The newly formed company wants to be able to compete in the European gambling market.  Europe has been relaxing gambling rules, which is good for companies, but increasing the tax they draw, which means companies have to be competitive.  Currently the European market is dominated by Full Tilt and PokerStars. The new PartyGaming and Bwin company wants to take on these two giants in an offensive maneuver to move up in the market.

The newly merged Bwin and PartyGaming company will be able to offer a wide selection of entertainment choices for fans of online gaming.  They should have a market lead in sports betting, casino and table games, bingo, and even poker to bring players in.  The company will be incorporated in Gibraltar and offer gambling for the European market.  Whether or not it will be able to offer gaming in the United States is undetermined.  At this point, the company will remain out of the American market because of the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act). But there are efforts in the United States to overturn the UIGEA.  If that market opens again, the PartyGaming and Bwin combined company is poised to return to American soil.

The good news is that Barney Frank’s bill has passed a hurdle.  The House Financial Services Committee has voted on his bill and given it a passing vote.  Which means it can continue its move forward.  The bill still has a long way to go before it is able to overturn the evil UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act).

The argument going on in the United States has a lot to do with the attitude of the politicians towards the people who elect them and put them in office.  Apparently some politicians, such as Spencer Bachus, feel that these people aren’t able to use good judgment when they decide whether or not to go online and pull the virtual handle on slots games.  Of course, these same constituents are apparently able to make good decisions when they go to the voting booth and make that choice.  Though perhaps sometimes the outcome of either decision is an equal gamble. 

But others are making that argument that Americans are going to take advantage of online gambling whether or not the politicians allow it.  So it would serve those people better to put systems in place to regulate the industry than to attempt to simply outlaw an experience that people in other countries are able to enjoy.

This is generating a lot of interest in start up online casinos.  Those considering an online casino business might want to consider that it takes an estimated $1.5 million in start up costs to set up an online casino. But since an online casino requires fewer employees and much less real estate than a land based casino, this is a fraction of the estimated $300 million to start a land based casino and keep it operational.

Right now the only thing that may hold back the fantastic growth of the online gaming industry is restrictive legislation.  But as online gaming becomes more socially acceptable and as people become more comfortable with gaming on their computers, the market is just going to continue to grow.  There is money to be made in online gaming and business are all looking for new ways to increase revenue. Even businesses no one would have predicted becoming involved in gambling, such as Virgin Media.

But I become concerned when governments start running the casinos themselves.  After all, it then becomes a process of casinos regulating themselves. And I don’t like the idea of the organization who people feel is protecting them and ensuring fair play actually being the same organization. It just leads to too many potential issues.  And British Columbia has been proving this.

British Columbia started up Its own online casino with plans to make about $40 million annually from the site.  Not from taxes but from the house edge on the games.  But when the casino launched last week, it immediately experienced major problems with account information from players on the site being exposed to other players.  Within a couple hours of opening the casino, the British Columbia Lottery Corp had to shut down the casino. Now the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner has stepped in to order that the site remain closed until the security problem is fixed. 

Apparently experts are estimating that it may take months to ensure that the casino is ready to operate and the BC government doesn’t trust the BC Lottery Corporation to fix the problem without oversight.  After all, the BCLC has already been fined $650,000 in penalties for persistent failure to report large money transactions.

Another player, Joyce May Ross is also suing the BCLC as well as two casinos Fraser Downs and Cascades for their failure to prevent her from gambling and loosing $331,000.  Ms. Ross points out that although she’d signed up for the self exclusion program, absolutely no steps were taken to prevent her from entering casinos and spending a fortune.  She’s seeking restitution of the money she lost. 

Which brings me to statements from the officials running the self exclusion program which indicate that the program is unable to keep track of all 6,000 participants and that one of the few times they can verify who people are is after they win. But it strikes me that problem gamblers don’t just have a problem when they win.  And even that seems to be beyond the BCLC’s ability to track. The gambler suing to claim his jackpot winnings says he was able to claim smaller winning in the $500 range without the program interfering.  And certainly Ms. Ross couldn’t have lost $331,000 without having won at some point. 

The self exclusion programs answer is that people on the program are responsible for excluding themselves from gambling.  Which seems a bit useless. If they could keep themselves from gambling, they wouldn’t be problem gamblers.

