McDowell stirring it up again

Washout

He is doing my head in...just go AWAY

from todays irish independant

McDowell steps up battle to close down private gambling establishments


CASINOS operating as private gambling clubs have had their chips.

The EU fears criminal gangs are using them for money laundering and Justice Minister Michael McDowell says their number is up.

There are now 20 gambling clubs in Dublin. Others have opened in nearly every major city and town.

Organised crime gravitated toward gambling, Mr McDowell claimed yesterday.

He told a press conference he was concerned about enforcing the present law on gambling clubs and their "scope for use in money laundering".

The minister went on to say that he intended changing to law to help secure prosecutions and the "closing down of establishments engaged in such operations" across the country.

He said: "It is my intention to seek Government approval within the next few weeks for these changes to be included in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill."

Last November, the Irish Independent reported that undercover detectives had been in all of the gambling clubs and prepared a report for the Garda Commissioner.

While they style and present themselves as 'private members' clubs', it is understood that all of them are operated as casinos by companies or individuals.

Two years ago, the Dail was told there were just five casino-style clubs operating in Dublin - yesterday the minister said there were now 20.

Some have also been established in Cork, Galway, Limerick, Navan, Mullingar and other towns across the country.

Mr McDowell said that gambling was illegal unless all the players, including the bank, had an equal chance.

The clubs operate strict membership policies as private clubs and say they are not open to the public.

They argue that the members are betting against each other.

However, private gambling clubs are not licensed or subject to monitoring, court approval, inspection or formal register and anyone can open a casino under the guise of a private club.

An applicant for a betting shop licence must apply to the court, register with the gardai and satisfy them they are a suitable applicant.

After getting a certificate from the court, they must pay 3pc tax on their turnover.

A private members' club, where cash is the currency, is taxed on its profits.

dunkamania

The irony of it is,in the US poker players are being forced off the internet and into the casinos,and in this country its the other way around.:-(

Atlas_IRL

bake him away toys

Goodluck2me

Did anyone find out what was the main result of that meeting in JURYS last week, the IPA or such like? this is what they were meeting about, something written on antesup about it i think...

Cianos

Did anyone find out what was the main result of that meeting in JURYS last week, the IPA or such like? this is what they were meeting about, something written on antesup about it i think...

Unfortunately the meeting didn't go ahead over the weekend, so there will be another date set. Hopefully soon.

Goodluck2me

Cianos wrote:

Unfortunately the meeting didn't go ahead over the weekend, so there will be another date set. Hopefully soon.

cheers cianos i could make it myself as it was a bad weekend but give boards posted fo rthe new date please. it looks like it should be sooner rather than later though....

Doctor Fell

I think this is definitely a sinister development. I mean he's actually doing something now, as opposed to just talking about it. If and when this new Civil Law gets passed, it can't be long before they shut down the casino's.
Anyone know if the casino's (private members club sorry!) have been in contact with Mullah Dowell?
Any casino workers worried about losing their jobs?? There's obviously hundreds of people who would be out of a job if he did what he's threatening to do.
Ha, it'd be funny if his son turned out to have a gambling problem or something. Coz remember his impetus for bringing in new anti-yob measures was that his son had been beaten up while out drinking.

Ernie Ball

Mr McDowell said that gambling was illegal unless all the players, including the bank, had an equal chance.

Oh, you mean like the Lotto?

5starpool

Ernie Ball wrote:

Oh, you mean like the Lotto?

So you mean that my 6 numbers don't have the same chance as the other 6 numbers? Damn, thats why I never win the damn thing.

Maybe I should start playing the lotto though, that might be another reason....

latenia

I'm going to go against the grain of the common opinion on this forum and say that this is definitely a good thing. If you know anything about the history of casinos throughout the world (eg. Vegas, London etc.) then you'll see a similiar pattern to what has happened in Dublin-small scale casinos operating within legal loopholes/grey areas, often with links to criminals, which offer no protection to players or guarantees of any kind of standards. This is then followed by a clampdown and legislation by the government.

My initial reaction the first time I went to the Sporting Exchange was "they have to be taking the piss." This is about as large a casino as you'll see in Europe, advertising on hoardings at Lansdowne Rd, situated beside Dublin's major shopping street, all in a country where casinos are illegal. For this arrogance alone I would like to see Dermot Desmond shut down.

Casinos bring nothing to an area socially or economically, apart from increased problem gambling. This is not a civil liberty issue; blackjack and roulette should be illegal for the same reasons as cocaine.

