Never thought I would see the day.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Are online gambling losses legally enforceable? I don't think they were in the past but may be now.

AIUI, gambling losses aren't enforceable in law no matter how they're arrived at.

I think the way the credit card companies get around the issue is by treating payments to online gambling firms as cash advances.

julieq

No, gambling losses are recoverable now, since the gambling act was last updated, 2004 I think. Even before that they were effectively recoverable, but since this only affects credit betting (where there is no deposit) anyway it was a small part of the gambling market overall.

It is possible to make a good living gambling, plenty of people do it. Dave Nevison is a good example, it requires a lot of expertise and a fair sized bank. It's a very interesting subject for anyone interested in risk and risk management. This is on fixed odds betting, it's very hard to make money on the Tote or TAB.

kennyboy66_2

julieq wrote: »

. This is on fixed odds betting, it's very hard to make money on the Tote or TAB.

The most sucessful punter ever (in horse racing) bet almost exclusivly on the Hong Kong Tote.

Alan Woods - died last year.

Mr_Matey

Generali wrote: »

It is amazing.

NSW for example gets a significant proportion of its tax from gambling taxes (mostly the pokies - a thing much like a fruit machine). IIRC, the last auction of pokie machine licenses ended up with the average cost for a pokie license being upwards of £100,000! The average Sydney club probably has 30 poker machines. The average Leagues club or RSL (both sorts of social/working mens clubs, the latter for Retired Service Men) more like 100.

To bring the conversation back to your OP, takings from pokies are seriously down as Aussie households look to pay down debt and also as a result of the smoking ban (although what constitutes 'outdoors' is pretty losely defined over here).

It's not amazing, it's horrible. About 15-20 (I think) years ago they started allowing pubs to have poker machines. Also RSL clubs, which are where people (mostly retirees) go to have a cheap meal, play some lawn bowls and socialise.

Now nearly all pubs have a section of poker machines, and RSLs are plagued by them. You go in and see pensioners sitting at them all day throwing their money away. Live music isn't an attractive option for many pubs compared to poker machines.

Because there's such a government vested interest (tax revenue) it's hard to get rid of them, and pubs complain at things like the smoking ban, because it reduces pokie revenue. Smoking + playing pokies compliment each other well in their addictive nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXywGjDqcAw

-- edit --
Interestingly, a lot of people travel to Australia to holiday and gamble, as there is no tax on winnings (unlike, say Macau).

boyse7en

I never have seen the appeal in Gambling - I don't even like chucking a pound in the bucket for the Grand National Office sweepstake. I've not got a moral issue with it, but can't see the appeal of handing hard-earned cash over to some when you know the odds are in their favour.
On holiday in Las Vegas I loved wandering the casinos and watching, but had no desire to join in, and must be one of the few to have visited the town and not bet a single cent.

kennyboy66_2

boyse7en wrote: »

I never have seen the appeal in Gambling - I don't even like chucking a pound in the bucket for the Grand National Office sweepstake. I've not got a moral issue with it, but can't see the appeal of handing hard-earned cash over to some when you know the odds are in their favour.
On holiday in Las Vegas I loved wandering the casinos and watching, but had no desire to join in, and must be one of the few to have visited the town and not bet a single cent.

Surely in an office sweepstake the odds are neither in your favour or against you.

boyse7en

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Surely in an office sweepstake the odds are neither in your favour or against you.

True, but I still feel I'm just throwing away a pound

Thrugelmir

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Surely in an office sweepstake the odds are neither in your favour or against you.

Surely against you ?

kennyboy66_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Surely against you ?

They are against you in the sense that you have say a 1 in 10 chance of winning.
But at the outset the odds are perfectly fair in that there is no bookmaker of government taking a slice.

If you had 100,000 goes on an office sweepstake, you would get pretty much your stake back (plus or minus 1.5% for random distrubution).

They same can't be said for most other gambling, although there is always a tiny minority who can perhaps find an edge.

julieq

kennyboy66 wrote: »

The most sucessful punter ever (in horse racing) bet almost exclusivly on the Hong Kong Tote.

Alan Woods - died last year.

The point about the Tote is that it's a negative sum return, winnings are divided by winners less a percentage kept back for the tote. To win you have to back unfancied horses and hope no-one else backs them so your effective dividend is higher than it would be if backed at fixed true odds. Otherwise the maths kills you. I think there's no legal alternative in Hong Kong to the HKJC, so the game there as I understand it is to build an elaborate form models to identify likely long shots when there's a well fancied favourite and sneak bets on around the town.