More and more states have been expanding gambling lately. For some, it’s in order to provide more revenue to states that are strapped for cash. For some, it’s a civil rights issue, where they feel a ban on gambling goes against the freedom of people to spend their money as they please. For others, it’s simply because they like regulating things.

Last year, the state of Illinois passed a law that legalized video gambling in the state. It was done with the thinking that any city or town that didn’t want to be a part of the gambling industry could opt out by banning it. Anyplace in the state where video gambling wasn’t specifically banned would be made legal by the new state law.

When that happened, the city of Chicago quickly passed a ban on video gambling machines. Since it’s Chicago, the more corrupt city in America, I’m guessing it’s because the anti-gambling lobby paid the politicians more money than the pro-gambling lobby did. After all, money is the grease in the Chicago political machine.

After hearing pleas from supporters of video gambling, the Chicago City Council finally agreed to consider overturning the ban. After listening to the groups, the Council had a hearing on the video gambling ban on Monday. The outcome of the hearing – if there was an outcome – is unknown.

The battle over the legalization of video gambling at the state level was intense and at times it has been in Chicago as well. Supporters state that overturning the ban will result in increased revenue as well as a creation of jobs. Considering Chicago is going bankrupt and has an unemployment rate over 11%, both are big issues. Of course, since this is Chicago, I doubt the City Council cares what is good for the people and will only act in their own interests. That means that the pro-gambling lobby better start making good offers.

Of course, I’m not advocating bribery or any other sort of corruption. I am only acknowledging that it is rampant and expected in the Windy City. The pro-gambling lobby wasn’t “convincing” enough the first time. Let’s see if they do a better job this time.

Well, iPhone applications are causing a fuss again. This time isn’t not an app for shaking a baby or snorting cocaine, though. This time it’s about gambling.

Australian parliamentarian Nick Xenophon is outraged about poker iPhone apps that allow children to play the popular card game, betting fake money. He says the apps should be banned because they teach children to gamble at an early age and could lead to gambling addiction.

Citing concerns that it would get children used to the idea of playing poker for money, he said that “kids can become poker machine experts years before they are legally allowed to set eyes on a real machine.” In Australia, you must be at least 18 years of age to place a bet in any of their casinos.

The iPhone apps addressed by Xenophon are applications that have been endorsed by some of the big-name online casino companies. Though the games are free and you only gamble with play money, Xenophon worries that it could develop a pattern and teach kids that playing poker is a good way to make money. He said that the iPhone apps are “a training application for kids to lose real money when they turn eighteen.” Most of the apps do not have age restrictions.

Though he would like to ban them outright, Xenophon acknowledges that removing access to them in the country may not be possible. As a more realistic goal, he intends to push for legislation that would make it illegal to provide the iPhone gambling apps to children.

We have a nominee for 2010 Son of the Year: His name is Richard Stone and he is charged with 22 counts of theft and 21 counts of criminal treatments. The victim of all 43 alleged crimes? His mother.

Stone, a resident of Portland, Oregon, took control of his mother’s finances in 2006 after she was diagnosed with dementia and moved to an assisted living home. Nothing is unusual about that. Anyone diagnosed with dementia usually either gives up control of their finances completely or has to have a designated family member co-sign any financial transaction. What is abnormal, or at least I hope, it what happened next.

According to the district attorney, Stone decided to use his mother’s finances for something much more fun and interesting than paying her medical bills. He took them to casinos and gambled with it instead. With no one there to pay for her thousands of dollars in medical bills, the state of Oregon picked up the tab. That means if you are reading this and live in Oregon, you paid for the medical bills of this man’s mother so he could have some fun at a casino.

Yup, that’s right, and it gets worse. According to the DA, Stone sold his mother’s home and received a check for more than $120,000. Somehow, though, it slipped his mind to report that sale. You see, if the state knew about it, they would have said something along the line of “Hey, it looks like you can afford to pay her bills instead of the taxpayers.” But he didn’t report the sale because that meant more gambling money. Woo hoo!

Stone pleaded not guilty yesterday to the charges and will appear in court next week. Of course we here at Gambling Review view the scumbag as innocent until proven guilty. That’s why I used words like “allegedly,” because I would hate to slander the cretin.

There are a number of points to make here, such as not gambling with someone else’s money, not gambling with money you can’t afford to lose, not committing crimes and whatnot, but I think all of that goes without saying. Instead, I will just say this:

If I remember to (which is a big if), I will give out both a Man of the Year (or Woman) and a Son of the Year (or Daughter) at the end of 2010. You can bet that Richard Stone is currently in consideration for both awards.