What I would like to see instead would be licensed 'players clubs' offering exclusively games of skill (ie poker) against other players rather than the house for which they would charge a set fee instead of rake. They could make further revenue from booze and food. This kind of set-up exists in many American states where gambling is illegal.

Ernie Ball

5starpool wrote:

So you mean that my 6 numbers don't have the same chance as the other 6 numbers? Damn, thats why I never win the damn thing.

No, I mean that the "bank" (in this case the State) pays out less than it takes in. So all parties do not have an equal chance: the State always wins.

Doctor Fell

latenia wrote:

Casinos bring nothing to an area socially or economically, apart from increased problem gambling.

I have to disagree with you there - they bring employment to an area, which is both a social and economic benefit.

ianmc38

I think it's a very worrying statement by McDowell.

5starpool

I have no interest whatsoever in blackjack and roulette and all the other games that go on there. However I think that for the most part they are inextricably linked. If cash poker games are technically illegal too because of the house rake, then I doubt there will be anything operating in the country aside from pub tournaments, as in proper cardrooms/casinos the tournaments are loss leaders.

McDowell will just be making people retreat online. Hopefully he is talking about some form of proper licencing for these places, as he is comparing them to bookies which do have to go through a licencing system. I doubt he is going to suggest anything that sensible though.

Culchie

latenia wrote:

I'm going to go against the grain of the common opinion on this forum and say that this is definitely a good thing. If you know anything about the history of casinos throughout the world (eg. Vegas, London etc.) then you'll see a similiar pattern to what has happened in Dublin-small scale casinos operating within legal loopholes/grey areas, often with links to criminals, which offer no protection to players or guarantees of any kind of standards. This is then followed by a clampdown and legislation by the government.

My initial reaction the first time I went to the Sporting Exchange was "they have to be taking the piss." This is about as large a casino as you'll see in Europe, advertising on hoardings at Lansdowne Rd, situated beside Dublin's major shopping street, all in a country where casinos are illegal. For this arrogance alone I would like to see Dermot Desmond shut down.

Casinos bring nothing to an area socially or economically, apart from increased problem gambling. This is not a civil liberty issue; blackjack and roulette should be illegal for the same reasons as cocaine.

What I would like to see instead would be licensed 'players clubs' offering exclusively games of skill (ie poker) against other players rather than the house for which they would charge a set fee instead of rake. They could make further revenue from booze and food. This kind of set-up exists in many American states where gambling is illegal.

There should be a licencing system put in place, like in the UK.....but they need to work on a licencing system first.

Shutting them down with a blanket ban now, is like putting a congestion charge in place for Dublin, with it's terrible public transport.

Put the system in place, let the applicants apply, issue licences, and close down the money laundering operations that are not successful.

As for you point of gaming bring no added value to society, socially or ecomomically ?????? ..... I thought fun enhanced life?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Also the following from the Irish Times:

"Casinos will be closed under new legislation"
Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent


Casinos will be closed in the State under plans being prepared by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell.

Currently nearly two dozen casinos are operating as members-only clubs in Dublin alone, he said yesterday.

Under the 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act, gambling is illegal in the State unless it is a game of chance, or partly a game of chance.

Casinos can be used by organised crime as a "front" for money-laundering, although the Minister said he had no evidence that any Irish casino is being used in this way. Up to now, gardaí have struggled to get prosecutions against casinos because they have been unable to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that casino games, such as roulette and blackjack, breach the gaming legislation by offering an advantage to the casino over the gambler.

"I have concerns about the enforceability of the present law as it applies to these type of operations," Mr McDowell said at the publication of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006.


The gaming restrictions would be added to the legislation during its Committee Stage debate in the Dáil following Cabinet approval in a few weeks' time.

The changes would not interfere with private card games, or fund-raising "poker drives" games run by clubs and associations, he said.

Though numerous forms of gambling are flourishing in the State, the Minister said he believed that casinos "are more damaging to society than positive".

"I honestly do not believe that they add anything to the good of life in Ireland. If people want to go to places where they are available then they can do so," he said.

Under the new legislation, the minimum stake on slot machines will be set at 50 cent, while the maximum prize possible from them will be €30.

Meanwhile, the legislation will create a Legal Services Ombudsman to oversee the handling by the Law Society and Bar Council of complaints against barristers and solicitors.

