“I think it’s a good natural fit. I think, philosophically, the part people haven’t noticed yet, real money gaming is the perfect fit with virtual goods and social games.”

Zynga would be naturally well-positioned for this kind of transition. With 30 million monthly players, Zynga Poker is the largest online poker game in the world, and the company is releasing more gambling related games like Zynga Bingo.

“We’re interested, but you should expect to see us do a lot more than what you’ve seen in offshore casinos,” said Pincus.

We wander what “a lot more” means when it comes to online gambling, an already multi-million, all be it illegal industry.

This revelation may have come just in time, as many analysts believe social gaming, and Zynga in particular, has and will continue to see stagnation.

A recent Justice Department ruling may open the door for online gambling on social sites like Facebook. With people already shelling out millions for Zynga coins, just to by a virtual upgrade for their virtual farm, the possibilities for making money on gambling in that market are endless.

The world of online gambling took a major hit last year when Congress passed legislation to deep six the practice in the United States. Major eGambling hot spots like PartyPoker and PokerStars immediately closed up shop in the U.S., and begrudgingly focused their operations toward Europe and Canada.

Enter Second Life, the virtual environment created by Linden Lab where you can do everything from buy a Coke to engage in your own customizable escapade with one of the online world’s… escorts, to put it delicately.

Now, you can add gambling to the list of Second Life activities in which one can engage.

Magnus Rothlisberger (related to Ben?) decided to give blackjack a whirl at a virtual casino located within Second Life. Initially, Magnus found success at the table, and it seemed that he had a foolproof gambling strategy on his hands.

Then, the cards began to run ice cold.

Three days later, Magnus found himself on the losing end of the equation. He had this to say about the final moments of his gambling spree:

Alas, this has been the lament of many a would-be online gambling professional.

My question, however, is what measures are being taken to insure the integrity of the games? Brick and mortar casinos must adhere to gaming commission regulations, but there are no such organizations to police these sorts of activities within Second Life. So, it’s a wonder that Mr. Rothlisberger didn’t end up losing more than $1,153 during his three-day gambling fest.

Even if Linden Lab developed some sort of virtual gaming commission, would gambling prove to be a revenue influx for the world? This Valleywag piece (Yes, I’m quoting Valleywag. Deal with it.) looks at the possibility:

A Techdirt write-up continues the thought:

Could Second Life be in for a DoJ crackdown? If so, will they create a S.W.A.T. team of avatars and stage a virtual raid on the casinos?

I sure hope so, because that would be something worth logging into the world to witness.

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Joe is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

BetUS.com lists the top 10 blogs, which includes BoingBoing and Engadget at the top and Auto Blog and Gawker at the bottom, complete with odds of winning. But don’t let the capitalization of “US,” the baseball photos, or the stars and stripes backdrop fool you. BetUS.com isn’t based in the land of the free, where all are free to participate in a very select set activities. BetUS.com is licensed for business in Canada and Costa Rica.

So what happens if an American citizen drops a hundred bones on Matt Cutts to show? Well, it depends on which state you live in and what mood the U.S. Department of Justice is in. If you live in Washington, you’re surety that Cutts’ rise in popularity will bring you back $60,000 can earn you a seat next to rapists and child molesters, holding an indictment for a Class C felony. Of course, if this were Vermont, that’d only get you what, three months?

Despite appellate courts rulings to the contrary, the DOJ has insisted that Internet gambling is illegal based on the Wire Act, which makes it illegal to operate an interstate gambling outfit and the Federal Organized Crime Act, which holds US citizen participants liable if gambling is illegal in their home state. That means, in most cases, the bettor has more protection than the bookie.

Recently the DOJ has been more interested in indicting advertising executives on racketeering and fraud for running basic Web-campaigns for offshore clients. But the DOJ is no doubt chomping at the bit over legislation that reached overwhelming approval in the House of Representatives making it a crime to engage in any online gambling except for horse racing or state lotteries. That’s because horse racing is a dignified form of gambling and the State doesn’t like the mob horning in on its bad-at-math constituency.

