Why are online gambling sites blocked?

[tzsoca]

Hi!

I did make a interested article. This is the hungarian problem.

http://onlineslotsdirectory.com/why-...sites-blocked/

[RyanWeb]

Hi!

I did make a interested article. This is the hungarian problem.

http://onlineslotsdirectory.com/why-...sites-blocked/

Good article! I said the very same thing the other day; as the US is trying to block online casinos and doing a horrible job at creating licensed ones "on a state by state basis". I wish we also would also adopt what the UK is doing. For this reason, I am looking into just promoting UK licensed casinos.. As it seems like not only the safest option, but also the easiest one to comprehend.

[Sherlock]

I do not agree with the part

The biggest problem with this current situation is that this leaves room for unreliable casinos

The quality of the gambling site is generally completely uncorrelated to licence. My opinion is even that nonlicensed or poor-licened gambling sites are slightly better (and also there are trhe biggest scams), becaue they do not rely on some formal demands from regulators. Just on their good name. If good approach is taken, they have much more free hands in many ways. I am talking here about Carribean (5dimes, former Pinnacle) or Kahnawake (Bettingpartners, SIA, Intertops) "licences", and I have much more trust in those companies than in mot UK companies, especially those listed on stock exchanges.

I sadly feel that licencing creates huge pressure on the 100% legal bookies through some formal demands (e.g. banned word "freebet"), so the casions then focus only to not crossing line here and there, paying all crazy taxes in all states and the innovation is strugling, not to mention communiaction with affiliates. It really hard to choose a way, when you do not know if your millions invested into marketing, will not vanish with some stupid law that can happen anytime. I understand that difficult position of legal companies, but for me as affiliate, I do not like to work with affiliate programmes that are held hostage.

I think licencing of any online business is an obsolete practice, which will vanish with time (long time). Now we indeed see a rebound, because states can still control flow of money. But especially in gambling and other areas, where non physical goods are being sold, I bet there is a decent chance we will see a free market again.

[RyanWeb]

I do not agree with the part

The quality of the gambling site is generally completely uncorrelated to licence. My opinion is even that nonlicensed or poor-licened gambling sites are slightly better (and also there are trhe biggest scams), becaue they do not rely on some formal demands from regulators. Just on their good name. If good approach is taken, they have much more free hands in many ways. I am talking here about Carribean (5dimes, former Pinnacle) or Kahnawake (Bettingpartners, SIA, Intertops) "licences", and I have much more trust in those companies than in mot UK companies, especially those listed on stock exchanges.

I sadly feel that licencing creates huge pressure on the 100% legal bookies through some formal demands (e.g. banned word "freebet"), so the casions then focus only to not crossing line here and there, paying all crazy taxes in all states and the innovation is strugling, not to mention communiaction with affiliates. It really hard to choose a way, when you do not know if your millions invested into marketing, will not vanish with some stupid law that can happen anytime. I understand that difficult position of legal companies, but for me as affiliate, I do not like to work with affiliate programmes that are held hostage.

I think licencing of any online business is an obsolete practice, which will vanish with time (long time). Now we indeed see a rebound, because states can still control flow of money. But especially in gambling and other areas, where non physical goods are being sold, I bet there is a decent chance we will see a free market again.

I agree the "Free Market" approach has worked out very well for years, especially in the US.. The good online casinos have been around for a long time now, and the bad ones soon die off.. The only people really screwed by this approach is the people who don't do their research before depositing, and thats where we as affiliates come in.

If I could have my way I would keep things just as they have been.. But we all know the Gov't HAS to take their cut, so my argument is that if it HAS to be done, at least the UK did a smooth transition, at least when compared to what the US is trying to do.

[Sherlock]

I am starting to like US illegal market more than UK. The growth in the US for me is bigger. Bookies have fresh approach (towards Bitcoins and other things, I can not name them . Yes, UK market is the most developed, but question is where this all will end.

I do not know if government has to take a cut. In most countries government can and therefore will take a cut. Frankly the macroeconomical/fiscal situation of any government is bad and prognosis is even worse. It means that there will be only more and more taxes and regulations everywhere, where taxes and regulations can be imposed. So the markets, where is a strong regulation, are in my head much much less stable, than the US market, where apparently regulation is a disaster and illegal honest bookies and programmes will be here for long time and I am 99% sure the new things will emerge there.

It may not be fair, but it is reality: digital unlicenced economy is winning. People prefer cheaper illegal and unlicened content over more expensive and legal. There is a lot of money on legal side so far and that means better budget for advertiement and brand creation. But I think this will change over the time unless we see even bigger dictatorship.

I am just talking about future, since recent times are boring. Licensing, bigger fees, creating of oligopols -> it means that we all will be just crewed up more and more every day, until it will pay off even to us to pick up some new generation of bookies and create their brands cheaply. Until then, yes, it is rational to suffer with smaller and smaller real revenue share.