The new ombudsman would be able to review all inquiries on foot of complaints, examine a random number of investigations by both bodies annually, and be able to order the Law Society to carry out a new probe if he/she is not satisfied that the complaint has been properly investigated.

Though self-regulation of both professions has generally worked well, the Minister said they must "achieve the highest standards of professional integrity for the protection of clients".

"There is a public interest in ensuring a high level of confidence in the manner the professions regulate their affairs," he said.

Praising both professions for their "new sense of realism", Mr McDowell said his changes would ensure that both adapt to a rapidly-changing world.

Shop tenants and landlords will be granted extra freedoms to agree tenancy agreements without being covered by the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980, provided that the tenant gets legal advice first.

"It is intended to allow greater flexibility than at present in the arrangements which business landlords and tenants choose to make with each other," he said, adding that office lets are currently exempt from the 1980 legislation.

Mr McDowell also plans that judges will be able to retire with some pension after just two years on the bench, rather than the five years that are necessary now.

These proposals are not connected in any way with the existing Government effort to impeach Judge Brian Curtin, Mr McDowell added.

© The Irish Times

latenia

Will they create additional employment or wealth or production in Ireland? No. Apart from Vegas/Macau/Atlantic City whose existence is gambling, casinos generally have a negative effect on the locality.

Culchie

and what about pubs, bookies ....churches even?

5starpool

latenia wrote:

Will they create additional employment or wealth or production in Ireland? No. Apart from Vegas/Macau/Atlantic City whose existence is gambling, casinos generally have a negative effect on the locality.

Not for people who like to play poker.

Doctor Fell

latenia wrote:

Will they create additional employment or wealth or production in Ireland? No.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but what is "additional" employment? Isn't all employment additional to the employment that already exists?
Casino's do create employment, and it is additional to the employment oppurtunities that previously existed.

So without a doubt they have the benefit of providing jobs in their locale.
Jobs that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
And of course they provide a comfortable, safe environment for poker players to play their game of chioce. So all in all I disagree with you, I think they are a good thing for society.

latenia

I googled a pretty basic article which sums up what I'm trying to say.

http://www.scpr.org/considerthis/indiangaming/1yes.html

mewso

latenia wrote:

Will they create additional employment or wealth or production in Ireland? No. Apart from Vegas/Macau/Atlantic City whose existence is gambling, casinos generally have a negative effect on the locality.

I would be curious to see your research on this. Closing these places would push yet another activity underground where the supposed victims of gambling (the minority with problems) would probably suffer even more than in a legal environment.

fixer

Desmond probably supports this, or possibly even made the plans with his politico cronies for it. He wants a license in place, to help eliminate his competition.

Doctor Fell

latenia wrote:

I googled a pretty basic article which sums up what I'm trying to say.

http://www.scpr.org/considerthis/indiangaming/1yes.html

Ok, yeah I see what you're talking about. But I think the case in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland is fundamentally different. In that example in the article they're talking about a $175 M casino - a bit different from the Fitz or Merrion!! So the volume of money being taken from society is different. Also, the type of gaming is different -most new casino's here are poker oriented, not traditional gambling oriented (blackjack, roulette etc.).
I think there's a huge difference between a poker club and a full on casino.
And the truth is a lot of citizens would be made redundant if they are shut down. Surely that has no economic/social benefit?

Benglian

Now my 2 cents.
Firstly I work and have worked in casinos all of my adult life nearly, about 14 years.
I earn my living in casinos, and have worked in several different countries. The UK, France, Cyprus, the Seychelles, of course Ireland, and am currently working in Brussels.
I am English.

That said I totally do not agree that 'casinos' are in anyway positive for a society. The negative far outweighs the positive. Generally speaking people who can't afford it, donate money at rigged games (a casino game generally holds 18-20% of it's take - imagine a poker game with 20% rake!) to already rich (casino owners!) people.
I have seen people lose everything....and while i have seen BIG winners...they all lose it back in the end. It's like a bookies. RIGGED against the punter. Honestly, deep down, we all know that.
FFS in Brussels we take nearly €2 Million a month out of people in this city's pockets!

So why are people defending casinos?

'It provides employment!' - well yes it does but at what expense to society? And as an aside.....for all you nationalists out there...I have worked in two Irish casinos...and know people at them all....and the number of IRISH people who work in 'Casino' games I can count on the fingers of my hands! Because Ireland has no tradition of casinos as such then there is no 'pool' of irish croupiers. They are nearly all imported. Just ask any random casino game dealer where he/she comes from the next time you are in a casino. I will happily give you 10-1 they are not Irish, and could probably give you 25-1 that english isn't even their first language and still be +EV !
Maybe you don't realise this, as POKER dealers do tend to be more Irish.