Proponents of the legalization and regulation of online gambling in the United States have another talking point now. H2 Gambling Capital, a consultancy firm for the gambling industry, recently released a report stating the economic impact of a regulated online gambling industry in America. Here’s a hint: It’s a positive impact.

According to H2, online gambling regulation in the States would create almost 32,000 jobs over five years. In addition, it would generate up to $94 billion in total gross expenditure over that time and $57.5 billion in tax revenue.

Those numbers were, of course, the result of quite a few conjectures, including projected wagering activity, the creation of jobs and job growth in the industry over that time. While I support a fully-legal online gambling market in America and a repealing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), this report has me scratching my head.

The main question I have with the report is how H2 claims to be able to estimate how many people would participate in online gambling and how much money they would wager. First of all, a small number of people in the U.S. currently gamble online (according to available statistics, which are generally considered inaccurate for obvious reasons, such as the perception that the activity is illegal). Why do we assume that the number of online gamblers would skyrocket if UIGEA is repealed and the government regulates Internet gambling? I believe that it will increase, but by how much? It’s impossible to tell. Also, during a recession people are less willing to gamble and those who do are likely to wager less, so any figures need to take that into account.

My second question with the report is how 32,000 jobs will be created. That sounds like a lot. Where are those jobs? It doesn’t take a lot of personnel to run a website, so where are the rest of the jobs. I suspect that the report includes jobs created to regulate online gambling. Those would be government jobs and the creation of government jobs does not improve the economy. Why? Because government employees are paid using taxpayer money, so creating government jobs is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I point all of this out to say you shouldn’t necessarily believe all of the statistics you hear or the reports that you read. Just as you should ignore a report that says repealing UIGEA would lead to a 20% increase in gambling addiction (a statistic I made up just now), you should also ignore one that says it would create 32,000 jobs.

The truth is, we don’t know the economic impact of a regulated online gambling industry. We do know that it would create jobs and add tax revenue, but how much of either is simply a guess. It’s like statistics by the Congressional Budget Office. Given a set of parameters, they can say that if this happens then this will happen, but there are way too many ifs and maybes in the equation.

So the point is that a regulated online gambling industry in the United States would create jobs and generate additional tax revenue, but we don’t know how much. It could be less than this report states or it could be more. We’ll have to get it done to find out for sure.

Daniel Tzvetkoff doesn’t appear to be a bright man. After allegedly ripping off lots of online casino operators, he showed up at a conference in Las Vegas that was full of them and was surprised when he ended up in jail.

Let’s go back to the beginning. Mr. Tzvetkoff, who is an Australian citizen, was arrested on Friday for bank fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to operate and finance an illegal gambling business. According to the indictment, he created fake websites for shell companies and used those companies to engage in financial transactions with financial institutions. All transactions were sent by these shell companies. Mr. Tzvetkoff allegedly used an Automated Clearing House (ACH) system to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars between the United States and the British Virgin Islands.

Using the ACH transactions, Tzvetkoff, former co-owner of IntaBill, allegedly moved money from the bank accounts of online gamblers in America to his offshore shell companies. From there, he moved the funds to accounts at online casinos. The shell companies were used to move money back and forth between the online casinos and the player’s accounts.

The American legal system has a term for those types of transactions: money laundering. According to the indictment, the online casinos stopped doing business with Tzvetkoff in March of 2009 because he had stolen $100 million from them. On Friday, Tzvetkoff appeared at a conference in Las Vegas attended by representatives from many of those online casinos. Not surprisingly, a tip was called in to the FBI and Tzvetkoff was arrested a short time later.

I think there are some lessons to be learned here. First of all, don’t launder money or commit bank fraud. Secondly, if you rip off a group of people for $100 million, don’t go hang out with them at a social event.

If convicted, Tzvetkoff could spend 75 years in prison and pay back at least $543 million in fines and restitution.

The U.S. state of South Carolina is considering revising their gambling laws, which have existed unchanged since 1802. As is often the case with governments, even at the state level, things move slowly. There was outrage in the Palmetto State when several dozen people were arrested and charged with illegal gambling when a Mount Pleasant home was raided in 2006. Their crime was playing poker, which is in violation of the state’s gambling laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The 207-year-old laws make all card and dice games illegal. The crack team of journalists at the Post and Courier and virtually every blog that has used that newspaper as a resource have reported that using a strict interpretation of the law, playing the board game Monopoly with your family is against the law. Rhetoric like that has enflamed the public and may be the catalyst for changes in the state constitution.

Before we get into all of that, though, let’s get to the facts. South Carolina may have very anti-gambling laws on the books, but they’re not going to throw grandma in jail for playing Yahtzee at home – or even for playing poker, for that matter.

