Talk:Online casino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Gambling    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Redirects[edit]

"Online gambling" redirects here. I'm not so sure this is a good idea. In Vegas and most other places in the world, it is common to see poker, sports betting, and casino games all in the same place. Online, this is by far less common: many sites run just a poker room, or are just a betting exchange/bookmaker, or just a casino, etc., so "online casino" covers only about a third of what could be called "online gambling". - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Ineractive gambling" redirects here, and that isn't even a word. Change it to Interactive, if you please. SirJaso (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I left the miss-spelled one in place, but created a redirect from Ineractive gambling --GraemeL (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I changed them both to the online gambling article. 2005 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Legality[edit]

Playing at online casinos is against United States law, but the federal government is finding it difficult to enforce this law even though the vast majority of online players are Americans.

I doubt online gambling is actually illegal in the United States. Somebody name a law before saying things like this. (I know the Federal Wire Act doesn't apply.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A clue... from my memory, the US cannot outlaw online casinos because it violates international trade agreements. (Outlawing international online casinos would give US casinos an unfair competitive edge.) I don't have the energy to look it up right now. 24.180.242.168 (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC). There have been rulings in international trade courts against the United States, but they have just fined the USA for restraint of trade. Not wanting to go to battle, many casino's like Beneficial Holdings' www.bet.cr by Beneficial just make it clear they don't accept USA players.

Bonus hunting[edit]

I wrote the section about bonuses. I'd like to say that so far this year (starting January 1), I've turned $550 into nearly $4000 through bonus hunting -- it really does work. :) At first I didn't want to add it to the article, fearing that it may help cause more bonuses to dry up, but I doubt enough people will hit casinos just because they read about it on Wikipedia to cause any concern. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Multiplier Player Accounts for bonus hunting – This is when one user creates multiple accounts to take advantage of bonuses or new player account promotions. These players are often detected through similar signup information or the use of the same computer or IP address. Players that create multiple accounts are also sometimes referred to as “bonus hunters” or “bonus whores”. This is why many online casinos attach wager or rollover requirements to bonuses to limit the number of bonus abusers creating multiple player accounts.

Just a note: Betting both Black and Red on a roulette table is not a "guaranteed" break even, it is not a "risk free" bet. Roulette tables have a double Zero which is Green. This ensures that there is no 50% chance to win in a casino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.177.243 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

gamblingcommission.com[edit]

I was about to restore the gamblingcommission.com link but the anon user seems to be correct. This is not a valid regulatory organization. - Tεxτurε 15:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. Leave it off. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Casino Blacklists[edit]

I don't think it's appropriate to recommend a large number of casino blacklists from casino affiliate sites here, but I'd be interested in other opinions. It seems like this is clearly not the neutral point of view we should be aiming for. Rray 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A short paragraph or sentence saying numerous portals or watchdog groups offer blacklists is what we should do. There is no reason to enumerate them here, and plenty of reason not to. Rray, I'd support you in redoing that section. 2005 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
While maybe a direct link to the blacklist section doesn't belong, I think a link to www.wizardofodds.com (which was recently reverted, though there was another more questionable link to go with it) belongs. Though it does make use of affiliate links, the website is one of the most informative about online gaming, including correct odds and strategy for a large number of games and some original analysis. It is used by a fair number of people, including recreational players, more serious players, and bonus hunters. "wizardofodds.com" gets 31,000 google hits, and the maintainer is not the type to spam his site, so I would imagine a large portion of the hits is legitimate. Skimming over the results seems to confirm this as well. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Its a fine site, but so are plenty of others. There is no reason to link it from this article. An additional link to http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Guides/ where wizard and others are linked would seem fine. 2005 19:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I feel the outbound link to slotsadvisor.com doesn't actually prove anything regarding casino blacklists, it just suggests "the industry" shares a casino blacklist, apologies if I'm missing the point, but no credible evidence is offered by the site, nor does it offer the reader any solid claims. I agree with the dmoz.org suggestion. HollyJoy 17:10, 05 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it with this flood of links towards all these scandal casino websites? Nobody is doing anything against it. The admin at wizardofodds writes an article and the next day we see a link towards it on WikiPedia. Did Wikipedia become an advertisement area of which only these scandal sites are aware of? They are simple forums, nothing more, and they cannot be treated as valid sources, because they can show simply any information that crosses through the head of the writer. There is no proof everything from there is legit or that is not outdated. 2005 19:37, 20 June2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveNoName111 (talkcontribs)

Playtech Software[edit]

Playtech software belongs on the lists of software clients commonly used to power online casinos. It would be inappropriate to leave the software out because you think it's "not random". (Playtech powers at least 65 casinos, possibly more, making it one of the more significant software providers.)