Quite simply put the people here want to keep playing poker.

We don't need casinos for that. What we need is card clubs! They would be profitable without table games....which only suck money from the poker economy anyway. (If i lose €700 one night at poker I know it's mostly gonna be available to win another night, it's doesn't evaporate into a casino owners pocket, does it? MuppetFish will be back playing.)

Do you think the Fitz would survive without roulette/balckjack? Or if 'casinos' were illegal and Luke opened a dedicated card club at another location, would we go? Exactly, of course we all would. I know how much the average rake is on an average night. It is enough to sustain a seperate card club IMO.

It's bad that someone who knows nothing about casinos etc. (ie. a minister) is butting thier nose in, granted. Someone who might see all 'gambling' in casinos the same. But DON'T defend casinos per se. They are NOT 'good for society'.
Of course niether is alcohol, or ciggies, or bookies, or......you get the picture.

But take it from me, I live in Brussels, and there is NO POKER in belgium. It is crap. Very crap. Very very crap, ONLY having the internet. And the Irish poker scene is great, compared to say The Aviation in Paris, or the LIDO in Amsterdam, which suck, I've been. I hope it never dies. I fly back for a game rather than go to Paris or Amsterdam, but then I do play PLO. It's Limit in the 'dam, or NLH in Paris, and I suck at hold'em.

But you cannot close your eyes and hope McDowell goes away. He won't. But they won't close casinos. They will license and tax them, that's all. Maybe it will take a few months before they get back to normal, but the only long term impact will be less profit for casinos owners.

Will anyone shed a tear at that?

Benglian

Benglian wrote:

Now my 2 cents.
Firstly I work and have worked in casinos all of my adult life nearly, about 14 years.
I earn my living in casinos, and have worked in several different countries. The UK, France, Cyprus, the Seychelles, of course Ireland, and am currently working in Brussels.
I am English.

That said I totally do not agree that 'casinos' are in anyway positive for a society. The negative far outweighs the positive. Generally speaking people who can't afford it, donate money at rigged games (a casino game generally holds 18-20% of it's take - imagine a poker game with 20% rake!) to already rich (casino owners!) people.
I have seen people lose everything....and while i have seen BIG winners...they all lose it back in the end. It's like a bookies. RIGGED against the punter. Honestly, deep down, we all know that.
FFS in Brussels we take nearly €2 Million a month out of people in this city's pockets!

So why are people defending casinos?

'It provides employment!' - well yes it does but at what expense to society? And as an aside.....for all you nationalists out there...I have worked in two Irish casinos...and know people at them all....and the number of IRISH people who work in 'Casino' games I can count on the fingers of my hands! Because Ireland has no tradition of casinos as such then there is no 'pool' of irish croupiers. They are nearly all imported. Just ask any random casino game dealer where he/she comes from the next time you are in a casino. I will happily give you 10-1 they are not Irish, and could probably give you 25-1 that english isn't even their first language and still be +EV !
Maybe you don't realise this, as POKER dealers do tend to be more Irish.

Quite simply put the people here want to keep playing poker.

We don't need casinos for that. What we need is card clubs! They would be profitable without table games....which only suck money from the poker economy anyway. (If i lose €700 one night at poker I know it's mostly gonna be available to win another night, it's doesn't evaporate into a casino owners pocket, does it? MuppetFish will be back playing.)

Do you think the Fitz would survive without roulette/balckjack? Or if 'casinos' were illegal and Luke opened a dedicated card club at another location, would we go? Exactly, of course we all would. I know how much the average rake is on an average night. It is enough to sustain a seperate card club IMO.

It's bad that someone who knows nothing about casinos etc. (ie. a minister) is butting thier nose in, granted. Someone who might see all 'gambling' in casinos the same. But DON'T defend casinos per se. They are NOT 'good for society'.
Of course niether is alcohol, or ciggies, or bookies, or......you get the picture.

But take it from me, I live in Brussels, and there is NO POKER in belgium. It is crap. Very crap. Very very crap, ONLY having the internet. And the Irish poker scene is great, compared to say The Aviation in Paris, or the LIDO in Amsterdam, which suck, I've been. I hope it never dies. I fly back for a game rather than go to Paris or Amsterdam, but then I do play PLO. It's Limit in the 'dam, or NLH in Paris, and I suck at hold'em.

