did not have an area code from the state I have moved too. I eventually outsmarted the system by providing my work phone number though. But I've searched and searched and searched the Neteller pages and nowhere can I find any pages that would allow me to change my banking account information. I suppose the system assumes that because I have already successfully listed one account I would not need to change it. At any rate I have decided that dealing with customer service again is too big of a pain in my ass so I am keeping the Neteller account linked to a closed banking account. I don't expect to make a withdrawal anyway, but it would be nice to easily have the option.

Now getting back on track, Neteller is instituting the new system changes in order to "increase customer retention and eliminate recurring setbacks such as failed transactions on merchant sites because of lack of insufficient funds." Pop-up menus will alert clients when they have insufficient funds and will offer them the option of entering the Neteller site to review their balance or change their withdrawal/deposit amount.

Neteller's seven-step sign-up process is also supposed to be reduced to just two steps. Company spokesperson Dan Starr told eGaming Review, “You only sign up once, but as a prospective customer, the sign up process is your first experience of the company. Previously, customers had to wait for a confirmation e-mail back from us. That would, in reality, take a lot longer than nine minutes, which would lead to drop off rates.”

My thoughts on the matter are that surely there are a lot of other people like me who have at some point tried to deposit with Neteller but gave up because the hassle proved too great. Perhaps it is possible to capitalize off of the new Neteller upgrades by informing your website visitors of the new, speedier, user-friendly Neteller.
-
British gambling company Ladbrokes released its financial performance report for the first half of 2006 last week, revealing monstrous results that were fueled by the World Cup, which proved to be without a doubt the largest betting event of all time. During the days of the World Cup tournament Ladbrokes raked in a GBP 17.5 million gross win. Overall gross win for the half reached GBP 523.1 million, representing an increase of 12 percent over the first half of 2005.

Despite the phenomenal results, perhaps the biggest revelation contained in the report is the announcement that the company has signed yet another deal to expand internationally. Ladbrokes has signed a joint venture agreement with Italian betting firm Pianeta Scommesse, which will in essence establish Ladbrokes as a participant in an Italian government-accredited provider of betting services. The deal is of huge importance because the legal waters surrounding gambling in Italy are nearly as turbulent and murky as they are in America. The Gambelli case-- upon which the notorious European Union decision of 2003 stipulating how cross border trade laws apply to European Member States, many of which maintain government-supported gambling monopolies (with the exception of the UK)-originated in Italy, and integration of the decision has not been consistent or uncontroversial in the country. More recently the country adopted a law that requires Italian Internet service providers to block unauthorized Internet gambling operators. More than 500 websites, primarily operated by foreign independent companies, were blacklisted in Italy in February 2006. Ladbrokes’ deal with Pianeta Sommesse is of particular importance because the Italian firm already has some sort of certification from the Italian government that authorizes it to take Internet wagers. By allying with Pianeta, Ladbrokes has circumvented the blacklist.

Since being separated from the Hilton hotels company in February of 2006, Ladbrokes' international strategy has been one of aggressive expansion. Earlier in the year the company scored a deal to consult a chain of soccer lottery betting shops in the nearly untouchable Chinese market. It has also made presentations to Vietnamese authorities over the prospect of operating sports betting in the country and says it is now on a shortlist of three companies vying to undertake such a project. The company is also competing for a license to operate the national lottery in Turkey and has entered a joint agreement with another company to provide sports betting facilities to casinos in Russia. All of these jurisdiction are ones that are untouchable to most companies, but Ladbrokes has been able to leverage its solid reputation and experience to land significant contracts.

But one jurisdiction that the company remains wary of is the U.S. In some sense, the company actually became free to take bets from American players after it was separated from the Hilton hotel division (because no Americans sat on its board anymore). Press reports indicated that the company was reviewing its policy on American players, and many observers speculated the company would soon target the U.S. market. That was before the success of HR 4411 in the House and the BetonSports debacle, however. The company's statement last week read, "In view of ongoing uncertainties within the US legislative environment, the decision on whether to take business from US customers on our gaming sites remains under review and we will update the market in due course."

Is this bit of information important to any of you? I imagine that none of you promote Ladbrokes gaming sites, am I right about that? I do think it is important to keep track of what markets the big operators are approaching and why. Feedback is welcome.
-

[Amateur]

...
I bring this to your attention because perhaps it may be valuable to spread awareness of the Poker Players Alliance if you are able. No, you won't benefit monetarily, but the group is today one of only a few that are lobbying for a somewhat reasonable approach to online gambling in the U.S. The benefit comes in informing the public of an entity that can fight the prohibition and in helping that entity grow better able to fight. After all, if a prohibition bill does pass all of your jobs become a little more dangerous.

...

This is interesting and informative. I have no problem with you posting information like this in the future.

As for the PPA, I believe most of us are at least aware of their existence. My problem with them is that they insist on separating themselves from other online gambling avenues. Their own posted agenda places them "above" anyone who wishes to gamble online via casinos or sportsbetting. That is a problem for me.

I see it as "selling everyone out" just to keep themselves in business. And that kind of thinking won't fix things, imv. It's not the way to solve this issue. Selling others out to save yourself won't wash in the long run. There are, by far, more people who gamble on sports, and/or play in online casinos, than play only poker online. They would do better, I think, to look at the big picture, and try to get all online gamblers aligned to fight this battle.

[Vallerius]

Yeah, you're right. I hear what you're saying and I've thought the same thing myself. It would be a lot more convenient if there were a group that represented all online gamblers, not just the poker players, but sadly there is not. It's true, one has to wonder what the PPA's stance would be if there were exemptions for poker, but since all prohibition bills are likely to treat poker and casino gaming and sports betting the same the PPA is as good an ally as we have now.

I am aware that the Interactive Gaming Council also lobbies on behalf of online gambling interests, but they do not have a membership scheme for individuals.

[MichaelCorfman]

As for the PPA, I believe most of us are at least aware of their existence. My problem with them is that they insist on separating themselves from other online gambling avenues. Their own posted agenda places them "above" anyone who wishes to gamble online via casinos or sportsbetting. That is a problem for me.

I see it as "selling everyone out" just to keep themselves in business.

I think it is important to realize that their posted agenda and their actual effect on capital hill are two entirely different things.

Poker is viewed by many as being as much a social activity as a gambling activity. Because this is the case, some members of the legislature are more conflicted about making poker play illegal than they are about making other forms of gambling illegal, and so there are legislators that are swayed by arguments related to pure poker.

And then there are legislators that are opposed to online gambling in general, and so are opposed to any carve-outs for specific games. The anti-gambling forces absolutely do not want a law to pass that includes a carve-out for poker because that effectively makes poker explicitly legal, so any bill that includes such a proposition will be attacked from all sides

When you put all of this together, the net effect of the poker players alliance is to make it harder for any form of prohibition to become law because it becomes harder to construct legislation that is not controversial. And you best believe that the poker players alliance is supported by a very large number of people in the industry who are involved in forms of gambling other than poker because they understand the dynamics of the legislative process.

Michael