Both are favorites to be eliminated in the coming week yet a review of search engine traffic reveals a different story.  The two were among the most searched for American Idols this week.  Malakar has been listed with +165 odds of being eliminated this coming week on American Idol.  This bet would pay out $1.65 for every $1.00 bet.  Scarnato is listed with odds of +265, paying out $2.65 on a $1.00 bet.

Both are seen as the least talented in the vocal department, yet Scarnato managed to wow judges and the public with a sexy performance this past week, probably the most talked about.

Malakar is gaining momentum as VoteForTheWorst.com and Howard Stern have been prompting their minions to vote for Malakar each week.  Seeing a young fan in the audience cry helped to thrust Malakar’s popularity even further.

Gambling911.com has noted, however, that Sanjaya Malakar searches were heavy long before making it into the Top 12.

“He was the most searched for Idol starting with the Top 24,” discloses Gambling911.com’s Payton O’Brien.  “His fan site is the biggest referrer to Gambling911 of any other Idol sites.”

This later stat is most interesting since Katharine McPhee and Taylor Hicks - last year’s American Idol top two finalists - had fan sites that were the two biggest referrers to the Gambling911.com website.

Search engine traffic in general shows that the least searched for American Idol contestants are none other than Phil Stacey (last) and Lakisha Jones.

Stacey was listed with +180 odds to be eliminated this coming week and unless he really outperforms everyone else, Stacey could be a goner.  One note of interest is that DialIdol.com had Phil Stacey among the top vote-getters this past week.

Lakisha Jones, a judge’s and oddsmaker’s favorite, was listed with elimination odds of +6600 this week.  That is some excellent value.  A $100 bet would pay out $6600!  With Jones second to last in search engine popularity and seemingly in trouble with the DialIdol vote-getting results this past week, she could result in one of the biggest upsets in bookmaking history.

Chris Sligh is the third least popular among searchers.  Blake Lewis is the third most popular.  Sligh’s elimination odds were set at +800 or $800 paid out on a $100 bet (for the small gamblers, $8.00 paid out on a $1.00 bet.

Some interesting facts about search engine traffic and American Idol contestants reveal conflicting results, however.  Antonella Barba may rank among the most searched for American Idol contestants in that show’s history (in terms of searches over a specific time period), yet she got voted off before the Final 12.

Don’t discount search engine traffic numbers, however.  This week’s eliminated Idol has sat at the bottom of search popularity for the past two weeks.

Based on this data, Stacey, Jones and Sligh are very much on the chopping block over the next two weeks and American Idol is more unpredictable than ever, which ultimately can translate into some pretty big bucks for American Idol gamblers.

http://www.gambling911.com/American-Idol-Sanjaya-Malakar-Haley-Scarnato-032407.html

It’s no secret that nearly every professional sports bettor placed his or her bets at Pinnacle Sports over the years.  Reduced juice allowed for betting $104 to win $100 on favorites as opposed to the standard $110 to win $100.  For the savvy sports bettor who had no problem laying down thousands on a game, this amounted to thousands of dollars in savings over the course of a year’s time. 

The problem with Pinnacle Sports, however, is that many of their top players (some of whom acted as agents) have been getting nabbed over the past few years as part of local US and state prosecutions. 

Three years ago, a major customer of the sports book claimed in wire taps to be a part-owner in Pinnacle Sports.

“Pinnacle Sports was regularly brought up during these conversations,” a source told Gambling911.com at the time.

While the individual in question - who was in reality a High School principal - proved to have no ownership stakes in Pinnacle Sports, the bookmaker’s name had already been thrown out there as a result of the wiretaps.

“With so many people nabbed in recent localized gambling busts doing business with (offshore) sportsbooks, it is only a matter of time before they (law enforcement) begin to connect the dots,” our source said.

In recent weeks, some online gambling operators have fled Costa Rica in the middle of the night.

“The Operations Manager of one sportsbook took a US Airways flight to Phoenix under an assumed name over the holidays,” our source disclosed. 

Unfounded rumors suggested that FBI agents were descending upon Costa Rica to nab certain sportsbook owners. 

“Some of these guys have such huge egos that they truly believe the BS that is fed to them,” our source said. 

One outlandish rumor last week even had the PokerStars office in Costa Rica under lockdown.  Before Gambling911.com could even investigate, a follow up call confirmed this was just a false alarm.  Most legal experts - including legal counsel for PokerStars - believe that online poker, as a game of skill, is excluded from recent legislation.

