Will The Royal Wedding Be The Largest Non-Sporting Gambling Event In History?

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
From http://abcnews.go.com/

There are those who will watch next week's royal wedding with crossed fingers and bated breath, meticulously timing the length of Prince William and Kate Middleton's first kiss, breathlessly waiting to see the color of the queen's hat, and calculating the length of the train on the bride's wedding gown, all in the hopes of seeing a fairy tale come to life.

But there will be tens of thousands of others, similarly glued to their televisions, equally anxious and obsessed with the same details but for a very different reason: money. Lots of it.

Millions of dollars will be bet on the April 29 wedding, in what is expected to be the largest non-sporting gambling event in history, eclipsing wagers for the Academy Awards.

Bookmakers across the United Kingdom and around the world have set odds on virtually every variable in the wedding, from the shade of white for Middleton's dress -- 2-3 for ivory, 3-4 for cream -- to the length of her train. Even whether Prince Harry, William's younger brother and best man, will drop the ring during the ceremony (25-1 says he will, 1-50 says he won't.)

Gambling is perfectly legal in the U.K. and most towns have a betting parlor on the main street. Most of the wagers already placed online have come from British gamblers, said Ed Pownall, the politics and entertainment oddsmaker for Bodog, the world's biggest gambling website.

But thousands of pounds are being wagered from elsewhere around the world, particularly India.

Indeed, many of the countries where the Queen's image is still on the currency -– including Canada, which has seen a spike in bets recently -- or which were former colonies such as India are betting heavily.

Gambling, for the most part, is illegal in the United States. U.S. casinos don't take bets on non-sporting events such as the Oscars because the results are already known to a handful of people. But online betting at sites based overseas is a legal gray area, and many Americans go to Bodog and similar sites to bet on things such as the winner of "American Idol."

Royal Wedding: Queen Leads All Bets

"We are seeing a real interest in the royal wedding from the U.S., especially given how much coverage it's getting over there," Pownall said. "All three networks are going to be showing the ceremony."

The most popular bet so far is about the color of the hat Queen Elizabeth will wear. The leading choice is yellow.

Following a rumor that the hat would be yellow, the odds changed from 10-1 to 6-4, meaning they're now almost even.

The biggest long-shot gamble: Middleton becomes a runaway bride, leaving William jilted at the altar. That bet pays out $1,000 for every $1 gambled.

Live coverage of the event means bookies will be creating new bets as the ceremony takes place. The wedding is a national holiday in the U.K. and bookmakers are betting that gamblers -- or punters, as they're called in Britain -– stay home and make continuous bets.

"To be honest," Pownall said, "most weddings are actually quite boring. If you can have a bet, it creates an added interest. Betting on who will cry, the dress color, the length of the sermon helps to hold your interest."

But it's not just gambling that will allow armchair guests to participate in a little celebratory debauchery.

A group of friends created a page on Facebook a few weeks ago outlining the rules for a royal wedding drinking game. Since then, about 188,000 people have joined the group to learn the rules and add some of their own.

Rules include taking a drink every time the queen appears on screen, and taking three swigs whenever Friday's wedding is compared to the 1980 nuptials of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer.

History Of Sportsbooks In America

In Sports Betting, by admin

From: http://trophysportsbook.com/sportsbooks-in-america/

In the United States a sportsbook is a place where a gambler can wager on various sports competitions, including, golf, basketball, horse racing, etc. The method of betting varies with each sport and type of game. It wasn’t always that easy to walk into a casino and place a bet. Below is brief history of what America has gone through to bet on sports.

MOTO's Multi-Touch BlackJack Table Puts The Dealer Out Of Business

by Shawn Oliver

The MOTO Development Group has just released what may be the coolest thing to hit a casino floor in decades. The group is calling its new Multi-Touch BlackJack table a "world's first," and gamers will soon be able to experience it at the Global Gaming Expo 2010 in Las Vegas, Nevada. As of now, the prototype table can run BlackJack and Texas Hold 'Em, and honestly, those two are really the only games you need when you're playing for chips.

