Spreadsheet

Steve Wynn is not used to losing.

With two 5-star hotel-casinos in Vegas and two more in Macau, he has permanent street cred among the uber-rich in the world. He pretty much gets what he wants, usually with just a knowing nod or a snap of his fingers.

But Wynn is a beaten man today, turning over his king o0n the chess board after voters in Foxboro, Mass., peed all over his plan to put a resort casino across the street from Gillette Stadium. Voters elected two anti-casino selectmen in the town election, and Wynn decided to fold up his tent.

Here in Mass., no one is really sure exactly why the plan (Wynn would lease property owned by Patriots boss Bob Kraft) never got much traction. But Foxboro is a moderately wealthy community with low (4 percent) unemployment, so the promise of jobs didn't resonate as much as it might have. Not even the possibility of $15 million in casino tax money directly to the town was enough to turn the tide.

Wynn has a long history of bullying anyone who doesn't agree with him. Reporters, blackjack dealers, union organizers, business partners ... he doesn't discriminate, and he almost always gets his way.

Not this time.

 

Roger Clemens figured it would be easier than mowing down the 7-8-9 hitters. He'd schmooze a few senators, testify in Congress that he never took steroids, and eventually stroll into the Hall of Fame with his name cleared.

Instead, he's now looking at a possible prison term after the feds accused him of lying to Congress.

Jon Kyl also lied to Congress, but since he's a sitting senator, no biggie. His punishment is a $122,000-a-year pension and a probable job as a lobbyist for corporations. Nice work if you can get it.

Clemens, meanwhile, is hardly a deep thinker, but you have to wonder what's going through his mind during his perjury trial. The Texas no-apology tough-guy has gotten everything he wants for his entire life, and now this.

The Rocket will probably skate, though. Prosecutors are inept, and all it takes is one star-struck celebrity hound on the jury to make it all go away.

The truth hurts.

The NFL is about to take one in the solar plexus.

A source close to the New Jersey gambling scene has told Covers.com that the Philadelphia Inquirer is planning a story that will sharply criticize the NFL on its hypocrisy of allowing teams to accept in-stadium casino gambling advertisements while continuing to oppose sports betting.

The story will be published, said the source, as soon as the Giants and/or Jets confirm that they will be accepting gambling-related advertisements.

The NFL has been widely hammered for years for its stance on sports betting, and it's hardly a secret that the league encourages and benefits from gambling even as it opposes gambling publicly and (occasionally) in the courts.

Guess the NFL figures that the economic benefits of cozying up to casino ad money outweigh the criticism it receives for being hypocritical about the issue.

Once again Europe has shown that it is light years ahead of the United States in regulation of Internet gambling.

Plans are in the works in England to change the way wagering is taxed, and if things work out as planned it will help bring more jobs to Great Britain.

Online gambling companies have set up shop outside GB in order to take advantage of low tax rates elsewhere. But Britain is now putting together plans that would alter the tax policy and make it worthwhile for the companies to do business in England, providing needed jobs. Basically, taxes would be paid at what is called the “point of consumption”, in other words where the bettor is, rather than the point of supply, where the operator is. So a company based offshore would still be required to pay taxes to England, even if its operations are in Malta. And if there is less tax benefit to being in Malta, why not just set up shop in London? And hire British workers.

Obviously, all this is world-class level chess compared to the checkers now being played in the United States, where states are arguing about whether they can legally  sell a lottery ticket online.

 

 

With each passing day it becomes more likely that come next January Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum will be sworn in as the president for the next four years.

None of the above figure to be supportive of online gambling that would lead to legalization of sports betting. A look at the options, from worst to best:

3. Santorum. Ugh. Is he running for president or Pope? He's on record as opposing gambling, though if the longest of long shorts is elected, Sunday night church bingo probably would be safe.

2. Romney. He can't connect with voters and he changes his mind more than he changes his underwear. The best thing you could say about him is that even though he's on record as being against online gambling, with no core principles maybe he can be turned.

