Problem Gambling in Estonia and the Relationship with Personal Risk
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Regulating the National Lottery
Section 5 Regulating the National Lottery The Third National Lottery Licence May 2021 The Third Licence Conditions 1. Grant of Licence 2. Definitions and Interpretation 3. Commencement 4. Handover from the Previous Licence 5. Service requirement 6. Prohibition of activities not related to the National Lottery 7. Consumer Protection 8. Retailer commission and retailer management 9. Independent section 6 licence applicants 10. Information and reporting 11. Payments to the Secretary of State 11A. Promotion of the National Lottery 12. Shareholders, other Connected parties and debt providers 13. Vetting 14. Control environment 15. Contractors 16. Employees 17. Performance monitoring 18. Handover on expiry or revocation of the Licence 19. Security for Players’ funds 20. Confidentiality and freedom of information 21. Intellectual Property 22. Data Protection 23. Licence extensions 24. No waiver 25. Severability 26. Governing Law and jurisdiction 27. Third Party rights 28. Notices 29. Survival Schedules Schedule 1 Definitions Schedule 2 Part 1 Games and facilities to be available in the first five weeks of the Licence Schedule 2 Part 2 Financial penalties Schedule 2 Part 3 Schedule 3 Handover from the Previous Licensee Schedule 4 Part 1 Ancillary activities that the Commission has consented to Schedule 4 Part 2 Further Conditions relating to Ancillary Activities Schedule 5 The Ancillary Activity Payment Schedule 6 Schedule 7 Codes of practice and strategies Schedule 8 Primary and Secondary Contributions Part 1 Definitions and interpretation Schedule -
Public Gaming International Magazine May/June 2017
The Damage to Brand efore exploring the ways and means The key part of the sentence is “where the Lottery Bto displace illegal operators from the consumer is located” as opposed to where marketplace, we should begin by clari- the operator is located. The members of the Caused fying what it means to be an illegal illegal gaming community are continually operator, define the difference between legal exploiting new developments in technol- and illegal lottery. That definition varies ogy and legal loopholes to claim that a legal by Lottoland depending on the continent, the country, or license in one jurisdiction entitles them to even within the jurisdiction you are taking as operate in all without regard to the legal- and Illegal a reference. Let’s refer to the definition artic- ity in the jurisdiction where the consumer ulated by the Council of Europe Convention resides. This posture enables them to essen- “Secondary” on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. tially hijack the revenues of legally licensed It addresses the issue of match-fixing in operators all around the world, depriving the Lotteries: sports, but it is a definition that can apply good causes supported by licensed operators to all forms of games-of-chance. It is the and channeling those profits over to private first time that an international institution shareholders. The evidence of this is already A Call to has endeavored to clarify the boundaries that having a big impact in Europe and Australia. separate legal from illegal gambling. Article Action 35A of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions The business model of these “secondary establishes that any sports betting activ- lotteries” works like this: First, they tech- ity whose type or operator is not allowed nically are not operating a lottery. -
September | 2020
September | 2020 The coronavirus pandemic has changed the way we use the internet. Whether it’s remote work, online shopping, online learning or remote health care, new methods and changes in consumer behaviors will likely continue after the virus has run its course. Internet gambling is another area that may soon see a COVID-19 bump. Most states do not allow internet gambling. Of the 44 states with lotteries, only 11 allow some form of internet play, either permitting lottery tickets to be sold over the internet or offering online lottery subscriptions. Of the 25 states with commercial casino gambling, internet gambling (that is, traditional casino games played electronically over the internet, usually distinct from online sports betting) is only available in Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Michigan and West Virginia have recently legalized iGaming but are not yet offering it. While there are only a handful of states that have considered iGaming or iLottery measures during coronavirus-dominated 2020 sessions, there are signs that a shift may be underway. One of the primary reasons that legal gambling has been slow to embrace the internet despite a sizable online gambling black market, is a fear that online gambling would rob brick-and-mortar casinos and surrounding establishments of visitors and revenue. This fear no longer appears to be widespread across the casino industry, and many stakeholders now point to evidence that internet gambling will actually help casinos. Those who are more inclined to bet online tend to be younger and are not necessarily active casinogoers; iGaming may offer an opportunity to appeal to a broader market. -
Sports Betting Update: a Report on the Status of Play