The team took an atypical approach to creating this; instead of embedding individual screens in a standard size blackjack table, this concept creates a "seamless virtual table gaming experience that automates the betting process, physical cards, and card-shoes." Gamers gather around it just like they would a traditional table, and cards are slid virtually across the table rather than really moving across. Of course, some may suspect that casinos could use this fact to their advantage, but hey, it's all in good fun, right? Depends on whose cash we're talking about, doesn't it?

Multi-Touch Blackjack: How it Works

In 2007, MOTO developed a prototype of a Multi-Touch Table– a large-scale, resistive-touch system that enables multiple users to conduct simultaneous touch-based interactions in a unified content environment. Table gaming is an ideal application for multi-touch screen technology. Replacing physical tokens, chips, cards, or game pieces with virtual items eliminates tedious setup, distribution, and cleanup tasks while increasing the efficiency and accuracy of the game.

With all that in mind, MOTO developed a full-scale versions of Blackjack for our multi-touch screen. Written in Java, using an open source graphics library called Processing (for images of playing cards, chips, card rotations, and animation), Multi-Touch Blackjack recreates a casino-style game experience on a touch-screen tabletop, giving a familiar game new verve.

From a design perspective, the key challenge was to develop gestures that feel natural and intuitive. Fortunately, Multi-Touch Blackjack also knows what players may want to do based on where they are in the action, so it automates some aspects of the game that might otherwise require non-intuitive actions.

When you have a hand of cards, for example, it assumes you probably want to hide them.

In the multi-touch environment, the basic elements of blackjack gameplay are re-created using familiar gestures and interactions:

Dealing: The dealer simply slides virtual cards across the table (or the task can be automated).

Private viewing: Players can shield their cards from other players by creating a cupped barrier with one hand. This gesture hides the face of the cards behind an opaque “curtain.” To view cards privately, the player slides their cupped hand slowly down the virtual cards. As the hand moves, the opaque curtain rises to reveal a small portion of the cards.

Betting: Bets are placed by dragging virtual chips into the center of the table.

Showing: Players reveal their cards by raising the cupped hand that shields them. (This behavior can be restricted so users cannot show their cards accidentally.)

Human learning curves and security concerns are substantial hurdles that would have to be overcome before multi-touch gaming takes over Vegas. But for folks seeking fun, novel, and truly social interactions with new technology, MOTO’s Multi-Touch Blackjack has proven to be a big 21.

What's luck got to do with it? The maths of gambling

newscientist.com — Even if you can't beat the system, there are some cunning ways to tilt the odds in your favour.

click here for the whole article....

Bipartisan coalition unites to legalize online gambling - and tax it | Nation | Star-Telegram.com

According to estimates, legalized Internet poker could be a $12-billion-a-year industry.

AFP/KAREN BLEIER VIA GETTY IMAGES

Click here for the full article:
Bipartisan coalition unites to legalize online gambling - and tax it | Nation | Star-Telegram.com

MLB commissioner Bud Selig mulling pardon for hit king Pete Rose

BY Bill Madden
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

McIsaac/Getty

Rickey Henderson (second from left) accepts his Cooperstown plaque with (from l.) Hall of Fame president Jeff Idelson, HOF chairperson Jane Forbes Clark and Bud Selig.

Cummings/AP

Selig appears to be mulling giving Pete Rose a pardon.

COOPERSTOWN - Thanks to the behind-the-scenes lobbying from some of the most influential Hall of Famers, commissioner Bud Selig is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose's lifetime suspension from baseball.

The tip-off that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball's all-time hit king was Hank Aaron's seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters in the lobby of the Otesaga Hotel on Saturday. In declaring for the first time that he would want an asterisk put on the achievements of any steroid cheats elected to the Hall of Fame, Aaron brought up Rose, who, in August of 1989, was given a lifetime ban for gambling on baseball, saying: "I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there."

It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others. It was also learned by the Daily News that in a meeting of the Hall of Fame's board of directors at the Otesaga later on Saturday, two of Rose's former teammates on the board, vice chairman Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson, also expressed their hope that Selig would see fit to reinstate Rose.

