Feedback on state-by-state list of legal / illegal gambling
https://www.masslive.com/betting/massachusetts/
I do find it humorous that Bovada will not accept wagers from New Jersey residents, where online gambling is legal (huge ad budgets for sportsbooks and NJ casinos), while they will accept players in South Carolina.
In SC, the anti-gambling laws are so draconian that it is actually illegal to own a pinball machine, even if it's a antique and non-functional one.
Nor will they allow people from NV anymore.Quote: BillHasRetiredNo error that I can see (but my knowledge is severely constrained).
I do find it humorous that Bovada will not accept wagers from New Jersey residents, where online gambling is legal (huge ad budgets for sportsbooks and NJ casinos), while they will accept players in South Carolina.
In SC, the anti-gambling laws are so draconian that it is actually illegal to own a pinball machine, even if it's a antique and non-functional one.
link to original post
I applaud the time and effort that you put in to compile this information!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/19/south-carolina-pinball-ban/
Thanks! I fixed it. I started this project months ago, and when I picked it up again yesterday, I forgot that I'd initially recorded the date that gambling as *legalized*, not when it went *live*, so when I posted the article yesterday, the dates were a mixture of both. I just spent all morning tracking down sources to make all the dates to be the launch date (and specified that in the table heading, since it wasn't clear).Quote: GenoDRPhSmall correction offered for MA: In-person sports betting will start in MA 1-31-2023, with mobile betting starting some time before March 2023. Both will include online offerings.
https://www.masslive.com/betting/massachusetts/
link to original post
It's not a coincidence. Bovada isn't licensed, and can't get licensed b/c the states won't license an operator which offers play in states which aren't explicitly legal. New Jersey doesn't want unlicensed operators like Bovada competing with their licensed operators, and will go after Bovada legally if Bovada tries to compete in NJ.Quote: BillHasRetiredI do find it humorous that Bovada will not accept wagers from New Jersey residents, where online gambling is legal (huge ad budgets for sportsbooks and NJ casinos), while they will accept players in South Carolina.
Thanks for noticing, it was a HUGE job.Quote: JohnnyQI like that you have gone to the extra step of providing the relevant state law/code reference !
I know, right? You would think that someone else would have done it already, but they didn't, so I did. In fact, most of my articles are stuff that no one else has done (or at least hasn't done as completely as I have).Quote: gordonm888Nice job. Fills what has been a glaring hole in internet-provided information.
link to original post
Quote: MichaelBluejayI made what I think is the most complete and up-to-date list of what gambling is legal / illegal in each state, along with potential penalties where it's illegal, here. I'm pretty sure there's nothing else on the whole Internet like it. I'm soliciting feedback. Is it good enough? If not, what would you suggest I add / remove / change?
link to original post
Aside from this:
https://wizardofodds.com/the-legality-of-online-gambling-us/
This:
https://www.realmoneyaction.com/us-casinos/legal/
And, the individual state pages for RMA, all of which I wrote, there's nothing on the whole Internet like it.
That said, it's a good page. I do like how your chart specifies the theoretical penalties for each state.
I'm not sure if it is worth it to add, but there could be a separate column for horse betting. E.g., while online poker/casino/sports betting is not legal in FL, online horse race betting is.
Quote: Mission146Quote: MichaelBluejayI made what I think is the most complete and up-to-date list of what gambling is legal / illegal in each state, along with potential penalties where it's illegal, here. I'm pretty sure there's nothing else on the whole Internet like it. I'm soliciting feedback. Is it good enough? If not, what would you suggest I add / remove / change?
link to original post
Aside from this:
https://wizardofodds.com/the-legality-of-online-gambling-us/
This:
https://www.realmoneyaction.com/us-casinos/legal/
And, the individual state pages for RMA, all of which I wrote, there's nothing on the whole Internet like it.
That said, it's a good page. I do like how your chart specifies the theoretical penalties for each state.
link to original post
I should also note that the WoO page reflects an UPDATE that was done in December of 2022...of a fairly ancient page that I hadn't updated in a few years.
The individual state pages for RMA have always discussed each form of gambling legal within those states, and are updated from time-to-time, with my original versions of those pages having gone live several years ago.
I'm really not surprised that MB would think that his page was the first to do this as I strongly suspect that he assumed nobody had already done this and simply searched for individual state laws related to, both physical and online, gambling.
I also take my hat off to him if that is so. It takes a ton of work and digging around through the laws to find those most applicable. I should know; I've already done it a few times.