But you cannot close your eyes and hope McDowell goes away. He won't. But they won't close casinos. They will license and tax them, that's all. Maybe it will take a few months before they get back to normal, but the only long term impact will be less profit for casinos owners.

Will anyone shed a tear at that?

I agree with a lot of what youve said here.
I personally dont think the take off of poker in ireland is any good at all. Gambling is a very addictive hobby and I have found personally that betting on poker has led me to bet on a number of other things constantly. I dont bet much on other stuff but bet all the same. most people who play poker will tell you their a winning player whether it be true or not, or whether they are trying to convince themselves they are. I think its quite likely there are sh**loads of punters out there losing loads of cash and running big CC debts up and this is only going to multiply. i'd love to see some poker related spending stats.

As far as being good for the economy, the employment arguement is a bit weak I think Doc, its a few handfulls of people at the end of the day and most of them are foreign.
Crime inevitably gets involved in casino's in one way or another historically, and the government is likely to loose a lot in tax that has not been declared. People who spend 50yo on cards instead of booze cost the government money. never mind undelcared profits.

I looked into opening a casino just over 2 years ago but coudlnt get enough funding. At the time after reading the gaming and lotteries act I thought that I would be free to operate fine for about 2-3 years and then we would be closed down. I still feel the same. The gambling craze I beleive will lead to an ammendment in the Lotteries Act, which is a law that was put in before casino's were possible in the eyes of the political paddy back then.

I think the effect will be a bit more then Benglian thinks with most casino's closing down withing 2-3 years and cards clubs taking over where we all deal for ourselves. I dont think card clubs are profitable if you have to pay staff to deal unless you are ripping off the punters. 52euro an hour off a cash game might sound decent over 10 hours, but overheads deducted, the profit is buttons. then factor in the competition

Doctor Fell

Deleted User wrote:

As far as being good for the economy, the employment arguement is a bit weak I think Doc, its a few handfulls of people at the end of the day and most of them are foreign.

I think the effect will be a bit more then Benglian thinks with most casino's closing down withing 2-3 years and cards clubs taking over where we all deal for ourselves. I dont think card clubs are profitable if you have to pay staff to deal unless you are ripping off the punters. 52euro an hour off a cash game might sound decent over 10 hours, but overheads deducted, the profit is buttons. then factor in the competition

Likewise, I agree with a lot of what Benglian and yourself said. Just a few things though: the employment issue is a big one. It's not a handful of people, it's at least a couple of hundred. And if they happen to be foreign so what, they are surely just as entitled to a job as any Irish citizen.

Also, the average rake is much higher than €52 p.h - e.g. the Fitz 10 handed €50 buyin game has a rake of €72 p.h.

And b.t.w I wasn't defending casino's in general, just pointing out that the ones in Ireland do have some benefits for society.

But I agree that the effect will be greater than Benglian thinks, because Mullah Dowell is actually taking action now about this. This law will in all likelyhood be passed, and he seems intent on using it.

Is the 50 game not 26euro every half hour? thats what it was about 2 years back and the big game was about 72. Have the scavengers raised it up?

5starpool

Deleted User wrote:

Is the 50 game not 26euro every half hour? thats what it was about 2 years back and the big game was about 72. Have the scavengers raised it up?

In the Fitz it is 7.5 per player per hour for the 50 game and 11 per player per hour in the hundred game so table rake (full table) is:

Holdem 50: 75
Round each / Omaha only: 68 (always round to 39 per half hour)
Hundred Omaha: 100 (presumably rounded to this)

Culchie

I meant to ask this before (excuse ignorance, as I don't play cash).

Do they just rake in their cut on the dot every half hour regardless of whether it's a 50 or 500 pot....... or is there a more scientific approach?

5starpool

Culchie wrote:

I meant to ask this before (excuse ignorance, as I don't play cash).

Do they just rake in their cut on the dot every half hour regardless of whether it's a 50 or 500 pot....... or is there a more scientific approach?

Generally there is more taken out of the bigger pots, but on average there is 1 or 2 taken from every pot. There are times though when there are 2 or 3 small pots in a row, and these may not be raked at all, and when there is a big one they might take a fiver. It usually works itself out, although there are some dealers that annoy me by raking too heavily just after the last collection has happened. Some dealers even make good headstarts on the next collection ahead of time too. Most are grand though with this.

kippy

I have to disagree with you there - they bring employment to an area, which is both a social and economic benefit.