1. Obama. Did he order or even know about the DoJ Black Friday/Blue Monday indictments? And did he mandate the Dec. 23 easing of regulations regarding online poker and casino games? Who knows? He's not talking.

That's all, folks.

If you're a one-issue voter, Obama's mixed-message policies appear to be better than what the Republicans have to offer. In this instance, the devil you don't know could be a lot better than the devil(s) you do.

The Las Vegas Bucks. Nice ring to it.

There are some rumblings that the Milwaukee Bucks, seemingly frozen solid in the NBA no-man's land of mediocrity, might move when owner Herb Kohl either gets tired of pumping money into the team or passes on.

The Bucks aren't even winning two games out of five these days and appear a lock for another trip to the lottery. Fans have noticed, and if anyone thinks the Bradley Center will be torn down and replaced by new facility, you probably also think that LeBron James will be called for traveling in the final two minutes of a close game.

If the Bucks do move, it creates an opening for a Las Vegas-based NBA product, long a dream of city planners. The main stumbling block is a place to play, and the city can't seem to get a shovel in the ground as a way to entice a pro team.


Another problem: Many in the city are still creeped out by the fallout from the 2007 NBA All-Star Game in Vegas, when the players' entourages descended on the casinos for a weekend and intimidated some blackjack dealers to the point that they were calling in sick.

Having an NBA team in the city has about the same odds as the Bucks actually winning a title in the next five years, but it would be more than fun.

And since money rules on the Strip, the Bucks wouldn't even have to change their nickname.

It's getting ugly at Full Tilt, where the new owners of the once-popular online poker site are pointing the fingers at TV pros as the reason mainstream players can't get their money back.

Groupe Bernard Tapie says everything would be fine if only the Mike Matusows and Phil Iveys would just pay back the money they owe the site. The players are responding by giving Tapie the figurative middle finger. Matusow claims that he owes Full Tilt's owners nothing, and says that is the exact amount they can expect to get from him.

Matusow's action's were child's play compared to recent comments from easy-going Canadian player Daniel Negreanu, who in his blog directed some zingers at Full Tilt's former owners, Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson:

"I don’t think I would have any problem with somebody who had $15,000 of their hard-earned money on your site come up to you and bash you in the nuts with a baseball bat. Seriously, I’ve got no problem with it.”

No comment from Lederer or Ferguson, who have lawyered up and basically gone into hiding since the DoJ boarded up Full Tilt's site last April 15.

Pass the popcorn.

Nevada has its ducks in a row as it moves closer to Internet gambling, but you might be able to make a few bucks if you bet on Iowa to place.

Iowa?

Iowa.

The state that gave religious zealot/family values politician Rick Santorum his only victory in the Republican primary race is working on plans to bring online casino games to flyover country. And with other areas just spinning their wheels (New Jersey) or taking a step back (Washington D.C.), Iowa is plodding along and may have a plan in place this spring.

Chances are it will start with Internet poker, where the president pro-tem of the Senate, Jeff Danielson, is a strong advocate.Danielson points out that the state is bleeding money because thousands of residents are playing outside the state.

Danielson says that gambling revenue would not be used to balance the state budget, which he says is already in pretty good shape. In fact, he even has offered to place the state's take in an account that couldn't be accessed for two or three years.

Prof. Nelson Rose, the leading authority on gambling issues relating to the law, says that Iowa relishes the idea of being first, pointing out the number of casinos in a socially conservative state.

Danielson no doubt will have his hands full, but there is optimism that his state will be among the first to the finish line, helping break a logjam and allowing us to log on without worrying about government intervention.

Are we ready for blackjack dealers dressed up like Mickey Mouse? Instead of Blazing 7s slot machines, you win if you line up Huey, Dewey and Louie after pulling the lever?

Central Florida, home to Disney World, wants a casino. At least some of the forward-thinking planners do. They’re looking hard at their neighbors to the south, who are laying the groundwork for a gigantic gambling/entertainment/shopping complex on the Miami waterfront, and thinking why not another one, in the Orlando area? Las Vegas is often called Disneyland for adults, so why not merge the two playgrounds? The cross-promotion possibilities are endless. How about a stripper pole in Cinderella’s castle?