No, those articles are a far cry from what I did. Meaning, there is indeed nothing on the whole Internet like my article.Quote: Mission146Aside from this:
https://wizardofodds.com/the-legality-of-online-gambling-us/
This:
https://www.realmoneyaction.com/us-casinos/legal/
And, the individual state pages for RMA, all of which I wrote, there's nothing on the whole Internet like it.
The pros about your article are the maps and the discussion of each state. What's missing, compared to mine, are:
(1) A table summarizing the status of each state. This is a dramatic difference. Everything for each state is listed on a single line for super-easy comprehension. For example, it's trivial with my table to see which states have no law against gambling online; with yours it's excruciating. My table also makes comparisons to other states easier. For your article, if a reader wants to see the deal for, say, Texas, they're forced to scroll through pages and pages of text to get to the Texas section. And even then there's stuff missing that my article has, such as:
(2) The legal status of poker.
(3) Potential penalties for illegal online gambling.
(4) Sources!
You can't possibly be that stupid.Quote: Mission146I'm really not surprised that MB would think that his page was the first to do this as I strongly suspect that he assumed nobody had already done this and simply searched for individual state laws related to, both physical and online, gambling.
Quote: MichaelBluejayNo, those articles are a far cry from what I did. Meaning, there is indeed nothing on the whole Internet like my article.Quote: Mission146Aside from this:
https://wizardofodds.com/the-legality-of-online-gambling-us/
This:
https://www.realmoneyaction.com/us-casinos/legal/
And, the individual state pages for RMA, all of which I wrote, there's nothing on the whole Internet like it.
The pros about your article are the maps and the discussion of each state. What's missing, compared to mine, are:
(1) A table summarizing the status of each state. This is a dramatic difference. Everything for each state is listed on a single line for super-easy comprehension. For example, it's trivial with my table to see which states have no law against gambling online; with yours it's excruciating. My table also makes comparisons to other states easier. For your article, if a reader wants to see the deal for, say, Texas, they're forced to scroll through pages and pages of text to get to the Texas section. And even then there's stuff missing that my article has, such as:
(2) The legal status of poker.
(3) Potential penalties for illegal online gambling.
(4) Sources!You can't possibly be that stupid.Quote: Mission146I'm really not surprised that MB would think that his page was the first to do this as I strongly suspect that he assumed nobody had already done this and simply searched for individual state laws related to, both physical and online, gambling.
link to original post
I'm impressed that you had time to read them all, especially the state pages on RMA. I think there are fifty, or so, of them.
I've already complimented your table; I especially liked that you included the theoretical penalties for each state. You'll forgive me for failing to interpret your statement, "I'm pretty sure there's nothing else on the whole internet like it," as, "I am pretty sure that there is nothing else on the internet that is precisely this thing."
The legal status of poker is irrelevant to that specific WoO page, which I assume is the one you looked at. The legal status of poker would be addressed in my individual state pages for RMA, but maybe not. Certainly, my casino listings on RMA (on the state pages) specifically indicate whether or not a casino has a poker room. Not just Vegas, not just the Strip...every. single. state.
I do address potential penalties for online gambling, at least, to such extent as what category of crime it could theoretically constitute. I suppose I could have included the theoretical sentence for every state, (I think I did for some) but given the pragmatic reality of either nobody, or almost nobody, ever being prosecuted simply for playing online, it seemed largely irrelevant. I was more interested in up-to-date looks at potential future legislation that might lead to some states presently without any form of online gambling, or perhaps only with online sportsbooks, eventually expanding those offerings. This should be clear from my several dozen sources on the WoO and RMA pages.
Sources that you wouldn't know about because, again, you couldn't have possibly read my pages that fast. PRO TIP: If it's underlined, and in a different color, that's a quick way to tell that it's a source.
Anyway, if my pages are, "A far cry," from what you did, then I can only beg your tutelage. Let's start with self-masturbatory posts, which I am terrible at; it seems a good starting point as I think you'd be a winner of multiple Pulitzers if only they awarded them for that.
As an impartial observer, I’d say BOTH Mission and Bluejay are valuable internet forces for positive gambling information!
One question for Mission…. do you really need to put ‘self’ n front of masturbatory? Seems redundant, reiterative, and repetitive?
Quote: SOOPOOIt took a while for the Bluejay/Mission feud to devolve into the following insults….. “You cannot be that stupid”. followed by “self masturbatory posts”!