Said another Hall of Famer familiar with the situation: "I think a lot of the guys feel that it's been 20 years now for Pete, and would lean toward leniency and time served. If he had admitted it in the first place and apologized way back then, he'd probably be in the Hall by now."

According to another source, the behind-the-scenes lobbying process began five years ago, but stalled because Selig was still not satisfied that Rose was "reconfiguring" his life, as the late commissioner Bart Giamatti had instructed for him to do when he initially placed him on baseball's permanent ineligible list. In addition, the source said, Selig's conditions for any reinstatement would be stiff. Rose likely would need to make another public apology and he would be prohibited from managing.

If Selig does reinstate him, Rose then would become eligible for the Hall of Fame, but on the Veterans Committee ballot, as his 15 years on the Baseball Writers ballot expired during his time on the ineligible list. He would thus have to be elected by his peers, the 65 living members in the Hall of Fame, not all of whom agree with Aaron, Morgan and Robinson that Rose has done his time. It's hard to say if he would get the necessary 75% for election. "I know there are still guys who feel strongly against him," said one Hall of Famer, "and I don't know if that would change even if Selig clears him."

Nevertheless, it is beginning to look as if Rose will at least finally get Hall of Fame consideration, at the same time the Hall of Famers are taking an even harder stance on all the steroids cheats. "Believe me," said Reggie Jackson, to a couple of writers, "that little session Hank had with you guys was anything but impromptu. He wanted to get that out there. It was time."

RICKEY STORY OF INTEREST: Former Oakland A's general manager Sandy Alderson, who traded Rickey Henderson twice, was asked if had any particular favorite "Rickey story."

"Oh yeah," said Alderson, chuckling, "it would have to be the signing bonus check. At the end of the year, he still hadn't cashed it and when we called him about it, because we were getting our books in order, he said he was waiting for the interest rates to go up." ... The year after being inducted, Goose Gossage said it's such a pleasure to just relax and enjoy the Hall of Fame weekend. Gossage said the most unforgettable part of his induction weekend last year was the Sunday night Hall of Famers' private dinner. "Different Hall of Famers got up and gave little speeches and then Sandy Koufax got up there and asked me to come up," Gossage said. "I'm saying: 'What does he want me for?' And then he hands me my ring and says: 'Here Goose, welcome to the club.' Can you imagine what that was like?'"

TOM'S TERRIFIC MOMENT: At the Saturday night party in the Hall of Fame plaque room, Tom Seaver was standing in front of the inaugural 1936 class of plaques - Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson and Honus Wagner. "In 1970," Seaver said, "I brought my wife Nancy up here and took her to the section where the first class was. I said to her: 'This is what all my sacrifice is for. This is what all that work, all that time away, all the stuff in the minor leagues is all about.' I make it a point to visit Mathewson's and Walter Johnson's plaques every year." ... In the introduction of the 50 returning Hall of Famers at the ceremonies, reclusive Carl Yastrzemski, who has been back to the inductions only three times since his own election in 1989 and recently had open-heart surgery, received the loudest ovation from the decidedly pro-Jim Rice Red Sox crowd.

Marijuana and sin taxes? ------ Paying With Our Sins

Op-Ed Contributor

By NICK GILLESPIE

Published: May 16, 2009

Washington

Enlarge This Image

David Sandlin

THE Obama administration’s drug czar made news last week by saying he wanted to end all loose talk about a “war on drugs.” “We’re not at war with people in this country,” said the czar, Gil Kerlikowske, who favors forcing people into treatment programs rather than jail cells.

Here’s a better idea — and one that will help the federal and state governments fill their coffers: Legalize drugs and then tax sales of them. And while we’re at it, welcome all forms of gambling (rather than just the few currently and arbitrarily allowed) and let prostitution go legit too. All of these vices, involving billions of dollars and consenting adults, already take place. They just take place beyond the taxman’s reach.

Legalizing the world’s oldest profession probably wasn’t what Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, meant when he said that we should never allow a crisis to go to waste. But turning America into a Sin City on a Hill could help President Obama pay for his ambitious plans to overhaul health care and invest in green energy. More taxed vices would certainly lead to significant new revenue streams at every level. That’s one of the reasons 52 percent of voters in a recent Zogby poll said they support legalizing, taxing and regulating the growth and sale of marijuana. Similar cases could be made for prostitution and all forms of gambling.

