Off Shore Gaming Association

The annual College Bowl season is here and OSGA has got you covered. Two of our annual college football offerings, the BCS Bowl Contest and the College Bowl Report, are now available.

The 2009-2010 OSGA College Bowl Report is a must-have for anyone interested in the college bowl season. The annual report features the opening LVSC line, updated odds from two sportsbooks and the date, time and network that will air each bowl game. In addition, the report features comments from pro handicapper Marc Lawrence, hand picked from the Playbook 2009-2010 Bowl Stat report. This report is a great tool for both fans and bettors of College Bowl games. You can view the report here, or download a printable PDF version of the report here.

This year the annual BCS Bowl Contest from OSGA is bigger and better than ever. In its seventh year, the Pick’em Contest now includes 32 bowl games and has a prize pool of over $500. This contest is Against the Spread. Players simply pick the winners of each game (ATS) and then the correct score of the BCS Championship game as a tie-breaker. Points are awarded for each win and each of the BCS games are worth extra points, so everyone has a chance right up until the National Championship game between Alabama and Texas.

There is NO FEE to enter the OSGA 2009 College Bowl Pick’em. The GRAND PRIZE of $250 is for OSGA Members, while non-members will get $150. The Runner-Up gets $100 - $50 for Non-Members. Places 3 through 5 also get prizes - 3rd Place gets a $50 Free Bet; 4th Place will receive $25 and fifth place will get a $25 Free Bet

This contest takes just a few minutes to enter and there is No Entry Fee. Check it out at http://www.osga.com/2010-Bowl-Contest.html. The deadline for entries is 8PM on Sunday December 20. GOOD LUCK!

For all of your College Bowl game needs (except for beer and snacks) head to OSGA.com. There are several sportsbook contests and college football bonuses listed in addition to the OSGA College Bowl Pick’em. You will also find the latest gaming news and membership information.

1 Comment »

The latest round of hearings initiated by Barney Frank regarding his continued effort to repeal the UIGEA and legalize and regulate internet gambling were certainly not at the top of any legislators ‘to do’ lists yesterday. The lightly attended and I mean lightly attended, hearing basically pitted Frank against gambling’s latest arch enemy, Representative Spencer Bachus from Alabama. The hearing lasted about 90 minutes and towards the end Frank noted several times that they had to finish so that they could vote. I guess he looked around the empty seats and realized that there were not enough present. Frank ended the hearing by letting us all know that this debate will continue into next year. And probably the year after that and the year after that……

Frank started the proceeding and spun his usual stance on personal freedoms. “The notion that this Congress should tell millions of adult Americans that we know better than they, what they should do with their own money, on their own time, on their own computers seems to me to be a very grave error and I hope that this whole legislation is repealed.”

Bachus, on the other hand, not only hammered his usual rhetoric about children becoming gambling addicts. He fabricated the statement, “in the next 5 years we will create a generation of 10s of millions who from their youth will be addicted to Internet gambling and therefore lifelong problem gamblers”. Bachus also stated emphatically that he would “do everything I can to make sure this never happens.” He also added that online gambling is “particularly predatory and an abusive intrusion into American homes.” Wow, I guess that anyone could simply turn off the computer to stop the intrusion.

Luckily, in Frank’s rebuttal, he stated that there was no basis for the millions of addicts that Bachus claimed and added that, “I don’t think this is simply about protecting young people . . . there are some people who do not want gambling.” He added that the notion that you end the legal ability for Americans do to anything because some people will abuse it is a ‘recipe for the destruction of individual freedom.”

So, after the only two representatives who seem to really care about the issue were done (or present), the testimony started. In the interests of space and so as not to rehash the entire hearing, I will break the testimony down into three groups, those for or against the legislation and those who were simply testifying to provide information. If you would like to view the hearing in its entirety, click here.

FOR the repeal of the UIGEA AND legalization:
Mr. Samuel A. Vallandingham testifying on behalf of community bankers noted that the financial payment systems were not designed for trapping and prohibiting unlawful internet gambling transactions. Obviously, the banking community does not want this burden so it was no surprise that he and his group support H.R.2266, to repeal the UIGEA. But, apparently the small bankers of America also support H.R. 2267 because once clear legalization and regulation occur, then the banks won’t have to figure out what illegal gambling is.

Mr. Mike Brodsky, representing YouBet, the online race book based here in the U.S. came out in favor of both bills as well with a convincing argument. He referred to the current stat of Internet gambling as a ‘Wild West affair” that is “out-of-control’. But, he came out with one off the best statements of the morning. “Enacting H.R.2267 is the most effective way of achieving the stated goals of some of the bills harshest critics.” During the Q & A period after the testimony was completed he helped Mr. Frank make a point that the different branches of government see Internet gambling differently, specifically that the DOJ calls all Internet gambling illegal. Brodsky answered this question by stating that 88% of all pari-mutuel wagers placed in the U.S. are placed across state lines!

Ms. Parry Aftab runs WiredSafety, a volunteer non-profit internet protection organization. She was the most compelling speaker of the day and said that Internet gambling is a consumer protection problem. She stated that though she does not “advocate gambling anywhere . . . We need to do something because what we have right now is not enough”. “The only way to protect consumers from online gambling risks is by legalizing it. If we don’t legalize it - we can’t regulate it.”