It’s all about the money, of course, and folks in Central Florida are concerned that big-time gambling in Miami-Dade and Broward counties will lure away some of the Orlando area's 30.5 million yearly visitors. If the Miami complex is built, families can bypass Orlando and spend a few days at the Miami casino, take in a show and then jump on a Disney cruise ship docked only a few hundred feet from their hotel room. One-stop shopping.

Convention business? Take your pick – a few nights ogling partying 20-something girls on South Beach or waiting in line at Thunder Mountain Railroad? Give me a minute on that one.

Orlando’s preemptive envy is actually being played out all over the United States. Casinos are planned in one area, and almost immediately neighboring communities are concerned about money being siphoned. No one wants a casino until someone else gets one.

Just as predictable is the opposition that arises. In Massachusetts, casino opponents say that gambling will change the character of the state. In Florida, some have joined Disney is pointing out that gambling will harm the family-friendly nature of the state’s tourism industry. Same thing in the Midwest.

Disney wields a heavy political club in the Kissimmee area, and in the end politicians may find that it’s easier to cave than introduce gambling in Oando. But it’ll be fun to see things play out in Florida, which some hope will rival Las Vegas and Macau as international gambling destinations.

 

Late to embrace the online gambling phenomena, big-time Vegas casinos have come to the conclusion that betting online will be a good thing – especially for the big-time Vegas casinos. Even if some players will stay at home rather than trek to the casino, the alternative – not having a line in the water when the fish are biting – is uncomfortable for the Wynns, LV Sands and Caesars.

 

But even as the land-based casino giants finally and somewhat reluctantly embrace at least the concept of allowing people to gamble online, there is still talk that every person wagering while logged on takes away a potential customer who might book a flight to Vegas and settle in at a craps table.

 

Some gambling experts at the Global Gaming Expo in Las Vegas this week say the concern is overblown, and that online gambling and the full casino experience create tremendous cross-promotion opportunities. In addition, the legalization of online play would probably create an even larger customer base, easing the concern among casino suits that online players would peel away bricks-and-mortar customers because it’s more convenient to play at home.

 

"It's a matter of retention," said Vahe Baloulian of eGaming Partners Inc. in Los Angeles. "It's also a matter of bringing new clients in by using online gaming."

 

In many states lottery officials have warned that allowing construction of casinos would either kill or seriously cripple the scratch-ticket cash cow that helps fund local programs and in many cases is used to reduce taxes. Yet in almost every case the opposite has occurred – in Pennsylvania, for example, the state lottery has a higher take than ever even though 10 full-blown casinos have been constructed in recent years.

 

Casinos still digging out from the Great Recession are willing to try anything that will help them. If and when online gambling is legalized and regulated, they will look back and wonder what they were worried about.

 

 

 

 

Next month marks the 5-year anniversary of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which has been about as welcome in the online betting community as a rattlesnake in your sleeping bag.

It's impossible to understate the chaos that UIGEA has created, from the establishment of hundreds of offshore sites -- many of them unscrupulous -- to Tuesday's indictment of TV poker personalities Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson at Full Tilt . . . the 2006 law has played a prominent role in all of it.

But UIGEA's most obvious victim has been trust. Most bettors, forced to wager offshore, simply don't know what sites are good and what sites aren't. What sites will pay quickly and what sites sit on money. Had UIGEA never been signed into law by George Bush, the online betting landscape would be much different today. Not to say there would not be problems, but it would not be the 100-car pileup that it has become.

Politicians have mostly tiptoed around efforts to repeal UIGEA, fearful of a conservative movement that now appears on the rise in the United States. There is some momentum toward legalization and regulation, but it's impossible to gauge how strong the tide is toward repeal.

In the meantime, we can just sit, wait and wonder what other sites the U.S. Dept. of Justice is planning to close down. All thanks to a law that passed 5 years ago even though many congressmen didn't even know what they were voting for. 

Happy birthday, UIGEA.