As an impartial observer, I’d say BOTH Mission and Bluejay are valuable internet forces for positive gambling information!
One question for Mission…. do you really need to put ‘self’ n front of masturbatory? Seems redundant, reiterative, and repetitive?
link to original post
You're right. It is redundant.
His statement is closer to an insult than mine, though I wouldn't take his as a personal insult. Bluejay might think I am very intelligent, which could be one reason he thinks, "You cannot be that stupid." Emphasizing the word, "That," in the sentence, such as, "You cannot be THAT stupid," more directly implies that he thinks I am, at least, somewhat stupid and a better case could be made.
My statement simply insults his posts. I didn't call him an egomaniac, a narcissist, say he has a totally undeserved sense of self-worth, or anything like that. I'm not saying any of those things are true; I don't think they are. I'm simply suggesting that those would be equivalent personal insults to how I described some of his posts...if I took those posts as a strict reflection of him, the person, which I don't.
Quote: Mission146Quote: SOOPOOIt took a while for the Bluejay/Mission feud to devolve into the following insults….. “You cannot be that stupid”. followed by “self masturbatory posts”!
As an impartial observer, I’d say BOTH Mission and Bluejay are valuable internet forces for positive gambling information!
One question for Mission…. do you really need to put ‘self’ n front of masturbatory? Seems redundant, reiterative, and repetitive?
link to original post
You're right. It is redundant.
His statement is closer to an insult than mine, though I wouldn't take his as a personal insult. Bluejay might think I am very intelligent, which could be one reason he thinks, "You cannot be that stupid." Emphasizing the word, "That," in the sentence, such as, "You cannot be THAT stupid," more directly implies that he thinks I am, at least, somewhat stupid and a better case could be made.
My statement simply insults his posts. I didn't call him an egomaniac, a narcissist, say he has a totally undeserved sense of self-worth, or anything like that. I'm not saying any of those things are true; I don't think they are. I'm simply suggesting that those would be equivalent personal insults to how I described some of his posts...if I took those posts as a strict reflection of him, the person, which I don't.
link to original post
Hey, Mission and Michael, cool your jets! You both have done good work and the principal need is to call people's attention to it. Let's face it, articles on WOO don't have a vast readership and I'm sure that Michael would like to expand his Easy Vegas readership as well. So, we need more positive attention to this kind of information, not hissy fits nor nuanced analysis of the phrase "self-masturbatory."
Quote: Mission146
My statement simply insults his posts. I didn't call him an egomaniac, a narcissist, say he has a totally undeserved sense of self-worth, or anything like that. I'm not saying any of those things are true; I don't think they are. I'm simply suggesting that those would be equivalent personal insults to how I described some of his posts...if I took those posts as a strict reflection of him, the person, which I don't.
As a former moderator, you certainly know how to insult someone whilst fervently claiming that you are not, thus skirting the lines for what is a violation of forum rules. Congratulations on your expertise. I will say that MichaelBluejay simply seems to be in a marketing mode for EasyVegas, which is a site that seems to have real value and that he has worked on very hard. IMO, he did not deserve to be the recipient of the above paragraph from you. And, by the same token, some of Michael's analysis of your articles was a bit harsh in its wording. There is greatness in both of you. Can't we all just get along?
Oh, goodie, we're two of the somewhat known...I guess...writers on a subject that really doesn't matter or effectuate anything that would lead to overall societal betterment. Look how great we are!
If Bluejay is absolutely determined to be perceived as being the best at writing on a niche aspect of a niche subject that would only be of value to those of us fortunate enough in our life conditions to even have an interest in gambling in the first place, then he can have it. I'm truly not concerned with that. The only thing that I set out to correct is his implication that nobody has written as detailed a piece on state laws, in this regard. I already had; I just did it in a different way and covered different information.
Even Gordon stated that Bluejay's work, "Filled a hole," but it didn't; it's merely a version of what I had already done with a different focus. The fundamental subject is the same. He included penalties; that's fine.
I also don't understand why Bluejay can use this site almost entirely for the purpose of promoting a competing website, one with affiliations to a competing group. The only gambling forums where I would link myself are those with no advertisers, or didn't have at the time, as they are not competing with us nor we them. Bluejay does not even deny this intent; he simply points out that it's not particularly effective.