The US Justice Department has always been aggressive in going after those individuals believed to be engaging in acts of money laundering and tax evasion.  Operating an “offshore sportsbook” onshore in the United States (as some offshore entities do via agents) quite often gets painted with the same brush as the offenses above primarily due to the rather large exchanges of monies.

“These investigations sometimes take up to three years - witness BetonSports - so if you were doing something the Justice Department or local law enforcement agencies deemed to be ‘bad’ three years ago, it really makes no difference if you leave the US market now.”

Already, Pinnacle competitors are contemplating ways to capitalize on their departure similar to how PokerStars gained its extraordinary market share  following PartyPoker’s bowing out of the US market.

Pinnacle Sports has the ability to thrive in the European and Asian market place, unlike most of its US focused counterparts, though it is widely estimated that nearly 60% of its customer base will be wiped out as a result of this decision.   

—-

Christopher Costigan, Gambling911.com

http://www.gambling911.com/internet-gambling-011107.html

ATLANTIC CITY — An Atlantic City without smoking was once akin to a casino without slot machines — unimaginable. But times have changed.

The city is now poised to stamp out smoking in the town’s 11 casinos. If the City Council passes the smoking ban on Friday, Mayor Robert Levy can sign it into law after 20 days.

That has casino operators worried that some of their loyal customers might go to more smoker-friendly establishments, such as Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, the Native American-owned casinos in Connecticut, or even to slot machine parlors in Pennsylvania.

“Given the economic effects that the imposition of a smoking ban would cause,” revenues would dive 20 percent, resulting in “approximately 3,400 employees being laid off,” Casino Association of New Jersey Association chief Joseph Corbo warned.

State leaders never intended for the casinos to be smoke-free, because when the Legislature snuffed out smoking in most indoor public spaces in January, casinos were granted an exemption. But Councilman Bruce Ward says he found a loophole.

“The New Jersey Clean Air Act allows a municipality to create an ordinance that gives equal or greater protection (to its people),” said Ward, a healthcare lawyer who says he wants to protect the city’s more than 15,000 casino employees.

“Second-hand smoke inhalation is serious,” he continued. “There is no mechanical means to remove it completely,” Ward said.

The casino interests would love for the bill to be rejected, but they will settle for it to be tabled for further study.

Even if it passes, there is some thought that the casinos might sue on the grounds that the state, not the city, has jurisdiction over the casinos.

Reaction on the casino floors and in nearby stores was mixed. “I’ll still come down,” said Sal Lucchesi, visiting Resorts from Vineland, N.J. “But it isn’t very pleasant sitting next to someone who’s puffing away.”

Nearby, Jim Lesslie of Mechanicsville, Pa., frowned as he played a 25-cent slot.

“I’ve been smoking for 60 years,” he said, “and I would be less inclined to come to Atlantic City if there was a smoking ban. I don’t think it’s proper for anybody to interfere with what I enjoy.”

Barbara Gale of Staten Island kept feeding her penny slot, a pack of Marlboros at her side. “I like it the way it is,” she said. “Playing and smoking at the same time is very relaxing.”

At the Taj Mahal’s Landau jewelry shop just off the casino floor, new saleswoman Julia Belikova, a Russian immigrant, said, “I hate smoke. It comes out of the casino floor all day. It should stop.”

Her colleague Anna Ferris disagreed. “People will just go to Connecticut or fly to Vegas.”

On the Boardwalk, Razik Khan was smoking as he stared into his empty gift shop, the Lucky Star.

“Business has been very slow this year. If people aren’t allowed to smoke, they won’t come here. That means less business,” he said.

Now, Winward Casino is bigger and better than ever. Last year, they added a download version of their casino that features stunningly realistic 3-D graphics and sounds that make you feel like you are playing in Vegas. Winward Casino is also the FIRST casino in the world to offer a WIRELESS CASINO that can be played for real money from your cell phone or wireless Pocket PC or Palm devices. Once again, Winward Casino is the leader in online casino technology. And Winward has not turned its back on its original “no download” casino roots. If you prefer to play online without downloading a casino program to your computer, Winward offers all of its casino games in both Flash and Java online formats. You can play more than 80 casino games in ANY format: download, Flash, Java or wireless. No other online casino offers so many options.

But that’s not all. Not only does Winward Casino offer a tremendous variety of high quality casino games, they also offer more banking options than any other casino on the Internet. There is nothing more frustrating than settling down at your computer for an evening of blackjack or video poker, only to find that the online casino has rejected your credit card! Winward Casino has solved that problem by offering the most flexible banking available. Virtually all credit cards are accepted.