So does prostitution and drug dealing to an extent.........but you cant justify either of them as good for an area.

I think the main thing that needs to be looked at is the regulation of the "Members Clubs". As already stated-they are operating in a grey area at the moment and through many loopholes. It looks like these grey areas and loopholes are going to be closed-probably a good thing for everyone-however as well as the laws to close the loop holes, laws should be formulated in order to make these establishments and their financial operations and ownership/membership structure more transparent to both the taxman and indeed the gardai-in order to keep the "organised gangs and indeed money launderers" away from involvement.
Regulation is key. Banning such establishments, as mentioned also, will only push it underground-in fariness something which is easily and already done regarding poker.
Kippy

Doctor Fell

kippy wrote:

So does prostitution and drug dealing to an extent.........but you cant justify either of them as good for an area.

Kippy

Now that's just plain stupid - are you seriously comparing the job of poker dealer or blackjack dealer to that of prostitute or drug dealer?
Besides, at the moment casino jobs are legal and taxable. AFAIK being a prostitute and dealing illegal drugs are not legal occupations (maybe they should be:D ), so come on buddy, stupid comparison.
And besides, they are good for the sex and drug addicts in the area....;)

kippy

Sorry, an extreme example.....but just wanted to point out that just because something brings jobs to an area does not make it a good thing.....
Casino jobs may be legal and taxable but the methods of accounting/membership in them appears not to be hence the imminent arrival of new legislation.
I am not trying to say-get rid of them all, just asking that they be regulated in a way that means there will be no fear of organised crime involvement, somthing I think any poker player will be happy to see so long as it means safer areas to play and possibly more casinos.
Kippy

Doctor Fell

Yeah, I agree totally that they should be fully regulated and liscenced premises. That would be great, but who knows if McDowell intends that, or just shutting them down full stop. It seems to me anyway that he intends the latter.
And tbh, it'd be nearly impossible to stop money laundering anyway. Even in bookies it still goes on. With a liscenced casino people can still launder money.

Marq

5starpool wrote:

In the Fitz it is 7.5 per player per hour for the 50 game and 11 per player per hour in the hundred game so table rake (full table) is:

Holdem 50: 75 (Rounded to 38 per half hour )
Round each / Omaha only: 68 (Rounded to 34 per half hour)
Hundred Omaha: 99 (rounded 50 per half hour)

FYP

NickyOD

I think there's going to be some discussion on this on Today FM over the next hour.

nicryan

Deleted User wrote:

As far as being good for the economy, the employment arguement is a bit weak I think Doc, its a few handfulls of people at the end of the day and most of them are foreign.

firstly, whether someone is irish or a citizen of an EU state it makes no difference because of, well, the EU.

but even if you're not going to think of it like that, there are a few irish citizens who make their living from working in casinos. Myself included. If casinos were to close I have no idea what I'd do for money. I'd probably end up moving to some country where I was able to work as a poker dealer. And tbh I like ireland and for the time being don't want to live anywhere else.


also, I've not read much of this post cause I need to go to work and I prolly won't check it again for about a week or so but if you really want to talk to me I'll be in the fitz.


Nic

hotspur

As someone who has read most of the English language research on the cost - benefit analysis of casinos in society I can say that with the exceptions of the abnormal Vegas type phenomena in a handful of places around the world they are very costly to the societies in which they operate. The world's leading expert on the issue has compared the economic impact of their existence in jurisdictions as equivalent to having an extra recession every 4 years.
You need to not just think about the simple obvious "credit side" like employment (and Benglian is absolutely correct that it is foreign national employment), but also the not so obvious "debit side" like the costs of the problem gambling it creates, the costs of the related crime, and in this country at the moment the loss of taxes from casino gambling.
A good but boring technical explanation of the nature of social / economic cost - benefit anlaysis applied to gambling is here: http://tinyurl.com/m4hkj

If any of you actually give a damn about the cost-benefit debate (it's a political-industry one, the academic one is pretty much over and decided by now) here are some freely available pieces I can recommend:
(for those not so interested here is a list of summary points of the evidence that the world's leading expert Grinols was commissioned to submit to the United State's government in 2003 - http://tinyurl.com/lcqhw )
Here's an independent report on the expected social & economic impacts of the impending regional casinos on the UK published a few weeks ago:
www.hallaitken.co.uk/reports/report.pdf

www.terry.uga.edu/~dmustard/profitability.pdf
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/digital/gamblingwithourfuture.pdf
www.terry.uga.edu/~dmustard/casinos.pdf
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/pathch5.pdf
www.gao.gov/new.items/gg00078.pdf
www.business.uno.edu/dber/gambling1998/SocialR.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/hmrtj
http://www3.state.ia.us/irgc/STUDY.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/jy28k
http://www.gpiatlantic.org/pdf/gambling/gambling.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/nowle