 

Out of nowhere, Massachusetts has joined the race to become the first state in the country to offer safe, legal, regulated and taxed online poker. And  if when when it happens, it might be open to anyone -- including out-of-state players.

There is much work to be done, but the effort at least has a champion -- a Republican, no less, who is a former judge.

"We will have actual legislation to vote on," says state Rep. Daniel Winslow, who represents the district in which Sen. Scott Brown lives. "Probably by summer of 2012."

Winslow, an unlikely booster of the right of residents to gamble online, used the debate about casino expansion in Massachusetts to attach an amendment that would have legalized online poker. "We were already talking about gambling," he said in an interview with Covers.com. "Why not talk about online gambling too?"

With the effort to pass enabling legislation for the construction of three major resort-style casinos finally in the red zone, leaders in the Mass. House apparently decided that online discussion might make things harder. So Winslow was persuaded to tap the brakes, and his revised amendment -- calling for a commission that is required to develop online poker legislation by next July -- easily passed.

So Massachusetts is now in the running with Iowa, Florida, New Jersey, California and the federal government to see who will be the first, perhaps of many, to finally allow online poker.

For his part, the colorful Winslow hardly fits the profile of a pro-gambling lawmaker. But like everyone else in elected office, he sees the potential for jobs. "High-tech jobs," he says. "The state is a breeding ground for the high-tech industry, and online poker will be one way to do that."

Under Winslow's original plan, the state would have five Internet portals for poker play. In addition to jobs, the state could rake in tax money. Win-win, according to Winslow.

Nothing definite, to be sure. But at least Massachusetts is in the hunt.

 

Those of us who are bewitched, bothered and bewildered about how United States politicians can't seem to make up their mind about whether legalization of online gambloing is best handled on the state or federal level can take some solace -- Europe seems to be just as fragmented.

On the surface, the European Union seems like a perfect platform for a unified policy with regard to online gambling. The area is not that large, conferences can be arranged with only moderate travel, and for the most part there is not that much divergence in the general belief that people ought to be able to do what they want, when they want and how they want.

Uh, not quite.

EU member nations have talked about a coordinated, leveled-playing-field approach to online betting, but when push comes to shove member nations seem intent on fluffing up their own pillows. At a recent gettogether to coordinate policies regarding licensing and safety issues, reps of member nations nodded their heads when talking about a coordinated approach and then insisted on their right to set their own course regarding taxation, regulation etc.

Not a lot different than what's going on in America, where state and federal legislation can be compared to railroad tracks that never seem to meet.

 

The e-mails used to come regularly, and they were brief. Often they would say only something like:

$240 million

It was understood that the Power Ball jackpot was getting high, and it was time to pool resources, buy 25 or 30 tickets, and hopefully cash in.

So I ponied up a buck or two. The idea was that we would hit it, rent a limo for the ride to the lottery office to get photographed in front of that huge check, stop back at work to give our two-week notices, then head to the local upscale steakhouse and party the night away.

We never hit big, of course, and over my protests even small winnings were used to buy even more losing tickets. It was a story played out in thousands of offices across North America.

Eventually I grew tired and decided smaller wins at casinos were better than chasing an unattainable jackpot, so I dropped out of the office pool. Since then I have not paid much attention to lotteries. I look at them kind of like an NBA no-call – if a lot of people want to try to buck ridiculous odds for the high likelihood of allowing a truck driver from Nebraska to get rich beyond his wildest dreams and blowing it in a few years, knock yourself out. I’ll try to grind out a hundred here or there at the blackjack table, and probably have a lot more fun doing it.

But a recent story about a Texas native who had hit it big four times – for total winnings of $25 million – got my attention. Joan Ginther is her name, and she now lives in Las Vegas, which leads you to wonder how much she has left. Anyway, some folks in Texas are calling her the luckiest woman in the world (the odds are too staggering to even list), and others are saying that that God has somehow involved in the drawings.