With all of the online gaming and banking options that Winward Casino offers, they truly live up to their slogan: “Your Best Bet on the Net Since 1998.”

http://www.youbettowin.com/spanish/

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 Analyzed

© Copyright 2006, all rights reserved worldwide.  Gambling and the Law® is a registered trademark of Professor I Nelson Rose, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com. 

Note – This paper is copyrighted.  You may quote it at length, republish it or distribute it for free only if you include this copyright and trademark information. 

            The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the election period recess.  According to Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), no one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had even seen the final language of the bill.  The Act is title VIII of a completely unrelated bill, the Safe Port Act, HR 4954, dealing with port security.  It can be found on pages 213 -244 of the Conference Report: http://www.saveonlinegaming.com/hr49543.pdf .  It is based on the Leach and Goodlatte bills, HR 4411 and HR 4777, but there are some important differences.
            The following is a detailed analysis of the Act.  The section numbers that follow refer to new sections that have been added to title 31 of the U.S. Code:

§5361 The Act begins with Congress’s findings and purpose.  These include a recommendation from the discredited National Gambling Impact Study Commission, whose chair was the right-wing, Republican incompetent, Kay Coles James.  Findings include the doubtful assertion that Internet gambling is a growing problem for banks and credit card companies.  It correctly states that “new mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary,” especially cross-border betting.

            The Act contains a standard clause that it does not change any other law or Indian compact.  It repeats this many times, to make sure that no one can use the Act as a defense to another crime, or to expand existing gambling.

            Most importantly, the Department of Justice is arguing before the World Trade Organization, in the dispute between the U.S. and Antigua, that all interstate gambling is illegal under the Wire Act.  The DOJ insisted that any Internet prohibition passed by Congress not expressly authorize Internet betting on Horseracing. The DOJ believes this will allow it to continue to argue that the Interstate HorseRacing Act does not do exactly what it says it does, legalize interstate horseracing.

§5362 Definitions.

            Bet or wager includes risking something of value on the outcome of a contest, sports event “or a game subject to chance.”  The Act otherwise allows contestants to risk money on themselves.  The “game subject to chance” restriction is designed to eliminate Internet poker.

            The Act then confuses the issue of skill by stating that betting includes purchasing an “opportunity” to win a lottery, which must be predominantly subject to chance.  Someone will figure out a way to create an opportunity to win, where the opportunity is subject to some chance.  But the Act expressly prohibits lotteries based on sports events.

            Betting includes instructions or information.  This eliminates the argument overseas operators used that the money was already in a foreign country, so no bet took place in the U.S.

            The Act exempts activities that we all know are gambling, but are, by statute, declared not to be gambling.  These include securities and commodities, including futures, that are traded on U.S. exchanges.  Boilerrooms and bucketshops, selling foreign securities are gambling.  Insurance is not.

            Free games are not gambling.  But there is a special provision that allows sites to offer points or credits to players only if these are redeemable only for more games.  Operators of free games, where players can win valuable prizes, will have to stop giving points for wins that can be redeemed for cash.  Free bingo, on the other hand, can still give small cash prizes paid out of the advertising budget.

            Fantasy leagues are legal, but subject to detailed restrictions.  A fantasy team cannot be “based on the current membership of an actual team.”  What they actually mean is a fantasy team cannot be composed merely of the players of a real team.  There is no limit on the cost of entering, but prizes must be announced in advance, and not based on the fees paid by participants.  Statistics must be derived from more than one play, more than one player, and more than one real-world event.

            Being in the “business of betting or wagering” still does not include mere players.  It also expressly does not include financial institutions involved in money transfers.

            “Designated payment system” is a new term.  It could have been labeled simply “target,” as in “you are the target of a criminal investigation.”  It covers any system used by anyone involved in money transfers, that the federal government determines could be used by illegal gambling.  The procedure will be that the Secretary of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Attorney General will meet and create regulations and orders targeting certain money transfer systems.

            “Financial transaction provider” is a very broad definition covering everyone who participates in transferring money for illegal Internet gambling.  This expressly includes an “operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated,” and international payment networks.  This covers third party providers, like Neteller. 

            “Interactive computer service” includes Internet service providers.

            “Restricted transaction” means any transmittal of money involved with unlawful Internet gambling.

            “Unlawful Internet gambling” is defined as betting, receiving or transmitting a bet that is illegal under federal, state or tribal law.  The Act says to ignore the intermediary computers and look to the place where the bet is made or received. 