Those who were non-committal and/or were just providing information:
Professor Malcolm K. Sparrow who ran a study, funded by the Poker Players Allliance and Harrahs, for the Wired Safety group, focused on managing risks. He noted three ‘unregulated’ jurisdictions – Antigua, which does actually regulate their operators, the Kahnawake Indians in Montreal and, of all places, Grenada, which currently has no Internet gambling operators. Though Sparrow does not show the greatest grasp on the industry, he did provide some solid insights. He stated that in the current U.S. scheme the America incurs all of the social costs while exercising no jurisdiction and offering consumers no protections. He said that he would expect that in a regulated environment most consumers would move from offshore operations to licensed ones.

Mr. Keith S. Whyte, the executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling stated that internet gambling in the U.S., Canada AND the UK is the LOWEST form of problem gambling. He also said that his group did not see any decrease in help line calls after UIGEA was enacted.

Mr. Jim Dowling, a former special agent with the IRS who now works with casinos and financial institutions came the closest to putting everyone to sleep. The only worthwhile thing that he added was that any blacklist of offshore operators would be out-of-date as soon as it was published. He wanted to keep dulling us to death but Frank cut him off before anyone started snoring

The only full opponent of these two bills was The Honorable Robert Martin, Tribal Chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in California. He wondered why Congress would want to protect foreign illegal operators - legalize offshore gaming at the expense of local jobs. He felt that Internet gambling would put the Tribe at a competitive disadvantage to Internet operators. I guess he also thought that selling Manhattan for a bunch of beads was good business, as it would be obvious to the casual observer that an Internet presence will only enhance any land-based gambling operation. Martin was reading from a prepared statement and appeared like he was looking for his foamy red nose and big floppy shoes whenever he was asked a question by the legislators.

The final phase of these hearings is always a question and answer session with the panel of witness. This is always an entertaining segment, especially with Bachus asking the questions. And, he did not stop mystifying. He spent the bulk of his ammo trying to discredit the proponents of the bill with questions like this one to the executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling. “Harrah’s is one of your main contributors, right.” A befuddled Whyte replied looking more like this :>O. He stated that Harrah’s is one of the councils sponsors and contribute $5000 annually.

However, a new player did emerge during this phases of the hearing. Peter T. King, the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security made a statement during the Q & A. His powerful words included, “All prohibitions are well intended - sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. Usually they don’t. In this case I don’t believe it is - we are losing revenue and we’re not achieving the social purpose that was intended. I strongly support this legislation.”

And so do we. This hearing was the first one out of all of them I have endured where I came away feeling positive. The scale is tipping and may be getting heavy in favor of legalization. But unfortunately, we will all have to wait until 2010 for the next round and the potential for any real change here in the U.S.

4 Comments »

Barney Frank has managed to find time amongst the financial meltdown, health care and the global war on terror to arrange for a full hearing of the House Financial Services Comittee on his two ‘gambling bills’ - H.R. 2266, Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act, and H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. This hearing most likely will not produce any great changes, but it is a good sign. A sign that perhaps Washington is realizing that they can’t stop Internet gambling, so, maybe a legal, regulatory stance would be better than the prohibitionist tact that has prevailed via our legislators in recent years.

“The government should not interfere with people’s liberty unless there is a good reason,” Frank said. “This is, I believe, the single biggest example of an intrusion into the principle that people should be free to do things on the Internet. It’s clearly the case that gambling is an activity that can be done offline but not online.”

H.R. 2266 is almost a moot point by now. On Black Friday the government delayed the implementation of the UIGEA for 6 months. Mr. Frank’s bill is looking to delay it for a year. 6 months, a year, either works in the favor of everyone involved. However, by delaying the implementation of the regulations for basically all of 2010 it would give Frank’s other bill a chance to gain some ground. H.R. 2266 has a total of 54 sponsors who hopefully will attend the hearings.

Hr. 2267 is the big one. And it has more support with 63 co-sponsors. This is the bill to actually legalize betting on the Internet here in the U.S. Well, at least for poker and potentially casino games and other forms of gambling, but not sports betting. That is hurdle that no one is willing to tackle . . . yet.

The bill states that “Internet gambling in the United States should be controlled by a strict Federal licensing and regulatory framework to protect underage and otherwise vulnerable individuals, to ensure the games are fair, to address the concerns of law enforcement, and to enforce any limitations on the activity established by the States and Indian tribes.” Opponents argue that legalized online gambling is a danger to our youth and this bill includes safeguards to prevent underage or compulsive gambling and other illegal activity, to protect consumers who gamble online. To further emphasize this point, the name of the bill, unlike former versions by Frank and Robert Wexler, now includes ‘Consumer Protection’ in its name.

The most significant thing that these hearings give the Internet gambling community, operators and U.S. players alike, is hope. Hope that someday, in our lifetime, placing a wager from the confines of you own home will be 100% legal and regulated in the States. The last time Barney Frank brought a similar anti-UIGEA bill before the Finance subcommittee there was a tie vote to move it out of committee. And in the U.S. Government, a push is a loss. A single vote in favor of what was then H.R.5767 would have accelerated this process and hope would have been alive for the past 13 months. We urge all readers to contact their Representatives. You can find your reps here. Please take action today!

Taking action is the most important thing that a concerned online player can do to support online gambling in the US. The OSGA can’t do this alone. A successful hearing on Thursday will hopefully lead to a Committee vote in support of these bills.

You can view the proceedings live starting at 10AM on December 3 via the house.gov website. View the debate directly here.

No Comments »