Ed Knisley prosecuted the players arrested in the Mount Pleasant raid and he said that it wasn’t a small game between friends. According to Knisley, the defendants “were part of a large group involved in a setting up quasi-professional casino-style poker games, with numerous tables set up at each commercial location, using paid dealers.”

In addition, Knisley said that although the gambling laws are vague enough that Monopoly could be considered illegal, the authorities look at the intent of the legislation. He stated that it’s not a crime to play card or dice games “for amusement,” but it was a different matter when betting is involved.

Five of the men arrested in the Mount Pleasant raid were convicted in February of this year. From 2006 until now, there has been a lot of confusion about what is legal in the state and the Poker Players Alliance, among other groups, have been pushing for a rewriting of the laws. They may get their wish.

A new bill has been proposed in the state House and has cleared a subcommittee by a 4-1 vote. The bill would make changes to the gambling language, clearly outlining that it is perfectly legal for non-profit organizations to hold raffles to raise money. In addition, the legislation would specify that social gambling, such as home poker games, are okay. The bill would also allow state residents to vote on whether to amend the state constitution to allow betting events by churches, schools and other charitable organizations.

This may have all come about because of a misunderstanding, but this bill seems like a good thing for the state. In addition, the PPA and other gambling advocacy groups are hoping that it is a foot in the door that will eventually lead to an expansion of gambling in South Carolina, including casinos. Only time will tell, but don’t hold your breath. After all, it took us 207 years to get this far.

So Michael Jordan owns the NBA’s Charlotte Bobcats now. This is exciting for the people of Charlotte because if all of the team owners got together for a pick-up game, theirs would definitely win. The move hasn’t been without criticism, though, with the main one being that Jordan didn’t make a ton of great decisions as GM of the Washington Wizards (including his bad idea to come out of retirement and play for them). There has also been a rather muted protest about the NBA letting a known compulsive gambler own a team.

I think the NBA should let anyone own a team who is willing to pay for it, since America is a free country, but it does bring up an interesting question. Major League Baseball banned Pete Rose from the league for life because of his gambling habits when he was managing the Reds, though it was never proved that he bet on any of his team’s games. He is not even allowed in the Hall of Fame, despite his accomplishments as a player. Now that the world knows of Jordan’s compulsive gambling habits, which was largely kept quiet during his playing days, how does the NBA feel about him owning a team?

There are a lot of reasons to be for or against sports betting, but the biggest concern among most people is the integrity of the game. People worry that if enough money is involved, the games could be fixed. We’ve all seen the movies where a gangster walks up to a boxer and informs him that he’s going to take a dive. If you don’t think that organized crime has its hands all over the boxing profession, then you’re naïve.

But while many people don’t see boxing as legitimate for that reason, look at the other sports. Baseball had the Black Sox Scandal, when Chicago threw the 1919 World Series, resulting in eight players being banned for life. The NBA for years had endured conspiracy theories that the powers that be made sure certain teams (especially the Bulls and Lakers) made it to the championship games and certain players (such as Jordan) always got special treatment from the refs. And then came Tim Donaghy, the NBA referee who was convicted in a gambling scandal that involved, you guessed it, organized crime. I’m fairly certain that if Donaghy one day wanted to own an NBA team, the league would say no. So why does Jordan get a pass? No one has ever proved that he bet on his own team, though the same can be said for Rose.

And I guess the bigger question is this: Should sports betting be allowed or not? For the aforementioned reasons, many sports fans support a ban on sports betting, though doesn’t everyone love those Super Bowl office pools and filling out your Tournament brackets? In Europe, sports betting is common for their major sports, including soccer, and to my knowledge there has been no cheating scandal (someone please correct me if I’m wrong). And in the United States, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 makes sports betting illegal, with the exception of jai alai and horse and dog racing. The pari-mutuel racing, of course, would be pointless without betting, but the jai alai exemption seems a bit strange.

What is stranger, though, is that the law also doesn’t apply to sports lotteries in Delaware and Oregon and sports pools in Nevada. Las Vegas has a thriving sports betting industry. So is sports betting wrong and dangerous unless it’s done in Nevada? Maybe we’re supposed to think that sports betting is wrong and dangerous if it’s not being regulated by the government, so they can “protect” us, but if you think that government involvement in an industry reduces corruption, then you have way too much faith in the government (and you probably haven’t paid attention to any other their dealings with unions and lobbyists). So if government involvement doesn’t give it more integrity than involvement with the Corleone family (some would say that the federal government is actually organized crime), that brings us back to the original question: Is sports betting okay or not?