Um that's enough to be getting on with, I don't expect any of you to actually read them all, but if you ever want to have an informed opinion on the issue you at least now have have the option. Zzzzzzzzzz

mewso

Apologies I have not checked out those links yet and in general I agree with some of the points against casinos here but are all these research docs/reports done by comparrison to a society where casinos are illegal and if so is there any consideration given to the possibility that in societies where it may be illegal it would be pushed underground and would be impossible to discover who is wasting money gambling instead of spending it elsewhere. Just seems strange that folks can point blank say it would be more detrimental legal than illegal. More measurable perhaps.

hairyfairy00

I work in a casino and i am quite worried that i could be out of a job pretty soon. I'm sure that there could be a very small amount of casino's that are only used for laundering money but i sure as hell don't work in one like that. The bottom line really is that the government has seen another way of getting their hands on our money!!!

Goodluck2me

if people lose their moeny in the casino then they have to work harder and so the governement get to tax the replacement money with PAYE etc..whast the big deal its win win!

hotspur

musician wrote:

Just seems strange that folks can point blank say it would be more detrimental legal than illegal. More measurable perhaps.

All of the reports I linked are purely cost-benefit analyses which conclude with a $ figure whether casinos are financially beneficial or harmful to societies, it actually doesn't much matter categorically whether they are legal or illegal - they cost society either way, but they cost more per user and since legal (or even de facto accepted) casinos result in far greater numbers of patrons than underground ones then they result in greater costs to society even when set against the tax revenue they generate.

That's not to say that there are not real issues relating to harms of genuinely underground illegal casinos, but they are of a less widespread and perhaps more individually pernicious nature. But before and after studies of the introduction of legal casinos to an area have shown that legal casinos multiply the harms

Legally available or accepted casinos are more detrimental purely in terms of the greater number of people they attract. The single distribution theory of alcoholism can be applied to it, simply put - X% of the population will engage in the activity problematically, if you increase the total number of people who engage in the activity then you increase the total number of people who experience harm as a result of it.

So the real issue is popularising and normalising casino gambling through legalising and promoting it. This is what's about to happen in the UK with their casino licensing programme, and it's a huge mistake what they are going to do, we know that because everywhere else in the world which has done it in the past 10 years has suffered huge problems as a result. They are fooled by the gambling industry which presents the lure of big tax revenues whereas they are really a net economic loss.

But legalising doesn't *necessarily* mean promoting and normalising it. I'm against prohibition of casinos (I mean I was in one for 7 hours on Saturday night!), I believe a small number should be licensed with certain restrictions and a regulator, no advertising, no electronic gaming machines (slots and such), no attached entertainments, with pretend committments to promoting responsible gaming. In this way they would operate under a policy similar to the way bookies operated for years - cater for existing demand but not stimulate new demand.

A report in the UK by the independent National Economic Research Associates (which I can't link) on the UK's casino liberalisation plans concluded:

"This report has reviewed the evidence on the impact that proposed liberalisation of gambling will have on increased availabilty and access to casinos and the availability of high prize slot machines. It concludes that they will lead to a significant increase in the incidence of problem gambling in the UK. As a consequence, NERA believes that the Government should seriously reconsider its proposed legislation on gambling liberalisation so as to put in place effective measures to guard against adverse social and economic consequences that will impact on hundreds of thousands of newly created problem gamblers if the proposals are enacted as they stand."

Imposter

Hotspur,

I've not read any of those articles either but in the case of problem gambling surely the research would indicate that if people don't 'spend' their money in a casino, they'll give it to the bookies or basically lose it to some other form of gambling?

If this is so and bookies, lotto, scratchcards etc.. are legal then not allowing casinos seems a bit silly.

Cantab.

Imposter wrote:

Hotspur,

I've not read any of those articles either but in the case of problem gambling surely the research would indicate that if people don't 'spend' their money in a casino, they'll give it to the bookies or basically lose it to some other form of gambling?

If this is so and bookies, lotto, scratchcards etc.. are legal then not allowing casinos seems a bit silly.

