From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Date: Wed Jun 30 1999 - 17:42:16 MDT
> Maybe a professional gambler, like a poker player who plays a hundred
> hands a day, would care about getting that last little percent, and
> wouldn't mind the less than glamorous online surroundings. But for the
> average guy it probably wouldn't be worth it. Most people seem to play
> the slot machines in Vegas, which have some of the worst odds.
A poker player would love to play without a rake, but pros also
know that online poker is a bad idea--it's too easy for a team of
two or three players to sit at machines in one room and play in
collusion. The odds on slots actually aren't that bad in most
major casinos, but the one in grocery stores and such are awful,
as are state lotteries, which are also popular. The California
lottery, for example, has a 33% return mandated by law, and still
millions play it.
The safest, probably most lucrative form of on-line gambling
would be a sports book. There's no fear a casino would affect
the outcome (assuming they booked bets even on both sides),
and the no-vig idea would be a real attraction, because the
9% (11:10) charged by casino sports books is more salient than
in other games. A lot of serious gamblers would jump at an
opportunity to avoid it. And realtime-changing odds are a
natural for the net.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:21 MST