Back in my parents’ day, if you wanted to play some blackjack, spin the slots, or try your luck at roulette, you had to pack your bags and head for Vegas. And in my grandparents’ day, well, they didn’t spend money doing fun things like playing games, buying clothes or visiting relatives. Any money they had they spent in the bread lines.

Anyway, people right now are lucky, because there are countless online casinos available on the web. Not only that, though, but many casinos are creating mobile versions for cell phones. Now that the new iPad has been released by Apple, expect your favorite online casinos to create new versions for those and competing tablets.

Casino Tropez is at the forefront of that rush. Casino Tropez has announced that they have released software for the iPhone, iPad and Android mobile devices. The new website for the iPhone and iPad is not surprisingly called iTropez. I’m not sure if they had to get permission from Steve Jobs to but a lowercase i in front of the word. In any case, by expanding their reach into the mobile market, Casino Tropez should increase in popularity.

That means you don’t have to be home in front of the computer to play your favorite Casino Tropez games. If you’re standing in the unemployment line because your employer decided to make cuts in payroll to counteract the negative effects of Obamacare, you can play online blackjack while you wait. If you’re waiting for a taxi because gas has gotten too expensive for you to drive, that might be a good time to play some online slots on your iPad. Of course, if you’re hurting for money like that I would advise playing the free versions of the games.

I don’t have an iPad yet, but if they want to send me one so I can test how well iTropez works on it I would be happy to. By launching new full-featured websites for the iPad, iPhone and Android, Casino Tropez has positioned themselves in the front of the mobile casino market. To enjoy the new sites, visit Casino Tropez today.

The state of Massachusetts has been working on gambling legislation for some time and the current bill would make online gambling illegal in the state. The bill’s latest version has been introduced by Robert DeLeo (I know what you’re thinking, but no, it’s not the Stone Temple Pilots bassist).

DeLeo, who is Speaker of the House, has called for a vote on the bill within the next two weeks. However, he is facing some opposition from his governor, fellow Democrat Deval Patrick, who wants public hearings on the legislation first. DeLeo says that the issue has been discussed enough and besides, “we’re Democrats, so that means we’re not supposed to care what the people want.” Okay, I made up that quote, but you get the point.

The gambling bill that DeLeo has proposed will create licenses for two full casinos, with each paying $100 million for the license, as well as four slot machine licenses, which will cost $15 million each. The bill is being touted as a job-creation bill, though clearly opening slot parlors will not create many jobs. The main reason behind the push for legalized gambling in Massachusetts is the tax revenue and licensing fees, which will help a state whose budget is in the red.

The gambling legislation contains some bad news for online gamblers in the state, though, because it will make that activity illegal. The bill would make it a crime if anyone living in Massachusetts “knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device, including telephone, cellular phone, internet, local area network… or knowingly installs or maintains said device or equipment for the transmission or receipt of wagering information.” Anyone convicted of such a heinous crime as spending your own money online can face up to two years in prison and a $25,000 fine.

The reason for this is clear: Lobbyists for the brick and mortar casinos that may soon be legalized in Massachusetts don’t want any competition from online gambling websites, so they have convinced the lawmakers to ban that competition. Sounds like a good deal. If only Wal-Mart could get Congress to ban online shopping, especially those bastards at Amazon.com, they would make a lot more money.

So it seems that this is politics as usual and your average citizen may get punished because politicians are more concerned with satisfying their lobbyist friends than serving their constituents. Of course, this is Massachusetts, so I would expect nothing less.

You can only keep Americans in the dark for so long. Sure, you can fool us with propaganda and lies for a while, but Americans are resourceful people with access to a wealth of information from the internet, newspapers, online blogs (*ahem*), talk radio, Youtube, and more.

For that reason, only 6% of Americans still believe that President Obama’s “stimulus” bill has helped the economy. Only 19% of Americans believe that Bigfoot exists and only 6% of Americans believe that the moon landing was faked. People are resourceful and they eventually figure things out.

What about online gambling? Despite campaigning by the Department of Justice and other groups to convince people otherwise, there is no federal ban on online gambling. Neither the Wire Act nor the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) bans online gambling, with the exception of sports betting.

Until recently, however, the common belief among Americans was that online gambling in any form was illegal. The number people who feel that way, though, is dropping. In 2007, it was as low as 41% and earlier this year it was only 37%, according to a survey by Canadian group Ipsos Reid.

So what does this mean? It means that people are waking up and learning about their rights. They are learning what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. Americans don’t like the government or anyone else telling them what to do and by educating themselves, they are empowering themselves.

The same survey shows that 55% of Americans would like a federal regulation of online casinos to ensure their safety while 45% would prefer the regulation be done by each individual state.