Saw this on the Yahoo finance page.
Attached Files
-
-
Kind of ironic that this ad was on a page where stock traders go for information to help them wager on the future price direction of a security. Gotta love the laws of the land of the "free." LOL!Comment -
WTF!!! I need the link!!Comment -
exactlyOriginally posted by buztahComment -
I was a little shocked at the nature of the ad, to threaten the actual gambler is a little odd. What are they going to do, lock us up? More likely would be an IRS audit.Comment -
I was checking a Yahoo message board for a stock I follow and it was at the top of the page.Comment -
They seem to be a private charitable organization, so I guess that is not a threat, they are just letting us know. Wow, what awesome legal advice. The funny thing is that you go to their web page, and the "About NCPG" page says:Originally posted by JBC77
"From the outset the Council established two principles that remain in effect today: that the organization would be the advocate for problem gamblers and their families, and that it would remain take no position for or against legalized gambling. "
I don't know what "remain take" is but it sure seems like they are against gambling.Comment -
The link! The link!!Comment -
So I e-mailed the NCPG. They say that the ad isn't actually theirs, it's a DOJ ad put up there as part of a settlement agreement with Yahoo and MSN. Though they say they are pleased their helpline & website address were included as part of it.Comment -
We haven't had a real crackdown in a while. Any Fed with half a brain can figure out whats going on, especially if they hang out here for a while. I guess we just have to cross our fingers and hope they have bigger fish to fry. Would really suck if SBR went down on racketeering charges for funneling gamblers into books for a cut. The IRS audits they would perform on us would be a nightmare if they could get thier hands on the withdrawal records.
I don't consider Barney "Gay A$$" Frank an advocate. Until a gaming company steps up with millions for Washington lobbyists they will continue to attack us, just a matter of time.Comment -
I am guessing that SBR was smart enough to divide their operations between their Costa Rica and Texas offices such that their ad-based content won't be subject to liability. I don't know though.Originally posted by JBC77
And I doubt the IRS really cares about a bunch of people who lose money gambling. Yeah, there are a few winners here, but how many of them don't pay their taxes? Doubt it would be worth their while to figure that out.Comment -
You'd be surprised sinister. A dark horse entity like the IRS, in my opinion would love to make an example of a bunch of guys betting sports and not claiming earnings. Just imagine for a second all the taxes that people have not been reported on winnings over the last decade of online gambling, especially the big guys. Add interest and penalties and your talking uncle sam would have a deep 7 figure number to collect. Most of us have also probably violated some sort of wire act by transfering money offshore via ** or MB.
The question to ask is this: Why haven't the big name land based casinos thrown 100 million into Washington to get this legalized. You figure they stand to make billions a year with online gaming and all they need to do is buy some politicians. Why hasn't that happened? They DOJ continues to treat us like we're scum and all the while you can have all the lotto tickets peoples wellfare checks can afford and every citizen in the U.S is probably within an hours drive of a casino....and I can't bet a game in my underpants without being called a criminal? They need to fill the right pockets to get this going.Comment -
I guess I just have a hard time believing that the IRS is really missing out on anything. I think most people who win a lot of money do declare it to the IRS. Further, if I am wrong, and they are missing some revenue, I don't know if the IRS would actually believe that they are. There seems to be skepticism among the general public and the law that it is possible to make money gambling without being a bookie. Read the definition of "professional gambler" in various states gambling statutes... they often specifically limit the definition to bookmaking (our own state of CT for instance). Another one that comes to mind is the Canadian tax case, the guy won millions playing the provincial sports lotteries (Proline, etc), where in the written decision the judge seemed shocked that it was even possible to win money doing what he was doing. Another example is that Massachusetts law, for state income tax purposes, doesn't even let you deduct gambling losses. They seem to be implicitly saying that they don't give a crap about gambling income unless it's on a W2-G, and in that case, we don't want you gathering up all your neighbours' losing lottery tickets and horse racing tickets for the year to deduct.Originally posted by JBC77
And, yeah, of course we are all violating the Wire Act by gamling online, but again, this has only ever been used to prosecute bookies.
The big (Nevada) land-based casinos do (openly) want online gaming legalized, the problem is the other states don't. Kentucky, for example, is aggressively against it.. they don't want online gaming because they are hurting for cash and they think it would hurt their horse racing and planned future expansion of B&M casinos. State governments are dependent on revenue from these casinos, they can't have "MGM online" dominating the industry.
Anyway, just the way I see it.Comment -
damn...Originally posted by Sinister Cat
the Dept Of Justice made that threat?
'subject' to arrest??
I guess the whole game is to find a reason to lock someone up
when are we NOT 'subject' to arrest??
Comment -
The fact that the DoJ would make a settlement agreement with MSN and Yahoo for its online gambling ads, where as part of the settlement they agree to run black and red ads threatening people with arrest, is absolutely laughable to me. This is justice? Do these ads make up for the online gaming ads? Is that the idea? Balance and order are now restored? What a ****ing joke. I guess the bright side is that this was probably under the old administration and we can always hope that we are in a new world now where the government isn't so authoritarian. I suppose we shall see.Comment -
Here's a story about the settlement, it was December '07:
Comment -
The people that make real money doing this DO pay taxes on winnings.Comment -
Good point, but that even isn't the most ironical aspect:Originally posted by buztah
Originally posted by pags11Originally posted by BuddyBearOriginally posted by curiousComment -
That's one stellar collection of sportsbooksOriginally posted by tacomaxComment -
That make the irony even more ironical. Unreal.Originally posted by duritoOriginally posted by pags11Originally posted by BuddyBearOriginally posted by curiousComment -
Originally posted by tacomax
that is awesome.
Comment -
ESPN has similar pages; not working though:
I listen to Bill Simmons's podcast on ESPN sometimes. He's always talking about the correlated parlays he's making online, which make me think: what kind of shit books does this guy play at?Comment -
simmons plays at sportsbook.com
he is the worst gambler in the world, i love itComment -
That's true. It's good that he's so popular. He has no concept of the idea that sporting events can have a range of outcomes.. The best was recently when he slammed Cousin Sal's pick, No on "Will Gary Russell score a TD -300" because it lost-- probably the only clearly positive ev pick ever given on the show.Comment