Yes, this is true. However it is not the small-time gamblers that the government is targeting, it is more the money laundering element of gambling.

I play regularly in sporting emporium/fitzwilliam and I used to be amazed at the amount of money I saw being put down on the roulette table. This money is either a) rich chaps showing off, b) hardcore gambling addicts or c) dirty money being laundered. Now anyone who's made money the hard way knows better than to be gambling in casinos and gambling addicts are just well, gambling addicts. This leaves c) and afaik, most of the large money players are quite obviously laundering illicit proceeds.

The other problem with casinos is of course, cash. The fact that casinos rake in so much cash leaves the tax system open to abuse. The casino operator can easily get away with not declaring all their cash income thereby minimising their net profits and tax due to the government. Money laundering by the casino's customers is nothing compared to the money laundering/tax evasion by the casino proprieters.

Waylander

Cantab. wrote:

Yes, this is true. However it is not the small-time gamblers that the government is targeting, it is more the money laundering element of gambling.

I play regularly in sporting emporium/fitzwilliam and I used to be amazed at the amount of money I saw being put down on the roulette table. This money is either a) rich chaps showing off, b) hardcore gambling addicts or c) dirty money being laundered. Now anyone who's made money the hard way knows better than to be gambling in casinos and gambling addicts are just well, gambling addicts. This leaves c) and afaik, most of the large money players are quite obviously laundering illicit proceeds.

The other problem with casinos is of course, cash. The fact that casinos rake in so much cash leaves the tax system open to abuse. The casino operator can easily get away with not declaring all their cash income thereby minimising their net profits and tax due to the government. Money laundering by the casino's customers is nothing compared to the money laundering/tax evasion by the casino proprieters.

Firstly, Casinos are not the only cash rich businesses out there and the Tax man is a dab hand at dealing with these businesses at this stage so that arguement does not hold water. Secondly, there are plenty of people out there with more money then sense, so to say anyone who places big money on roullette is obviously money laundering is wrong in my opinion too.

Hotspur, like the others I have not read any of your research articles, but I do think that Imposters point is relevant, in that if a problem gambler cannot game in a bookies, he will easily find somewhere else to do it, so to say this is a cost to society is not entirely correct.

bohsman

People that want to launder money will buy in for big money but would only stake small sums before cashing out their nice newly washed money.
People betting big on roulette are gamblers.

patmac

As a former manager in a bookie's office we were always told to look out for big bets for laundering money. The easiest way to do it is to go to a bookie especially on the racecourse and put 20-30,000 on an odds on shot,(4/6, 30/100) the shorter the odds the better, they don't always win in fact a surprising number lose (at least 1 in 2) but your money is laundered, you don't see too many bookies closed. I heard the last word and the guy representing the casinos made a lot of valid points his main gripe being McDowell won't sit down and talk to them, if he does and comes to a sensible form of regulation then everybody gains, if he doesn't then he's as bigger bollix as everbody says he is.

Doctor Fell

patmac wrote:

I heard the last word and the guy representing the casinos made a lot of valid points his main gripe being McDowell won't sit down and talk to them, if he does and comes to a sensible form of regulation then everybody gains, if he doesn't then he's as bigger bollix as everbody says he is.

Anyone know who was on representing the casino's? Not that bothered, just curious.
Thx to bohsman and patmac for 2 prime examples of money laundering!
Off -topic, but my brother works in a bookies in dublin, and he says it's common knowledge in the game that a particular bookmaker in the same town gets a retainer from a local "crime boss" to launder his money. This guy apparently puts on huge bets (like patmac was saying), and win or lose he just gets his stake back every time. Bookie gets paid every month for this service!!

latenia

bohsman wrote:

People that want to launder money will buy in for big money but would only stake small sums before cashing out their nice newly washed money.
People betting big on roulette are gamblers.

Roulette is actually the best way to launder money. Just bet on black every time and you'll have your money back less 2.7% for when it hits zero. Not a bad fee when you're getting a cheque back from the casino for tax-free income.

bohsman

latenia wrote:

Roulette is actually the best way to launder money. Just bet on black every time and you'll have your money back less 2.7% for when it hits zero. Not a bad fee when you're getting a cheque back from the casino for tax-free income.

Yes the buying in big refers to roulette, so buy 10,000 worth of chips bet a couple of fivers on black have a cup of tea, some dinner cash out after having lost 2.7% on 25euro and the whole lot is taxfree.