Mike Lee is suing the British Columbia Lottery Corporation to claim the $42,500 jackpot he won in January.  The problem is that in 2007 Lee signed an agreement that was to prevent him from gambling for three years as part of the voluntary self exclusion program.  The agreement he signed would have allowed him to be asked to leave and fined if he was found in a gambling establishment. 

But Lee’s lawyer is arguing that the agreement didn’t work because his client was able to gamble and win amounts in the hundreds of dollars at the casino on a number of occasions without being asked to leave.  But when Lee won the big jackpot and tried to collect it, he was told the agreement he’d signed meant he had to forfeit his winnings.

However, Lee’s lawyer may have found an answer for his client.  Lee signed his agreement in 2007 but the clause stating that gamblers agreed to forfeit earnings was added in 2009.  Lee’s lawyer says his client was never notified of the claim.  The British Columbia Lottery Corporation isn’t commenting on the case. But they have said that overall, many people gamble while on the program and only stop when they are prevented from winning.  But wasn’t the program designed to STOP them from gambling at all?

Must be, because this week Ontario is considering following British Columbia’s somewhat shaky lead into the online casino market. Ontario is fighting a $20 billion deficit and politicians have decided that online gambling could help them make some of that up.  But rather than regulate and tax online gambling sites run by outside entities — a process that would keep the government out of the business of actually setting up the casino — they are thinking of setting up their own casino.  Because it apparently worked out so well in British Columbia. 

The problem here isn’t online gambling in itself. It’s that these government agencies don’t have the necessary experience in running online casinos.  After all, they’re supposed to be in the business of taking money from people through taxes, not slot games.  Let’s hope Ontario at least works with some more experienced companies setting up their casino.  Otherwise people might be better off risking their money elsewhere.

Two new games marked for exclusive Bodog play are Witches & Wizards and Hydro Heat.  Wizards & Witches sounds like it could be inspired by a certain popular book series, though it is doubtful any casino would have managed to obtain approval to use copyrighted and trademarked names and characters from that popular series of young adult books in a slots game. But I think most players will recognize the inspiration by the slot description as a game where spins cast a spell over the reels.  The spells will do things like turn symbols in to wild symbols or multiply your winnings.  You want to use these spells.  Hydro Heat is a game that we should be playing right now.  The game takes players on a hot summer vacation with bikini clad girls. 

I already know that Wizards & Witches is going to tempt me over to Bodog to check out the reels.  Two more games have been announced for exclusive Bodog release. Those are Jack the Ripper slots and El Luchador (likely to be a Mexican wrestling theme).  If you don’t have a Bodog account yet, you may want to join me in opening one up.

Last week, Barney Frank had a hearing for his bill HR 2267 but there was concern at that time that no mark up session had been scheduled since this could mean that the bill wouldn’t move past the hearing stage.   But now a mark up session has been scheduled for HR 2267 for Tuesday. 

One of the arguments supporting the bill is that it would allow Americans to gamble online, if they so choose, while protecting the security and safety of players.  It would also allow for tax revenue to be collected from casinos and frankly relieve financial institutions of the burden of trying to follow the somewhat vague rules of the UIGEA.  Opponents of the UIGEA have pointed out that no one has actually defined what “unlawful internet gambling” actually consists of.  Right now financial institutions bear the burden of determining of a transaction is legal or not.  

Frank’s bill is receiving support from the Poker Players Alliance and others. But there is still opposition from land based casinos and their lobbyist because they haven’t yet found a way to benefit from the bill.  But lately some land based gambling destinations, such as Atlantic City, haven’t been able to handle other land based competition. Unfortunately forcing people not to gamble online won’t make them go to Atlantic City.

Well, PayPal may be deciding that limiting what people can and can’t do with their accounts may not be the best business process.  They’ve recently begun accepting transactions with casinos on a limited basis.  Ladbrokes has become the first online casino to added back to PayPal.  The next on the list was 32Red.  Both of these casinos have stellar reputations in the industry so PayPal can work with them assured that their reputation will be protected. 

At this point, I’m only seeing the loosening of  PayPal’s restrictions at European casinos.  With the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act still in place in the United States, the process of operating in the country is more complicated.  Regardless of a casino’s reputation, PayPal doesn’t want to risk violating Federal law.  But if the UIGEA is ever sorted out, PayPal should be ready to accept reputable online casinos.