Sportingbet is a worldwide, reputable gambling company that has been around since 1998, making it one of the older companies in the online gambling sector. They have over 2 million users in 30 country markets and report over 8,000 bets made every single day. So it’s not entirely surprising that the U.S. Dept. of Justice decided to go after them in 2010 for illegal sports betting activities. The DOJ seems to have a fondness for “cracking down” on large wagering sites and casinos- perhaps as a means of making up for the millions of dollars that are lost each year to foreign online casinos?


The DOJ technically won their case and Sportingbet was fined a total of $33 million as reparations for tax debt on their revenues from U.S. players utilizing their wagering site. The company was not prosecuted for any other crimes. Today the CEO of the company announced that the third and final installment of this debt was repaid. Surprisingly enough, the Executive officer of Sportingbet added to this statement that the company may even look into re-entering the U.S. market, stating that several opportunities to do so had already arisen. If you just paid $33 mil to a government for taxes, would you really be interested in jumping into business with them? As of yet, of course, http://www.usa.gov/ does not have licenses to grant for online gambling because it has not been declared legal at the federal level (several states do have gambling legislation in the works).


In other Sportingbet news, the company has officially filed an appeal against an injunction called for by Codere, a Spanish casino group that seeks to restrict access to online gambling (Codere is land-based). Sportingbet says that they were never informed that the injunction was filed, were not allowed to present a defense, and that the information previously given to the courts was erroneous. However, despite the attempts of Sportingbet, thus far the injunction has remained and went into effect March 27. As in the case with the U.S., Sportingbet immediately applied for a gaming license from the Spanish Gaming Regulator. It’s almost as if getting Sportingbet upset and costing them money is the most sure-fire way to ensure they make plans to enter your market.

The thing about slots is that everyone knows the likelihood of winning is relatively low as compared to other casino games. When you do win though, it’s usually a lot bigger than with other games. This is especially true of progressive jackpots. The simple fact is, someone’s going to win it eventually.


That’s exactly what happened for Canadian Sylvia P, who hit the Playtech progressive jackpot on Beach Life back in 2008. Sylvia had never had a lot of extra money, spending what little she made on providing for her children and saving up to buy a home. She had signed up with Joyland Casino only 3 weeks before this memorable hit. Her jackpot was for over $4 mil.


Though smaller jackpots were hit between 2008 and now, Beach Life hadn’t paid out that much to another player since. That is, until this past week. Some lucky player hit the progressive on Beach Life just 2 days before Valentine’s Day for $8,211,488.That amounts to an awful lot of stuffed teddy bears and chocolates. No word yet on who the new millionaire is or which online casino he or she was playing in.


For everyone else, the Beach Life jackpot has dropped back to a decent $50,000. The average length of time between jackpots is around 160 days (so now you can figure out when to start playing, right?). All you have to do is get 5 sun symbols on the 20th payline. If I weren’t so tight for funds right now and relegated to free slots, I know I’d be trolling the internet looking for the highest progressive jackpots. It’s Springtime after all- Maybe luck is in the air!

The events of Black Friday and the ensuing legal struggles of the companies involved has been a favorite subject of rants and blogs in the online gambling world since April, 2010. It seems the players of Full Tilt Poker are going to end up with no reimbursement of their funds, let alone any payments on winnings held in their accounts prior to the DOJ’s seizure of the company and its online casino domain. However, Poker Stars.com was also in hot water last year, and yet seems at least to have been trying to make amends for the errors of their previous ways. For this reason, PokerStars remains one of the largest online poker sites on the web, despite the pending legal implications surrounding the CEOs.


Unfortunately for the company, it appears they’re in hot water again- just when things were starting to calm down. At the beginning of this year, Pokerstars decided to rearrange its rake back and rewards point system. There was immediate public response and many members tried to show their disapproval of the site by organizing a virtual protest against the site. PokerStars dealt summarily with the issue by banning the disgruntled players from the casino. However, a panel was assembled in order to discuss the issue. Pokerstars does not seem averse to negotiating an alternative reward program that is more beneficial to its users.


PokerStars is at least 6 times larger than any other poker site online right now, but there has been a notable decline in the number of active players since the new benefit package was announced. The casino/poker company will have to work with its players and address their concerns, if it expects to maintain its lead in the industry.

Betfair has found themselves in the midst of controversy this week with the Woodiesdiy.com Christmas Hurdle horse race in Leopardstown. The favorite to win was Colm Murphy’s mare, Voler La Vedette, ridden by Andrew Lynch. Voler was given 28 to 1 odds mid-race, which caused a rapid succession of wagering totaling a match on Voler of over £1,600,000. When the horse rode in to clench the victory, literally thousands of betters expected a huge payout. CNN reports that this payout would have cost an estimated £600 million.
Unfortunately for them, Betfair voided the wagers and suspended the market, allegedly to investigate what is said to have been a technical error. The official comment they sent to customers read, “’An investigation has revealed that this was due to an obvious technical failure which allowed a customer to exceed their exposure limit.
‘In accordance with our terms and conditions, all in running bets on this race, both win and place, will be made void.”

They also said that they ‘fully appreciated the dissatisfaction’ this would cause and apologized for the poor betting experience.

One commenter on the proceedings exclaimed that the amount should be paid anyway, as a customer who accidentally placed a bet online in excess of what they meant to place would be forced to pay regardless. To this, one Dave Leeds responded: “Really ! so if you advertise your car in the paper, but accidentally put £200 as the asking price instead of £2000 – can I have it for £200 ?” Such correspondences and debate have been rampant since the race.

What few people seem to take into account is that Betfair is not the one responsible for paying the winnings. They actually take a cut off the winnings so this exchange would have been very profitable for them. What has happened is that a better lay a wager at 29-1 odds and others took them up on the bet. But there should have been an exposure limit set. An exposure limit is the total amount a person can afford to lose. Once that is reached, no more bets can be laid. In this case, the computer systems ignored the exposure limit and bets were made in excess of what the better could afford. As this was due to a mistake on the part of Betfair’s system, it’s only right that the bets be voided in this case.

Some people will argue about everything.