Gambling Addict – Blame Genetics; Adelson Catches Heat; ‘Bad Actor’ Clause Unconstitutional; USSC Declines Jersey Bid

 

 

gambling addict14
Gambling Addiction: It’s All About Bad Genetics
A study conducted by the National University of Singapore has found that genetics play a role in determining whether a person is willing to take strategic risk. And while individuals with these genes are likely to exhibit a higher degree of belief learning and, as such, anticipate the actions of others, such genes can also result in increased reinforcement learning.

And these genes can also regulate the way dopamine – a chemical released in the brain that signals pleasure and motivates people to seek rewards.

Enter gambling addiction.

“The study makes an impact on business decision-making. A chief executive officer, for example, has a built-in, hard-wired disposition and is more likely to make strategic decisions if he is conscious of such hard-wired influences,” said NUS economics professor Chew Soo Hong, one of the researchers on the team.

Beyond business, the study also has implications for addictions, such as gambling, mental illness and education.

“By studying the links between decision-making and genes, we are concurrently studying mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, as dopamine is one of the chemical defects causing it. Additionally, those with addictive behaviour engage in bad strategic planning, even sacrificing everything to feed their addictions — the study shows that this could be related to deficits in dopamine,” said NUS psychology professor Richard Ebstein, another member of the team.

“We also gain insight into why people are better at belief or reinforcement learning, which means we could now encourage strategic thinking or belief learning, from an early age, instead of learning by rote,” he added.

– Jagajeet Chiba, Gambling911.com
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

sheldon adelson 14
Adelson Under Fire: Underage Gamblers, $1 Mil Contribution to PA Politicians
Gambling911.com’s own Thomas Somach is on the case and tells us that in Pennsylvania, casino magnate and GOP mega donor Sheldon Adelson is under fire for questionable political donations as well as another fine being levied against his property for allowing underage gamblers….total fines $305,000!!!!

The Bethlehem Sands Casino was fined $85,000 for allegedly permitting underage gamblers. This is a bit of an irony since Chairman Adelson has lodged a campaign against the online gambling sector claiming it fosters gambling by minors.

But it turns out that $85,000 is just the tip of the iceberg.

From the Allentown Morning Call:

During a gaming board hearing in Harrisburg, Sands officials, including new President Mark Juliano, agreed the casino will pay a fine of $85,000 for six incidents in which underage people got past security guards and gambled before being flagged by other casino employees who noticed their identifications were altered.

It brings Sands’ total fines to $305,000.

The violations included a June 3 incident in which a 17-year-old girl used an altered passport to get past security before being caught by a table games supervisor after gambling for 90 minutes; an Aug. 18 incident in which a 20-year-old man gambled for 96 minutes before being flagged by a table games supervisor; and a Sept. 20 incident when a 20-year-old woman used her sister’s passport to gamble for nearly two hours before being stopped by a dealer.

Then there is this, also from the Morning Call:

A month after state lawmakers decided to study legalizing online gambling, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire owner of the Bethlehem Sands casino and an ardent foe of online gambling, gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

Adelson is an ardent supporter of online gambling prohibition. It wasn’t any small contribution either but rather $1 million transferred into the political coffers that very day.

Gambling911.com’s own Thomas Somach is on the case and will be monitoring this story closely as further developments occur.

– Chris Costigan, Gambling911.com Publisher

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

keanu reeves
Law Scholar: ‘Bad Actor’ Clause For Online Poker Legislation Would Be Unconstitutional

According To Lobbyist For PokerStars, The Online Firm Can’t Be Excluded

by Brian Pempus
www.cardplayer.com
Lawrence Tribe, a law scholar at Harvard, says that so-called “bad actor” clauses that aim to prevent a site like PokerStars from entering a regulated online poker market in the Unite States “would not survive federal constitutional attack.”

Essentially, Tribe has argued, in a press release issued this week to the media, that enacting such a provision would be creating a “trial by legislature.”

In 2012, PokerStars settled with the federal government without admitting to any wrongdoing in connection with the Black Friday indictment. The firm paid more than $700 million to the feds. Just last week, the firm was sold to another gaming firm for a whopping $4.9 billion. The move is said to help PokerStars’ chances of U.S. re-entry.

Yet some still believe that calls for the bad clause will persist.

Nearly all of the tribal groups in the state of California want PokerStars cut out of the equation for a possible online poker network catering to 38 million Californians. PokerStars tried previously to gain a foothold in Nevada and New Jersey, but both jurisdictions didn’t pan out.

“It is indisputable that [the online poker bills in California] exclude certain former Internet poker providers from California’s intrastate Internet poker market without any judicial trial,” said Mr. Tribe, who happens to work as a lobbyist for PokerStars.

Tribe added that an “arbitrary cutoff date” used to prevent PokerStars from entering the Golden State market would also be unconstitutional.

In addition to California, the state of Pennsylvania is looking at legalizing online poker. Talks there also include a bad actor clause that could exclude PokerStars from the market.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

declined
United States Supreme Court Doesn’t Take Up New Jersey Sports Betting Case

Though, Garden State Will Continue Fight To Get Sports Books

by Brian Pempus
www.cardplayer.com
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to touch the New Jersey sports betting case.

The highest court in the land decided to let stand a lower court’s ruling that the state’s law legalizing sports betting was not OK. The lower court determined that the New Jersey law violated a federal statute that limits sports betting in the U.S.

Only four states—Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon—are allowed to have sports betting. Though, Nevada is the only with one full-fledged gambling on sports.

Basically, New Jersey was trying to overturn the the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). That law allowed the aforementioned states to be grandfathered in.

Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill in 2012 to authorize sports betting, a move which prompted a lawsuit from the leagues. People with the leagues said that legalization of such gambling could hurt the integrity of the games, while Christie has argued that legalization would help control and thwart the sports betting black market—not to mention help Atlantic City.

Some said that the issue was a matter of states’ rights.

According to Philly.com, a New Jersey lawmaker said the state would continue the fight, though it’s unclear what options New Jersey has after the lack of a Supreme Court ruling.

“The economic impact that sports wagering can have on New Jersey is far too important to simply shrug our shoulders and move on,” New Jersey State Senate President Steve Sweeney said in a statement. “We will be working with our legal team and advocates to determine the best course of action moving forward. New Jersey has been held hostage by this unfair law and the national sports associations long enough. It’s time to bring sports wagering to New Jersey.”

 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.