Turns out it might be neither. The 63-year-old Ginther is actually a former Stanford University statistics professor, and people who know a lot about lotteries say that it’s likely that she has been able to use her math skills to increase her chances of winning, using an algorithm to determine at which point in each run of tickets winners are placed. People in the know also think that Ginther may be traveling back and forth to her hometown of Bishop just to buy tickets at just the right time, with perhaps knowledge of when shipments arrive at the stores where she buys the tickets.

Despite calls for an investigation, the Texas Lottery Commission says that Ginther won the money fair and square, and there are no plans to look into the matter.

So to everyone who plays the lottery – good luck. You now know where your money might be going.

 

So A-Rod’s in trouble again with baseball commissioner Bud Selig. MLB’s Barney Fife wants Rodriguez to sit down and explain just what’s going on with those high-stakes poker games we told you to avoid just a few years ago. Better have the right answers, too, or else.

Seems baseball got wind of the fact that A-Rod may have ignored Sdelig’s admonition a few years back to put the cards away, and recently was involved in games that included other rich people, expensive cigars, cocaine, lots of gorgeous women and gamblers who asked A-Rod to let a few ground balls go through his legs at opportune.

Actually, that’s not true. Baseball (Selig) is just assuming that there were sexy women and gamblers there. Makes the story better, and turns a harmless habit into an activity that is rocking baseball to its core. [As for the cocaine, shouldn’t be hard to test him.]

Selig and MLB have a curious relationship with gambling. If teams and the league can make money from it, then it’s no problem. Players? Not so much. So Lenny Dykstra can lose money in poker games several decades ago, be forced to eat number two during an apology and promise to never do it again. Yet the Yankees and other teams can enter into working relationships with casinos and bulk up their bottom lines. The wife of Detroit Tigers owner Mike Ilitch owns parts of several casinos nationwide, yet Selig seems OK with that. The Yankees themselves rake in a good penny on Mohegan Sun advertising. The list is endless.

Selig, who will go down in history as The Steroid Commissioner for turning a blind eye while half the league was juiced, dragging his feet when the issue hit the fan and making excuse after excuse for those caught up in the scandal (including, yes, A-Rod), lives in fear of A-Rod becoming The New Pete Rose.

In Selig’s defense, Bowie Kuhn was even worse. Perhaps stung by his dealings with Rose, Kuhn banished former superstars Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from the game because they took promotional jobs with casinos trying to make a few bucks. Peter Ueberroth had a short stint as commissioner after Kuhn, and during his tenure rightfully lifted the suspensions.

If Selig has proof that Rodriguez is consorting with gamblers who wager on baseball and could use info passed on by A-Rod, that’s one thing. If A-Rod was just playing poker, leave the man alone to preen in the mirror 8 to 10 hours a day.

 

Atlantic City has decided that in addition to enticing 20- and 30-somethings to come to its casinos by pushing the limits with a generous amount of g-strings and pasties, it also wants to tell vacationers that in many ways it’s also a wonderful family destination if you don’t have the scratch to make it to Disney World.

 

In addition to the beach, AC likes to point out that it now offers a family-styled luau (Harrah’s), a circus (Resorts) and a dinosaur exhibit (Showboat), among other activities for the G-rated crowd.

 

Trying to be all things to all people is a semi-desperate attempt to cast a wider net for entertainment dollars that are increasing being dropped in Pennsylvania rather than Atlantic City. If you don’t want to be titillated, says the AC suits, come anyway. We have people walking around in animal costumes.

 

Nice try, AC. But it won’t work, any more than Vegas’s effort to make the Strip family-friendly (Excalibur, Treasure Island) did. LV found out that families were coming and bringing their kids, but it was a loss leader because the parents didn’t have time to gamble. That was that.

 

Besides, kids don’t belong near casinos. They belong at Disney World.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Albert Haynesworth.

ALBERT HAYNESWORTH???!!!$$$???

ESPN (Adam Shefter) is reporting that he has been dealt to the Patriots.

Now we know what Bill Belichick was doing buried in the bowels of Gillette Stadium during the lockout. He was changing his defense.