            This does not completely solve the problem of Internet poker, or even Internet casinos.  The Act does not expand the reach of the Wire Act, the main federal statute the DOJ uses against Internet gambling.  Although the DOJ has taken the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling, courts have ruled that it is limited to bets on sports events and races.  State anti-gambling statutes have similar weaknesses, including the presumption that they do not apply if part of the activity takes place overseas.  This new statute requires that the Internet gambling be “unlawful.”  But it would often be difficult to find a federal, state or tribal law that clearly made a specific Internet bet illegal.

            Nevada and other states are expressly permitted to authorize 100% intrastate gambling systems.  Congress required that state law and regulations include blocking access to minors and persons outside the state.

            Tribes were given the same rights, with the same restrictions.  Two tribes can set up an Internet gaming system, if it is authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.  This means that tribes can operate bingo games linking bingo halls on reservations.  They can also link progressive slot machines, if their tribal-state compacts allow.  But they cannot operate Internet lotteries and other games open to the general public.

            It is interesting that Congress decreed that states can decide for themselves if they want to have at-home betting on horseracing, but not on dogracing.  Congress also decreed that tribes can operate games that link reservations, even across state lines, but not the states themselves: state lotteries are not exempt.

            Congress had a little problem with the term “financial institution.”  To force casinos to report large cash transaction, federal law was changed to define “financial institution” as including large gambling businesses.  Congress had to undo that definition, so that in this Act casinos go back to being casinos.  Since no other federal laws were changed, casinos will still have to file Financial Transaction Reports and the other forms.

            The other definitions are standard or are described above.

§5363  “No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept” any money transfers in any way from a person participating in unlawful Internet gambling.  This includes credit cards, electronic fund transfers, and even paper checks.  But it is limited to Internet gambling businesses, not mere players.  It also would not cover payment processors, except under a theory of aiding and abetting.

§5364  Federal regulators have 270 days from the date this bill is signed into law to come up with regulations to identify and block money transactions to gambling sites.  At this writing, President Bush had not yet signed this bill, but he will.  So the regs will go into effect by the beginning of July 2007.

            The regs will require everyone connected with a “designated payment system” to i.d. and block all restricted transactions.  So all payment processors are suppose to have systems in place to prevent money from going to operators of illegal Internet gambling.  The first step will undoubtedly be to take the credit card merchant code 7995 and expand it to all money transfers.  Visa created the 7995 classification in 2001 to avoid having its credit cards used for online gambling.  The federal government will order banks and all others involved with electronic money transfers to cease sending funds to any Internet operator who has a 7995 credit card merchant code.  Any financial institution that follows the regs cannot be sued, even if it wrongfully blocks a legitimate transaction.

            The Act allows the federal regulators to exempt transactions where it would be impractical to require identifying and blocking.  This obviously applies to paper checks.  Banks have no way now of reading who the payee is on paper checks and cannot be expected to go into that business.  Banks tried to defeat this bill, not because they cared about patrons’ privacy, but because they knew that it would cost them billions of dollars to set up systems to read paper checks.

            The great unknown is how far into the Internet commerce stream federal regulators are willing to go.  The Act requires institutions like the Bank of America and Neteller to i.d. and block transactions to unlawful gambling sites, whatever they are.  But, while the Bank of America will comply, Neteller might not, because it is not subject to U.S. regulations.  Will federal regulators then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to Neteller?  And would they then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to an overseas bank, which forwards the money to Neteller?

            For financial institutions within the U.S, the Act provides that exclusive regulatory enforcement rests with their federal regulators, like the Federal Reserve Board.  The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to enforce regulations on everyone else.  It is extremely doubtful whether the F.T.C. will ever try to do anything about the Netellers of the world, who are beyond regular U.S. regulatory control.

§5365  Since there is no way to regulate overseas payment processors, the Act allows the U.S. and state attorneys general to bring civil actions in federal court.  The courts have the power to issue temporary restraining orders, preliminary and permanent injunctions, to prevent restricted transactions.  The only problem with this enormous power is that it is, again, practically useless against payment processors who are entirely overseas. 

            It is difficult to serve a company with the papers necessary to start a lawsuit, a summons and complaint or petition, if the company has no offices, or officers, in the U.S.  Even if the papers for such a lawsuit can be served, there is normally no requirement that foreign countries enforce these types of orders.  Other countries are particularly reluctant to enforce a T.R.O., which does not even require that the defendant be present.  Preliminary injunctions are also often ignored, because they are issued without a full trial and can be modified at anytime by the trial judge.  Neteller operates out of the Isle of Man.  I do not know of any treaty or other law which would require the Isle of Man to enforce even a permanent injunction against one of its licensed operators.