Sports Betting Update: A Report on the Status of Play Released June 14, 2021 MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION Crystal Howard, Program Manager POST-PASPA AND POST-PANDEMIC UPDATE (AS OF MAY 18, 2021) Introduction The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) was created upon the adoption of “An Act Establishing Expanded Gaming in the Commonwealth” in November of 2011. The Commission, a five-member independent body, is tasked with implementing the Act and regulating the licensed gaming establishments. The Expanded Gaming Act allows for up to three destination resort casinos located in three geographically diverse regions across the state and a single slots facility for one location statewide. The Gaming Commission, at this time, has awarded the slots only license and two of the three integrated resort licenses. Each resort casino paid an $85 million licensing fee and was required to make a capital investment of at least $500 million – a requirement that both licensees substantially exceeded. The Commonwealth receives 25% of their gross gaming revenues. The slots facility paid a $25 million license fee, exceeded a required minimum capital investment of $125 million, and is taxed on 49% of its gross gaming revenue. As of this date, the Commonwealth has collected approximately $767 million in total taxes and assessments from Plainridge Park Casino1, MGM Springfield, and Encore Boston Harbor. This paper is intended to update the MGC’s 2018 publication on sports betting. Similarly, it does not represent an adopted position of the Commission. Rather it offers a fact-based report on the status of legalized sports wagering across the nation. Post-PASPA Status of Sports Betting The sports betting landscape has evolved rapidly since the decision which overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) in Murphy v. -
“Online Gambling in the EU: from Data Protection to Gambler Protection" Presentata Da: Dusan Pavlovic
Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna in collaborazione con LAST-JD Consortium Università degli studi di Torino Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Mykolas Romeris University Tilburg University DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN Erasmus Mundus Joint International Doctoral Degree in Law, Science and Technology Ciclo 29 – A.Y. 2013/2014 Settore Concorsuale di afferenza: 12H3 Settore Scientifico disciplinare: IUS20 Titolo tesi “Online gambling in the EU: from data protection to gambler protection" Presentata da: Dusan Pavlovic Coordinatore Supervisore Prof. Giovanni Sartor Prof. dr. Bert-Jaap Koops Co-Supervisore Dr. C.M.K.C. Cuijpers Esame finale anno 2018 1 Online gambling in the EU: from data protection to gambler protection Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. E.H.L. Aarts, en Università di Bologna op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. F. Ubertini, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de Ruth First zaal van Tilburg University op dinsdag 26 juni 2018 om 16.00 uur door Dušan Pavlović geboren te Niš, Servië 2 Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna in partnership with LAST-JD Consortium Università degli studi di Torino Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Mykolas Romeris University Tilburg University PhD PROGRAMME IN Erasmus Mundus Joint International Doctoral Degree in Law, Science and Technology Ciclo 29 – A.Y. 2013/2014 Settore Concorsuale di afferenza: 12H3 Settore Scientifico disciplinare: IUS20 Title “Online gambling in the EU: from data protection to gambler protection" Submitted by: Dusan Pavlovic The Phd Programme Coordinator Supervisor Prof. -
DEMAND for LOTTERY GAMBLING: Evaluating Price Sensitivity Within a Portfolio of LOTTERY Games
National Tax Journal, September 2014, 67 (3), 595–620 DEMAND FOR LOTTERY GAMBLING: EvALuATING pRIcE sENsITIvITY wIThIN A pORTFOLIO OF LOTTERY GAMEs Michael A. Trousdale and Richard A. Dunn This article introduces a new approach to analyzing whether lottery games are complements or substitutes, and whether a portfolio of lottery games is optimally priced. We estimate Barten’s synthetic differential demand system for the on-line lottery games operated by the Texas Lottery Commission. The demand system ap- proach imposes theory-consistent demand restrictions that allow identifcation of parameters for games without price variation. We use the estimated parameters from the Barten model to construct expenditure and price elasticities. Results indi- cate that on-line games in Texas are generally substitutes for one another and the portfolio of games is not priced to maximize proft. Keywords: gambling, lottery, consumer demand, elasticity, demand system esti- mation, Barten synthetic demand system JEL Codes: D12, H21, H27, H71, L83 I. INTRODUCTION roceeds from lottery gambling are a signifcant source of revenue for U.S. state Pgovernments. As of 2012, all but seven states operate or sponsor lottery gambling with total sales of $68.7 billion and profts of $19.4 billion.1 In Texas, lottery gambling provides more revenue than excise taxes on alcohol or cigarettes, accounting for approxi- mately 2 percent of total tax revenue (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 2010). Although lottery games serve as a form of entertainment, they are established frst and foremost as a source of revenue for the jurisdictions that operate them. A number of studies estimate the elasticity of total sales with respect to effective price to investigate whether a lottery game maximizes expected proft (Cook and Clotfelter, 1993; Gulley and Scott, 1993; Scoggins, 1995; Farrell, Morgenroth, and Walker, 1999; 1 See “Lottery Sales and Transfers,” North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, http:// www.naspl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=17&pageid=1025. -