However, I have agreed to mostly ignore that aspect of things and would certainly not ask anyone to actually do something about it. That said, I am not going to sit here and let someone take credit for being the, "First," to do something that I have already been doing for multiple years.*
Did Bluejay do it better? I really don't care. I'm not going to get into a one-upping contest with him because I would have a really hard time justifying the invoicing of multiple versions of the same page within a short timespan. In fact, I typically only do rewrites when it is directly requested of me.
*NOTE: In fact, I'm quite confident that I am not even the first to write on this specific subject.
Quote: gordonm888
Hey, Mission and Michael, cool your jets! You both have done good work and the principal need is to call people's attention to it. Let's face it, articles on WOO don't have a vast readership and I'm sure that Michael would like to expand his Easy Vegas readership as well. So, we need more positive attention to this kind of information, not hissy fits nor nuanced analysis of the phrase "self-masturbatory."
I'm done in this thread, so you have nothing to worry about. Bluejay is more than welcome to have the last word as doing so means nothing to me. I have made my point that I have already covered this topic and am satisfied.
Quote:
As a former moderator, you certainly know how to insult someone whilst fervently claiming that you are not, thus skirting the lines for what is a violation of forum rules. Congratulations on your expertise. I will say that MichaelBluejay simply seems to be in a marketing mode for EasyVegas, which is a site that seems to have real value and that he has worked on very hard. IMO, he did not deserve to be the recipient of the above paragraph from you. And, by the same token, some of Michael's analysis of your articles was a bit harsh in its wording. There is greatness in both of you. Can't we all just get along?
link to original post
I admit nothing.
The only thing that I want to state is I was being genuine when I say I don't take his posts as a strict reflection of him. I don't take anyone's entire body of posts as a reflection of that person, so there's no reason I'd make an exception for Bluejay.
All we know about each other, at least, for any pair of people whose conversations have been restricted to the forum, is whether or not we enjoy communicating in the way that the other person chooses to express themselves on here. We don't really know anything about them as a person and posts shouldn't necessarily be taken as telling, in that regard. With that, I have no conclusions on Bluejay, the human being, whatsoever. For that reason, I'd have no need to insult him.
Honestly, I stated that hypothetical the way that I did just to add more adjectives to how I think his posts come off. Bluejay is clearly very intelligent, quite probably more intelligent than I am, so he knows his posts come off that way. I'm not telling him anything new.
ADDED: I don't care about the aspects of his analysis that were harsh. The next article I write where I give a s^%* what Bluejay thinks of it will be the first. I care about the aspects that were incorrect, such as claiming my articles had no sources.
so much for the most-popcorn worthy thread in a while!Quote: Mission146
I'm done in this thread, so you have nothing to worry about. Bluejay is more than welcome to have the last word as doing so means nothing to me. I have made my point that I have already covered this topic and am satisfied.
link to original post
Just for the record, if you google the topic, neither one of you guys come up on the first page, not that I saw
Quote: odiousgambitso much for the most-popcorn worthy thread in a while!Quote: Mission146
I'm done in this thread, so you have nothing to worry about. Bluejay is more than welcome to have the last word as doing so means nothing to me. I have made my point that I have already covered this topic and am satisfied.
link to original post
Just for the record, if you google the topic, neither one of you guys come up on the first page, not that I saw
link to original post
I can say if you do a search, "Casinos in (state)," some of my RMA state pages come up page one. Maine is one example. Personally, I have nothing to do with the SEO aspect and don't really know anything about it other than surface-level stuff. Since Bluejay, as far as I know, handles all aspects of his site, he would be a better person to explain the vagaries of Google than I would.
Indeed, I've actually been aware that *many* others have published state-by-state articles for *years*...including me. My first effort on the subject was probably over ten years ago. Only recently did I hit on the idea to combine the various data into a single table. THAT'S what no one's done before. That kind of organization makes the information eminently accessible, in precisely the way that all the other articles, with their walls of text, are not. And it's not just that I've listed the legal penalties; even without the penalties, the color-coded table listing whether sports, casino, or poker is legal in each state is the secret sauce. And if doing it this way is so obvious, then why has no one done it before?
Here's what a reader just sent me about the newly-improved article:
So, some people get it.Quote: Easy Vegas readerIt's a great page, Michael. I love the way you've created the table in a unique way, I don't recall seeing that depth of info on similar tables elsewhere (and I look at a fair number of pages :-) ).
As a writer, my prose is nothing to write home about. My competitive advantage is my ability to organize information in ways that are truly useful, and which you don't see elsewhere. I'm proud to be able to offer something that no one else does, not just with this particular article, but with lots of them. It's what I do.