In terms of economic stimulation and growth, legalization would end black markets that generate huge amounts of what economists call “deadweight losses,” or activity that doesn’t contribute to increased productivity. Rather than spending precious time and resources avoiding the law (or, same thing, paying the law off), producers and consumers could more easily get on with business and the huge benefits of working and playing in plain sight.

Consider prostitution. No reliable estimates exist on the number of prostitutes in the United States or aggregate demand for their services. However, Nevada, one of the two states that currently allows paid sex acts, is considering a tax of $5 for each transaction. State Senator Bob Coffin argues further that imposing state taxes on existing brothels could raise $2 million a year (at present, brothels are allowed only in rural counties, which get all the tax revenue), and legalizing prostitution in cities like Las Vegas could swell state coffers by $200 million annually.

Enlarge This Image

David Sandlin

A conservative extrapolation from Nevada to the rest of the country would easily mean billions of dollars annually in new tax revenues. Rhode Island, which has never explicitly banned prostitution, is on the verge of finally doing so — but with the state facing a $661 million budget shortfall, perhaps fully legalizing the vice (and then taking a cut) would be the smarter play.

Every state except Hawaii and Utah already permits various types of gambling, from state lotteries to racetracks to casinos. In 2007, such activity generated more than $92 billion in receipts, much of which was earmarked for the elderly and education. Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, has introduced legislation to repeal the federal ban on online gambling; and a 2008 study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that legalizing cyberspace betting alone could yield as much as $5 billion a year in new tax revenues. Add to that expanded opportunities for less exotic forms of wagering at, say, the local watering hole and the tax figure would be vastly larger.

Based on estimates from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Americans spend at least $64 billion a year on illegal drugs. And according to a 2006 study by the former president of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Jon Gettman, marijuana is already the top cash crop in a dozen states and among the top five crops in 39 states, with a total annual value of $36 billion.

A 2005 cost-benefit analysis of marijuana prohibition by Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, calculated that ending marijuana prohibition would save $7.7 billion in direct state and federal law enforcement costs while generating more than $6 billion a year if it were taxed at the same rate as alcohol and tobacco. The drug czar’s office says that a gram of pure cocaine costs between $100 and $150; a gram of heroin almost $400; and a bulk gram of marijuana between $15 and $20. Those transactions are now occurring off the books of business and government alike.

As the history of alcohol prohibition underscores, there are also many non-economic reasons to favor legalization of vices: Prohibition rarely achieves its desired goals and instead increases violence (when was the last time a tobacco kingpin was killed in a deal gone wrong?) and destructive behavior (it’s hard enough to get help if you’re a substance abuser and that much harder if you’re a criminal too). And by policing vice, law enforcement is too often distracted at best or corrupted at worst, as familiar headlines about cops pocketing bribes and seized drugs attest. There’s a lot to be said for treating consenting adults like, well, adults.

But there is an economic argument as well, one that Franklin Roosevelt understood when he promised to end Prohibition during the 1932 presidential campaign. “Our tax burden would not be so heavy nor the forms that it takes so objectionable,” thundered Roosevelt, “if some reasonable proportion of the unaccountable millions now paid to those whose business had been reared upon this stupendous blunder could be made available for the expense of government.”

Roosevelt could also have talked about how legitimate fortunes can be made out of goods and services associated with vice. Part of his family fortune came from the opium trade, after all, and he and other leaders during the Depression oversaw agenerally orderly re-legalization of the nation’s breweries and distilleries.

There’s every reason to believe that today’s drug lords could go legit as quickly and easily as, say, Ernest and Julio Gallo, the venerable winemakers who once sold their product to Al Capone. Indeed, here’s a (I hope soon-to-be-legal) bet worth making: If marijuana is legalized, look for the scion of a marijuana plantation operation to be president within 50 years.

Legalizing vice will not balance government deficits by itself — that will largely depend on spending cuts, which seem beyond the reach of all politicians. But in a time when every penny counts and the economy needs stimulation, allowing prostitution, gambling and drugs could give us all a real lift.

Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason.tv.

Struggling States Look to Unorthodox Taxes

By JESSE McKINLEY

Published: February 28, 2009

In his 11 years in the Washington Legislature, Representative Mark Miloscia says he has supported all manner of methods to fill the state’s coffers, including increasing fees on property owners to help the homeless and taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, most of which, he said, passed “without a peep.”

And so it was last month that Mr. Miloscia, a Democrat, decided he might try to “find a new tax source” — pornography.

The response, however, was a turn-off.

“People came down on me like a ton of bricks,” said Mr. Miloscia, who proposed an 18.5 percent sales tax on items like sex toys and adult magazines. “I didn’t quite understand. Apparently porn is right up there with Mom and apple pie.”

Mr. Miloscia’s proposal died at the committee level, but he is far from the only legislator floating unorthodox ideas as more than two-thirds of the states face budget shortfalls.

“The most common phrase you hear from the states is, ‘Everything is on the table,’ ” said Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with National Conference of State Legislatures, who predicted the worst financial year for states since the end of World War II.

Nowhere is that more true than California, where Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a freshman from San Francisco, made a proposal intended to increase revenue, and, no doubt, appetite: legalizing and taxing marijuana, a major — if technically illegal — crop in the state. “We’re all jonesing now for money,” Mr. Ammiano said. “And there’s this enormous industry out there.”

In Nevada, State Senator Bob Coffin said he would introduce legislation to tax the state’s legal brothels, a fee that would be “based on the amount of activities.” And unlike the Washington porn proposal, which drew the ire of the adult entertainment industry, Mr. Coffin’s plan has the backing of the potential taxpayers, in this case brothel owners who employ women as independent contractors.

“I think they figure if they become part of the tax stream, the less vulnerable they will be to some shift in mores,” he said.

Hawaiian legislators were also considering capitalizing on another potential shift in public attitudes when they proposed legalizing same-sex unions, which supporters say could help the slumping tourism trade.

In Massachusetts, meanwhile, state legislators have introduced a proposal to build two resort-style casinos, including one in Boston. A similar push died last year in the State House of Representatives. But Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat and co-author of the new casino bill, said a $2 billion budget deficit might have changed some minds.

“Every state in the nation, including Massachusetts, needs to figure out a way of raising revenues,” Mr. Walsh said. “So we need to be creative.”

Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, said many lawmakers were loath to tap more traditional tax sources during a downturn. “What’s pushing it is this incredible desire to raise revenue,” Mr. Pattison said. “But it’s coupled with the desire not to raise the general and sales and income taxes.”

Whether such proposals can pass is another issue, though each idea has its supporters. Betty Yee, chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization, the state’s tax collector, said that legal marijuana could raise nearly $1 billion per year via a $50-per-ounce fee charged to retailers. An additional $400 million could be raised through sales tax on marijuana sold to buyers.

The law would also establish a smoking age — 21 — effectively putting marijuana in a similar regulatory class as alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana advocates argue that legalization could also decrease pressure on the state’s overburdened prison system and law enforcement officers.

All of which, Ms. Yee said, at least makes the proposal worth talking about in a state with chronic budget problems and a law already on the books allowing the medical use of the drug.

“We know the product is out there, and we know marijuana is available to young people as well, but there’s no regulatory structure in place,” Ms. Yee said. “I think it’s an opportunity to begin the debate.”

Such a debate, of course, does not always favor tax innovators. Several law enforcement groups have already objected to the idea of legal marijuana, which would conflict with federal law.

John Lovell, a lobbyist for several groups of California law enforcement officials, said the plan would create a large, illicit — and thus untaxed — black market, in addition to magnifying substance abuse problems. “The last thing we need is yet another legal substance that is mind-altering,” Mr. Lovell said.

Having taxes on illegal activities, like a seldom-collected tax on marijuana sales in Nevada, also has its drawbacks, said Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who has researched drug policy.

“It is very hard to tax illegal vices unless one is comfortable with contradiction,” Mr. MacCoun said. “How can you collect the taxes without documenting the behavior? And how can you document the behavior without making an arrest?”