Also Casino Tropez includes a certification letter regarding the randomness of the software here.

There is a Playtech. It "might" be appropriate to question the integrity of the software in the article there if a neutral POV is maintained, but I would say that some type of citation would be appropriate before doing so. Rray 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merged?[edit]

Who merged the bonus whoring page into this article? I think they should be separate. Online bonuses and bonus whoring could maybe be one article, but this article should primarily be about online casinos. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors discussed this and agreed to the merge before it was acted on. There were no objections to the merge. "Bonus whoring" is too specific a topic to be notable enough for an article of its own. Notability requires coverage from multiple reliable sources.Rray (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article already had several paragraphs on bonuses. It's pretty silly to have a different article talking about bonuses again just to make the point that you can turn a profit with them. One way to do it would be to make another article about bonuses and hunting together, but at this point the article works fine the way it is. In general its is better to deal with subjects in one place. If the article got much longer (which is unlikely) splitting off sections could make sense, but bonuses are just one aspect of playing at an online casino so it works fine here. And more importantly, we need to avoid several such redundant articles. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2017[edit]

Please change: The difference comes at cashout time. A phantom bonus disappears when the player cashes out, while the sticky bonus 'sticks' to the player's account until it is lost.

To: The difference between cash-able and phantom bonuses comes at cashout time. A phantom bonus is deducted from player's balance at the moment he places his withdrawal request. For example: if you deposited $100, received a $100, played and finished the wagering with $150. If the bonus is sticky, the player will be able to withdraw just $50. If bonus is cash-able, then the whole balance is available for withdrawal.

Reasons: What is stated is not correct. Fantom and Sticky are terms for the same thing: bonuses which are not withdrawable. You can find plenty example if you google "phantom vs cashable bonus" - they all will show that. Unoduuu (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Unoduuu (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017[edit]

I would like to improve the United Kingdom and Danish laws in this article. I've written a piece for UK already. Here is a quick summary

Britain is one of the most permissive territories when it comes to remote gambling, with online operators able to conduct almost all forms of legal land-based gambling and betting. Despite this relative tolerance, the UK is also a tightly regulated online gambling market, with all companies wanting to operate in the country required to hold a license from the UK Gambling Commission -- the country’s gambling oversight body. The commission ensures that gambling businesses are adequately transparent about their operations, conform to compulsory standards of fairness and don’t target marketing materials to underage or vulnerable people. ThePaku (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GermanJoe (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, please note that promotional commercial links are usually not suitable as sources, and self-published sources should be used sparingly and only for uncontroversial information (WP:SPS). Especially subjective or extraordinary claims need truely independent high-quality sources. I have posted a few additional links with info on your user talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017[edit]

I Would like to add content to the legal section on this article around the following countries;

1) Sweden 2) Finland 3) Denmark 4) Norway

These countries are particularly popular for online casino players and operators alike and are all in different phases of regulation.

Best,

Chris Chrisjrsl (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018[edit]

I would like to improve grammar and formatting. Bodhistawa (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edits (July 2018)[edit]

In 2018 web-based online casinos are mainly using HTML5. So it is not any more correct that they use mainly Flash. This information needs to be updated. "Apple devices such as iPod, iPad and iPhone cannot play Flash games as the technology is not supported." It is true that Flash is not supported. But Casinos have a presence on iOS and Android as native-apps. The solution involves HTML5 based solutions like Electron. (https://www.casinomobsters.com/iphone/)

Also relevant: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#gaming-gambling-and-lotteries In iOS gaming for real money is allowed, but "Apps may not use in-app purchase to purchase credit or currency for use in conjunction with real money gaming of any kind, and may not enable people to purchase lottery or raffle tickets or initiate fund transfers in the app."

The categories should be a matrix.

  • Category by type of client: Web-based, Application based.
  • Category by type of game: RNG, Live game.

There are Live game casinos web-based and application based. The same goes for RNG.

"employs one or more cameramen" is false. You need several cameras and dealers with a green screen. But the camera can be static and not require manual operation.

"assuming the player trusts the regulator." adds nothing to the article. Whatever the player trusts the regulator or not, the regulator function is the same, only the "perception" changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.10.204 (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018[edit]

[a copy of the article was posted here] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎188.174.115.181 (talkcontribs) 08:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --bonadea contributions talk 08:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)