The History of Lotteries
The History of Lotteries Gerald Willmann Department of Economics, Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6072, U.S.A. [email protected] August 3, 1999 Abstract In this pap er wegiveanoverview of the history of lotteries. Start- ing from early evidence in the Bible and in the classical Roman world, th we trace lotteries up to their reapp earance in Europ e in the 15 cen- tury. From that period onwards, lotteries b ecame so numerous that we concentrate on a few exemplary cases: the old French lottery, early lotteries in New York, and lotteries in the German states. Finally,we give a brief account of more recent developments and discuss some related issues. JEL: B15, B25, D80, G29, H27, N4. 1 1 Intro duction Lotteries have a long history. Their use is do cumented in the Old Testament, and several Roman emp erors used them for entertainment. They reapp ear th in Europ e in the 15 century mainly as a means to raise revenue for the state. Since then they have survived all opp osition. From an economic viewp oint, lotteries are interesting for at least two reasons. First, the fact that p eople buy lottery tickets presents achallenge to the theory of decision making under uncertainty. The prevalent Exp ected Utilityhyp othesis cannot 1 explain this phenomenon satisfactorily. Second, lotteries are an imp ortant source of revenue for the state. If we lo ok at the voluminous literature on tari s in international trade and note that lotteries often contribute more to the state budget than tari s, we can only wonder why the economic literature has remained so silent on this issue. -
Hasartmängu Määratlusest Ja Mõnedest Hasartmänguõiguse Kitsaskohtadest
TARTU ÜLIKOOL ÕIGUSTEADUSKOND AVALIKU ÕIGUSE INSTITUUT VÕRDLEVA ÕIGUSTEADUSE ÕPPETOOL Agris Peedu HASARTMÄNGU MÄÄRATLUSEST JA MÕNEDEST HASARTMÄNGUÕIGUSE KITSASKOHTADEST Magistritöö Juhendaja prof Raul Narits Tartu 2008 SISUKORD SISUKORD ........................................................................................................................... 2 SISSEJUHATUS ................................................................................................................... 4 1. HASARTMÄNGU MÄÄRATLEMISEST JA SELLE TÄIUSTAMISE VÕIMALUSTEST................................................................................................................. 9 1.1. Meelelahutusmängu ja hasartmängu ajalooline areng................................................... 9 1.2. Panus, juhuslikkus ja võit – hasartmängu universaalsed elemendid............................ 13 1.2.1. Panus.................................................................................................................. 15 1.2.2. Juhuslikkus......................................................................................................... 20 1.2.3. Võit .................................................................................................................... 22 1.3. Hasartmängu liigid ning nende omavaheline konkurents ........................................... 24 1.3.1. Osavusmängud versus õnnemängud (kasiino-tüüpi mängud) .............................. 25 1.3.2. Loteriid versus tarbijamängud............................................................................ -
State Lotteries: Gambling with the Common Good by Julia Fleming
Copyright © 2011 Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University 29 29 State Lotteries: Gambling With the Common Good BY JULIA FLEMING While their regressive burden upon the disadvantaged is a strong ethical reason for rejecting state lotteries, we should also consider the messages that their promotion conveys to the community as a whole. Lotteries, as alternatives to taxation, undercut the development of civic virtues and social responsibility. ithin the last fifty years, state governments in the United States have made a radical change in their policies towards gambling, as Wevidenced especially in their sponsorship of lotteries. Today, ninety percent of the U.S. population lives in lottery states; in 1960 no Americans did. As Erik Owens has observed, “Every action the government takes, every policy the government makes, conveys certain values to its citizens.”1 So, what values are state governments indirectly endorsing, or at least tolerating, in their new reliance upon lotteries as a source of revenue? Does govern- mental promotion of lotteries exploit the weaknesses of problem gamblers, prey upon the disadvantaged, and encourage a superstitious belief in lucky numbers? In a broader sense, do lotteries, as alternatives to taxation, under- cut citizens’ development of civic virtues and social responsibility? Roman Catholic social thought provides a helpful vantage point from which to consider the ethics of state lotteries as a regular revenue source. The tradition’s general principles, especially its emphasis upon civic responsibil- ity and the importance of social virtues, suggest that reliance on the lottery poses a risk both to vulnerable citizens and to the character of the community as a whole. -