The Patriots' stunning theft (5th-round draft choice in 2013) of Haynesworth from the Redskins must mean that New England is switching its defense from a linebacker-oriented 3-4 to a 4-3, with Vince Wilfork and Haynesworth in the middle. Haynesworth made life miserable for Mike Shanahan when he refused to adapt to Washington's 3-4, and there is no other explanation for the trade to New England unless the Pats are now going to the 4-3 as their basic package.

Something had to be done. The linebacking corps, already mediocre, was weakened earlier this week when the only pass-rusher of note, Tully Banta-Cain, was released. With Haynesworth in a suddenly-powerful D-line, linebackers play a lesser role, and Jerrod Mayo, Brandon Spikes, Rob Ninkovich and Jermaine Cunningham now look more than serviceable.

Depending, of course, on whether Haynesworth behaves like a human being and produces anywhere near the way Randy Moss did when he fell in line in his first year in Foxboro. If he does the 11.5 win total on the Pats could be covered by Game 13 or 14.

Things just got a lot more interesting in the AFC East.

Your move, Jets.

Do taxes bug you?

I mean, do you have a problem with the concept of taxes?

Not me.

In fact, I think we get a pretty good deal in the States. Property taxes got a cop at my house within minutes of a break-in several years ago, and the fire dept. and EMTs are ready in case something bad happens. The town plows my road in the winter, then in the spring repairs damage that the plows cause. When my kids were young, each of them got 12 years of good education.

State taxes allow me to take the dog on walks in state parks at no charge. Federal taxes will someday pay for my heath care, and provides for the common defense, even if we invade a few too many countries.

Bottom line: I'm OK with paying taxes, even if it pisses off a lot of my fellow citizens in the lower 48.

But I have problem with some taxes that will probably soon be imposed. In England.

Seems the Brits are a little short on funds, and rather than cut off the royals and make them go out and get jobs like the rest of us, they are hell bent on taking the easy way out and taxing online books.

Online gambling companies such as Ladbrokes and William Hill based in Great Britain have been able to avoid the heavy British tax burden that other companies face by locating their software elsewhere, such as Gibraltar, where taxes are as low as one percent of profits. Nice deal all around, and the lawmakers in England have been OK with it.

But now tax-thirsty authorities want to force those companies to obtain a British-specific license (and fork over 15 percent of their profits), a move that will no doubt cost thousands of jobs and cut out the legs from under what has been one of the country's most successful businesses.

Unlike in the States, the online gambling industry in Europe is not broke, and fixing it will probably only make matters worse and drive a lot of decent companies out of business.

 

Do taxes bug you?

I mean, do you have a problem with the concept of taxes?

Not me.

In fact, I think we get a pretty good deal in the States. Property taxes got a cop at my house within minutes of a break-in several years ago, and the fire dept. and EMTs are ready in case something bad happens. The town plows my road in the winter, then in the spring repairs damage that the plows cause. When my kids were young, each of them got 12 years of good education.

State taxes allow me to take the dog on walks in state parks at no charge. Federal taxes will someday pay for my heath care, and provides for the common defense, even if we invade a few too many countries.

Bottom line: I'm OK with paying taxes, even if it pisses off a lot of my fellow citizens in the lower 48.

But I have problem with some taxes that will probably soon be imposed. In England.

Seems the Brits are a little short on funds, and rather than cut off the royals and make them go out and get jobs like the rest of us, they are hell bent on taking the easy way out and taxing online books.

Online gambling companies such as Ladbrokes and William Hill based in Great Britain have been able to avoid the heavy British tax burden that other companies face by locating their software elsewhere, such as Gibraltar, where taxes are as low as one percent of profits. Nice deal all around, and the lawmakers in England have been OK with it.

But now tax-thirsty authorities want to force those companies to obtain a British-specific license (and fork over 15 percent of their profits), a move that will no doubt cost thousands of jobs and cut out the legs from under what has been one of the country's most successful businesses.

Unlike in the States, the online gambling industry in Europe is not broke, and fixing it will probably only make matters worse and drive a lot of decent companies out of business.