In Washington State, Mr. Miloscia said he had also received criticism from an array of residents and business owners, who accused him of attacking the First Amendment and other sacred institutions with his pornography proposal.

“I had people call up saying their marriages would fall apart,” said Mr. Miloscia, who represents a suburban district between Tacoma and Seattle. “I didn’t know how passionate people are about this stuff.”

NFL admits mistake in Steelers game; error costly to gamblers

By Gregory Shamus, Getty Images

Mike Tomlin and Steelers emerged with an 11-10 victory against San Diego on Sunday, and the NFL acknowledged it wrong nullified a touchdown at the end of the game that would have boosted the margin of victory.

By Gary Mihoces, USA TODAY

PITTSBURGH — The officiating mistake and touchdown that wasn't at the end of the Pittsburgh Steelers' 11-10 victory over the San Diego Chargers didn't change the result. From a betting standpoint, it was huge.

"It didn't have an effect on the outcome of the game NFL-wise, record-wise, but it definitely was a big difference for people that had (bets on) Pittsburgh," says Sean Van Patten, odds maker for Las Vegas Sports Consultants, which provides point spreads to Las Vegas casinos for legal sports betting.

Van Patten said the big winners to the tune of millions of dollars were the sports books, which take the wagers, because the public tends to bet on favorites. His firm had the Steelers favored by 4½-points.

"Say a weekend rolls in where 10 favorites cover the spread. That's always a bad weekend for the sports books," said Van Patten. "The regular Joe that walks in off the street and bets, I would say probably 85-90% of the time they're (betting) on the favorite. … The professional (bettors) are more where you get your underdog money. But the public money dwarfs that money."

Trailing by a point, the Chargers had one play left from their own 21-yard line with five seconds remaining. Philip Rivers threw a short pass to running back LaDainian Tomlinson.

Then it got wild.

Tomlinson tossed the ball to wide receiver Chris Chambers. When Chambers tried a toss of his own, the ball was batted away by Pittsburgh safety Troy Polamalu, who picked it up and ran 12 yards into the end zone.

The officials signaled touchdown. Pittsburgh led 17-10 on the scoreboard. Steelers swarmed the field, then returned to their sideline for an extra point kick that never came.

After a replay review and consultation by the officials, the touchdown was taken off the board. The 11-10 score stood. But after the game, referee Scott Green said the crew had made a mistake and that the touchdown should have counted.

"We should have let the play go through to the end," said Green.

The play originally was ruled penalty-free. No flags.

The NFL confirmed the mistake on Monday, but said the final score of the game will not change.

After the play the instant replay official buzzed down and told the crew it needed to review the toss from Tomlinson to Chambers, that it appeared to be an illegal forward pass and not a legal backward lateral.

Green looked at the replay and agreed it was forward. "From the release point to where it was touched, it was about a yard forward," Mike Pereira, NFL vice president of officiating, said Monday on ESPN.

Green then made the announcement that there was an illegal forward pass, that the penalty was declined and that it was a touchdown. "Which is right, and that's where we should have remained," said Pereira.

Under NFL rules, had the illegal forward pass hit the ground, it would have ended the play. The toss from Tomlinson to Chambers did not hit the ground.

The problem was the officials got together again.

Pereira said that in a moment of "confusion" they got the Chambers toss (a legal lateral that hit the ground) into their conversation about the Tomlinson toss (an illegal forward pass that did not hit the ground).

Somehow, they applied the fact that the ball hit the ground incorrectly to the Tomlinson toss.

"That led to the misinterpretation and taking away the points, which they shouldn't have," said Pereira.

Said Green: "The first pass was the one that was illegal, but it only kills the play if it hits the ground. … There was some confusion over which pass we were talking about, and it was decided that it was the second pass that was illegal that did hit the ground, and therefore we killed the play there."

They got it wrong.

Van Patten said that while the sports books made money, they would rather not have such complex outcomes and mistaken calls.

"They don't really care for that situation much," he said.

"You have a whole bunch of disgruntled bettors. … They've got people standing in line thinking they won and they didn't. And they also still like to see the integrity of the game and the right call made regardless of what the result may be."