Outlawing online gambling would put the US in good company along with the People’s Republic of China, where online gambling is also illegal. This would also be despite the frowning of the World Trade Organization which decided legislation criminalizing online betting is a violation of global laws. But global, schmobal, that only really counts if you grant any sovereignty at all to an outside body. And that ain’t gonna happen.

So let’s recap:

According to many lawmakers, gambling is immoral, except in horse racing and state lotteries.

The person in charge of regulating the Internet thinks it’s a series of tubes.
Yes, I can see how all that makes sense. Good luck in November.

Discuss this article with your fellow WebPros at WebProWorld.
—
Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Because, you know, gambling, even talking about gambling, is just as bad as say, grand theft auto (the crime, not the game, which is worse). And of course that doesn’t include horse racing or state-sponsored betting.

From AdvertisingAge:

“The US government’s latest battle against online gambling is quickly reaching ridiculous levels,” says TechDirt’s Michael Masnick. ” These advertising execs could now face 20 years in jail and huge fines — all for running a basic promotional campaign for a service that was legal in its country of origin”

What’s next? Twenty years for buying beer on Sunday?

|

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to DiggThis Yahoo My Web

Data from Britain suggests 0.8 percent of their population has some kind of addiction to gambling. “If you are a vulnerable individual, the ease of online gambling-the instant access and convenience of use-is likely to fuel those addictive tendencies you have already,” said Mark Griffiths, a professor of gambling.

A charity for addicts, known as GamCare, has collected statistics on the issue. People who called the organization had gambling debts of, on average, roughly 25,000 pounds (about $47,000), according to Teresa Tunstall.

Steps are being taken to address some aspects of the problem, but it seems unlikely they can solve the issue. One development is new software that can recognize gambling patterns typical of an addict. According to eCOGRA, an online gaming auditor, operators may then contact the gamblers and suggest a “cooling-off period.”

The British government has also gotten in on the act, creating an independent Gambling Commission. Starting in 2007, this group will regulate the British companies that run gaming sites. One new requirement of the sites will be that they must train operators to spot addicts. These operators may then have to offer help and advice, making sure that gamblers realize how much time and money they’ve spent.

Many sites are operated from other countries, though, and will not fall under the Gambling Commission’s jurisdiction. Professor Griffiths sees this as a real problem. “Even if one online site is responsible and says we’re not going to have that problem gambler, you are just a click away from finding another online betting site that isn’t.”

With both Internet use and gambling on the rise, gambling addictions are likely going to be an increasingly frequent problem.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web

Technorati:

Doug is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest eBusiness news.

From this tropical oasis, Ayre has dodged and taunted those enemies, the main one being the U.S. Department of Justice. His Bodog Entertainment Group is in the not very kosher business of Web gambling. It takes bets from 16 million customers, most of them in the U.S. And that appears to violate the law–Title 18, Section 1084 of the U.S. Code–which forbids using telephones or other communication devices “in interstate or foreign commerce” in order to take bets. “Online gambling, whether it is located offshore or not, is illegal when it comes to the United States and its citizens,” says a Justice Department official who works on Internet gambling crimes.

On a financial basis, he seems to be doing quite well:

Last year the privately held Bodog handled $7.3 billion in online wagers, triple the volume of 2004. Ayre says all this betting gave him sales of $210 million, and that he took 26% of the revenue to the bottom line. What’s his business worth? Two similar ventures that are publicly traded (in Europe) go for well over 18 times trailing earnings. At that multiple, Bodog, along with other assets, gives Ayre a net worth of at least $1 billion.

That got me wondering… What’s the big deal about letting someone gamble without flying to Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc. to play slot machines or blackjack? Is it actually a danger to society or is this the remnant of some economic policy whose goals elude me?

We have state lotteries (i.e. “the tax on people with poor math skills”) all over this country. What’s wrong with using a computer to try to win some money?

Jeremy Zawodny is the author of the popular Jeremy Zawodny’s blog. Jeremy is part of the Yahoo search team and frequently posts in the Yahoo! Search blog as well.

Visit Jeremy’s blog: Jeremy Zawodny’s blog.