            The Act provides for limited civil remedies against “interactive computer services.”  An Internet service provider can be ordered to remove sites and block hyperlinks to sites that are transmitting money to unlawful gambling sites.  ISPs are under no obligation to monitor whether its patrons are sending funds to payment processors or even directly to gambling sites.  But once it receives notice from an U.S. Attorney or state Attorney General, the ISP can be forced to appear at a hearing to be ordered to sever its links.

            But the statute has an interesting requirement:  The site must “reside on a computer server that such service controls or operates.”  This would limit the reach of this statute to payment processors, affiliates and search engines that are housed on that particular ISP.  The same problem of going after foreign operators and payment processors affects this section.  Foreign ISPs are difficult to serve and not necessarily subject to federal court injunctions.

            The greatest danger here would seem to be with affiliates.  Any American operator can be easily grabbed.  This includes sites that don’t directly take bets, but do refer visitors to gaming sites.  If the affiliate is paid for those referrals by receiving a share of the money wagered or lost, it would not be difficult to charge the affiliate with violating this law, under the theory of aiding and abetting.  Being a knowing accomplice and sharing in the proceeds of a crime make the aider and abettor guilty of the crime itself.  The federal government could also charge the affiliate with conspiracy to violate this new Act.

            The other danger lies with search engines.  Although California-based Google does not take paid ads, punching in “sports bet” brings ups many links to real-money sites.  This new Act expressly allows a federal court to order the removal of “a hypertext link to an online site” that is violating the prohibition on money transfers.  But what prosecutor would want to be ridiculed internationally for trying to prevent Google from showing links?

            The Act gives ISPs a little more security by declaring that they cannot be convicted of violating the Wire Act, unless, of course, the ISP is operating its own illegal gambling site.

            This section of the Act ends with a limitation, that, frankly, makes no sense.  It says that, after all the talk of getting court orders to prevent restricted transactions, “no provision of this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing” anyone “to institute proceedings to prevent or restrain a restricted transaction against any financial transaction provider, to the extent that the person is acting as a financial transaction provider.”  This could be a typo, since the bill was rushed through without an opportunity to even be read.  Or perhaps it means that banks can be ordered to not transfer money to gambling sites, but only if they know about it.  It is indecipherable.

§5366  Criminal penalties: Up to five years in prison, and a fine.  And barred from being involved in gambling.

§5367  The Act naturally makes ISPs and financial institutions liable if they actually operate illegal gambling sites themselves.

            Lastly, the Act requests, but does not require, the executive branch to try and get other countries to help enforce this new law and “encourage cooperation by foreign governments” in identifying whether Internet gambling is being used for crime.  The Secretary of the Treasury is told to issue a report to Congress each year “on any deliberations between the United States and other countries on issues relating to Internet gambling.”  That report will go unread.                                                                       

© Copyright 2006.  Professor I Nelson Rose, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law.  His latest books, Gaming Law: Cases and Materials and Internet Gaming Law, are available through his website, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com

http://gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/2006_act.htm

The Indianapolis Colts remain the favorite to win the 2007 Super Bowl at 5 to 1 odds followed closely by the New England Patriots at 6 to 1 odds.

Meanwhile, the Cincinnati Bengals have leapfrogged out of double digit numbers with odds of winning the 2007 Super Bowl set at 8 to 1.

Carolina Panthers go in the opposite direction with odds of 16 to 1 from single digits previously as do the Dallas Cowboys with odds now set at 14 to 1. How about those Baltimore Ravens?  You can still get this team at double digit odds to win the 2007 Super Bowl.  VIP.com has the Ravens at 15 to 1 odds.

Chicago is another hot team you might want to jump on now with odds at 10 to 1 to win the 2007 Super Bowl.  You can bet $100 to win $1000 if the Bears go all the way.

The Miami Dolphins were now listed with odds of 50 to 1 to become Super Bowl champions in 2007.  With a 0-2 start (including a near shut out at home vs. the Buffalo Bills), the Dolphins were previously listed among the top 10 teams with the best odds of winning. 

Seattle Seahawks odds were at 13 to 2.  San Diego Chargers had odds of 12 to 1.  Minnesota had odds of 25 to 1 after an impressive 2-0 start verses two solid teams.  New Orleans with its 2-0 start on the road had 75 to 1 odds of winning the 2007 Super Bowl.  Atlanta had odds of 25 to 1.  Buffalo was looking good early on with odds of 75 to 1 of winning the 2007 Super Bowl. 

Following Monday Night’s game, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Jacksonville Jaguars odds to win the 2007 Super Bowl were not updated.  Jacksonville’s odds were expected to still have great value.

http://www.gambling911.com/Odds-to-win-the-2007-Super-Bowl-091906.html