BGC-APP-009A, Cardroom Applicant's Spouse Supplemental
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Cardroom Applicant's Spouse Supplemental Information for a State Gambling License BGC-APP-009A (Rev. 12/11) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL (916) 227-3584 (916) 227-2308 facsimile CARDROOM APPLICANT'S SPOUSE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR A STATE GAMBLING LICENSE Type or print legibly in ink an answer to every question. If a question does not apply to you, indicate with "N/A" (not applicable). If the space available is insufficient, use a separate sheet and precede each answer with the applicable section and question number. Do not misstate or omit any material fact(s) as each statement made is subject to verification. Any corrections, changes or other alterations must be initialed and dated by the applicant. PLEASE SEND THE COMPLETED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR A STATE GAMBLING LICENSE, A $1,000 NON-REFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEE, AND A $6,600 DEPOSIT TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED INVESTIGATION AND PROCESSING COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 19867 TO: California Gambling Control Commission, 2399 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 220, Sacramento, CA 95833-4231. A. PERSONAL 1. Full Name: Last First Middle 2. Alias(es), Nicknames, Maiden Name, Other Name Changes, Legal or Otherwise: 3. Date of Birth: 4. Place of Birth: City County State Country 5. Residence Address: Street City State Zip 6. Business Address: Street City State Zip 7. Occupation: 8. Telephone: Residence: Business: 9. Social Security Number*: 10. Driver License/Identification Card No./State Issued: 11. Eye Color: Hair Color: Weight: Height: 12. Distinguishing marks (scars, tattoos, etc.). -
State Lotteries and Their Customers
MILLER_ARTICLE FORMATTED 5-27-19.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 6/6/19 2:41 PM STATE LOTTERIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS Keith C. Miller* INTRODUCTION On Tuesday, October 23, 2018, a lucky person in South Carolina who purchased a Mega Millions lottery ticket learned she or he was the winner of the second largest lottery prize ever awarded in the United States—$1.536 billion.1 The ticket was sold by a convenience store in rural South Carolina.2 The build- up to the drawing was dramatic; people stood in lines waiting to buy a ticket, hoping they would become the winner of a prize that would make them fabulously wealthy.3 The United States had another case of lottery fever. Lotteries have a history in our country that predates the U.S. Constitution.4 Not surprisingly, our affection for lotteries can be traced to their popularity, and *Ellis and Nelle Levitt Distinguished Professor of Law, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. Many thanks to my research assistant Anne Reser-Moorehead for her hard work, research, and editing assistance. 1 The Associated Press, $1.537B jackpot won in South Carolina is 2nd largest in U.S., AP NEWS (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.apnews.com/91503645c0e5488c91e 48bb60718966b. Actually, the ticket would only pay a total of $1.536 billion if the winner chose to take the prize over a 29-year period. If the winner elected the immediate cash payout, she or he received $878 million. The SC Education Lottery has a message for the Mega Millions jackpot winner, who has not yet come forward, FOX CAROLINA (Oct. -
Mr-Gamble.Com to Conquer Estonia
Mr-Gamble.com to conquer Estonia Nov 20, 2020 10:53 GMT Mr-Gamble.com to conquer Estonia The online casino affiliate CashMagnet has already had an exciting year full. First, going to live in Canada and the UK. Second, obtaining a US license. And now, entering yet another market. Estonia is a very small country that too many people don’t know about. It’s the most sparsely populated country in Europe, and with a population of circa 1.7 million, it’s also one of the least populated countries. As such, different SEO strategies apply and it will be a testament to the quality of Mr- Gamble.com. Mr-Gamble.com is CashMagnets’ flagship and is already live in 4 markets. Now they’ve entered a 5th. The Estonian Gambling Market The Estonian market is small. In all regards, such a tiny country can not compete with the UK market or the US. Regardless, here’s the scope. The Estonian gambling industry passed €60 million in revenue in 2017 (which is the most recent widely available estimation). This has evolved in 2019 to a total payout of about 16 million Euros in tax money (VAT, personal income, and labor taxes). The total Gambling Tax amounted to €29.8 million, which represents roughly 0.1% of the total GDP. The online gambling segment accounts for a little more than 10% of total gambling tax, while physical casinos account for roughly 43% and lottery tickets for about 36%. All in all, it’s an interesting market considering the virtually non-existent competition.