The lawsuit was filed during August of 2004 and names a number of search engines, Google and Yahoo included, as being responsible for financial losses the litigant(s) suffered by following a search ad for gambling. Yahoo and Google stopped displaying online casino ads in April of 2004.

I repeat: these people are suing the search engines because they displayed ads (at one time) for online casinos. The people responsible for the lawsuit indicate because they lost money at these gambling houses, the search engines are at fault for displaying ads…

The green light was given by a San Francisco when a judge threw out a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, indicating the search engines and other sites (Yahoo, Google, Overture, Ask Jeeves, LookSmart, AltaVista, Terra Lycos, Jupiter, FindWhat, Kanoodle, Business.com, and Sex.Com) named in the filing could be liable for the litigant loses, sounding yet another death knell for personal responsibility.

Ira Rothken, an attorney for plaintiffs, had these comments in a press release, “We are pleased that the Court denied the search engine defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike allegations and we are optimistic that the Court will find that the defendants were involved in an unlawful business activity when they actively advertised for a fee illegal Internet gambling and that the Court will enjoin such activity.”

No trial date has been revealed as of this time.

Chris Richardson is a search engine writer and editor for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest search news.

The move by the British seems aimed at grabbing a slice of a $7.5 billion pie, one that is moving toward doubling in five years.

But in the United States, online gambling remains illegal, though an estimated 20 million Americans bet over the Internet on everything from power to NCAA basketball.

The rest of Europe may have its concerns over the British move as well. In some countries, casinos are run by or linked deeply into governments. Money moving online takes away from those casinos.

Arguments by the US government about online casinos offering safe haven for money launderers underscores the point made by those in favor of legalization. By making it legal and regulating (and taxing) online casinos, they can keep an eye out for illegal activities.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.

As first pointed out in MediaDailyNews, certain keywords still yield casino and online betting ads. Google was questioned about this and promptly removed the offending ads. But, the ads that Google removed has given way for other casinos’ ads to appear.

Speculation as to why these ads are still appearing centers around Google’s automated ad filter. If ads pass through undetected, Google allows them to be posted on SERPs. Brad Fallon, CEO of interactive marketing consultancy Smart Marketing Inc. believes that these casinos are merely reposting their ads. He blames Google’s lack of human intervention for the casino ads reappearing. “It appears that Google doesn’t like to do anything manually; they want to have it be automated.”

Google declined to comment on the subject. The following is a list of keywords that have online casino ads accompanying them:

horse racing
online casino
casino
online betting

Almost certainly there are more keywords that allow the ads to sneak through, but this list illustrates the point nicely.

WebProNews | Breaking eBusiness News
Your source for investigative ebusiness reporting and breaking news.

Many of the owners speculate that the U.S. Government may ave been putting pressure on the two search engines. Speaking to MediaDailyNews.com, Haden Ware, managing director of World Wide Sports Exchange said, “the one thing we want to find out is whether this [decision] is coming from government pressure.”

David Carruthers, chief executive officer of BetonSports.com, said, “I can draw no other conclusion than that.”

The companies’ responses differ. Yahoo states that reason it dropped the ads was that the gambling market is “too risky”. Jennifer Stephens, senior director of communications Yahoo’s Overture Services, said, “we’re looking for consistency in the Yahoo product, and there is a lack of clarity in the environment. Yahoo removed all casino-related banner ads in 2002–however, Overture, which Yahoo acquired last year, had still accepted such ads.”

Google’s response was slightly more vague. “This change was made as a part of Google’s ongoing commitment to enhancing our advertising policies to ensure that we provide the best search and advertising experience to our users,” said David Krane, director of corporate communications for Google.

Undaunted, the gambling site continue to look for ways to promote their $5.7 billion industry. BetonSports.com’s Carruthers is optimistic about the future. “I don’t see any immediate impact. Beton is planning a multimedia campaign, which may include spending on search engines other than Yahoo or Google. [Yahoo and Google] may have just written a blank check to a competitor.”

WebProNews | Breaking eBusiness News
Your source for investigative ebusiness reporting and breaking news.