

Betable claims to give developers 6-month lead on Zynga for real-money gambling - followmylee
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/betable/

======
ChuckMcM
TL;DR version: Chris Griffin (Betable CEO) gets Alex Konrad, a "journalist",
to ask Zynga to acquire them.

Seriously, journalist in scare quotes there because any real journalist would
say to Chris, "Dude, if your so hot to sell yourself to Zynga just call the
guy, its not like its hard to find his number or anything." Instead we get a
long piece about how Zynga has to get into real money gambling and how Betable
will accelerate that move if they were to be acquired.

Except that its illegal to offer online real money gambling in the US, the US
government has gone so far as to violate world trade organization rules [1] to
shut down non-US companies from offering gambling, and regulatory constraints
such as Sarbanes-Oxley would put uncomfortable personal liability on a US
based company officer if that company was even capable of violating the rules
here.

That is why 'getting into real-money gambling' is at best a 3 year plan and
more likely a 5 year plus plan. Change the laws, change the regulations, and
then figure out how to operate under them.

[1]
[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5icdh9Q_kfrAZTnf22OUpjZvu...](http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5icdh9Q_kfrAZTnf22OUpjZvuwefA)

~~~
jiggy2011
Any idea why it is illegal to offer real money online gambling in the US? I'm
sure it's not hard for US citizens to gamble online if they like using foreign
websites. Just seems to be a way to lose a lot of taxable revenue from a high
profit business sector.

~~~
ChuckMcM
There is a lot of history available, I cringe when I provide wikipedia links
but its got a good summary: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling> and
you can follow the off site links for the definitive story.

------
Negitivefrags
Betable has been banging their drum for ages now, but unless they change their
strategy I doubt they are going to get anywhere.

There are simply no examples of a games using their platform, or at least I
was unable to find one, and as a developer, why would I risk developing one in
that situation?

~~~
vegashacker
Someone's gotta be first, right? And if it did work, the payoff could be huge.
I see what you're saying tho--we're hesitant as well. I would love to see an
example of an iOS app released that integrates Betable. This FAQ
([https://betable.freshdesk.com/solution/categories/17300/fold...](https://betable.freshdesk.com/solution/categories/17300/folders/27784/articles/10203-will-
apple-allow-betable-apps-on-the-app-store-)) makes it sound like it's at least
allowed.

~~~
Negitivefrags
If your going to have a "Someone's gotta be first" problem, then you need to
make sure that solving that problem is part of your business plan.

Having failed to find anybody out there willing to take the risk, at this
point they need to be paying to commission games to use their platform or
develop some in house if they want to have any chance of convincing developers
that the platform even works.

------
mtgx
This reminded me that in US online poker is illegal now, which I find pretty
ridiculous.

~~~
ericdykstra
In the US:

Betting on sports online is illegal.

In Washington State, playing online poker is a felony.

The UIEGA, which forced the three largest online poker sites to shut down,
defines a gambling act as "a bet or wager to include risking something of
value on the outcome of a contest, sports event, or a game subject to chance."

However, fantasy sports is excluded, including "daily" fantasy sports games,
where players win or lose money based on the outcome of as few as three games.

How much government time and taxpayer money is wasted restricting how people
spend their money, for the sole purpose of pandering to Harrah's Entertainment
and the like?

~~~
rprasad
Fantasy sports pools are not bets on the outcome of a contest, sports event,
or game subject to chance.

The point of fantasy sports is what happens _during_ the game, specifically,
the performance of individual players. The actual outcome of the event is of
no consequence. Furthermore, the players are not engaged in a contest on the
stats which are used to determine the outcome of the fantasy pool (i.e., they
are not formally competing to get the most 1st downs, or most catches, etc.).
In some sports, the competitors _are_ competing on the basis of stats (i.e.,
in boxing hits landed is one of the factors that determines the final score of
the match), so fantasy pools for such sports would be illegal.

These are silly distinctions, but it is what makes fantasy sports legal and
normal sports betting illegal.

~~~
mikeash
Surely the fantasy game itself is a game subject to chance, and so betting on
it would be illegal?

~~~
rprasad
No, because the outcome of fantasy sports depends on the skill of the players
(but is not dependent on the actual outcome of the "sport event" itself). It
only becomes a matter of chance if you are betting on the result in specific
statistics, because then it becomes a matter of chance as to whether they will
reach/beat that specific number bet.

~~~
mikeash
It's still dependent on the outcome of individual events in the game, which
are partially determined by luck, right?

~~~
rprasad
No, individual events in the game are largely determined by skill. In some
situations, i.e., kickoffs, the location where the ball lands is subject to
"luck" (because humans do not have the motor skills for the sort of precision
for it to be completely "skill"), but the rest of the play is skill-driven.

Betting on individual events would be subject to the gambling law as gambling
on "sports events" because the individual events are themselves "sports
events" and bettors at that point would be gambling on their outcome.

~~~
mikeash
Sure, it's a combination of skill and luck. But there's definitely luck
involved. Are you saying that, in the eyes of the law, there is no luck?

------
rhufnagel
Considering Zynga has $1.2Bn in cash on hand, I'm surprised they haven't
already bought a gambling company outright by now

~~~
Retric
That sounds great but last I checked they where still burning money fairly
quickly.

~~~
il
You checked wrong- they've been profitable for a while now.

~~~
Retric
Umm, in there own words there not profitable:

<http://investor.zynga.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=695419>

Quarter ended June 30, 2012 Revenue $332,493, Net income (loss) ($22,811)

6 months ending June 30, 2012 Revenue: $653,465 Net income (loss): ($108,162)

You might say it's a positive trend and there losses are decreasing, but they
had some profits last year that are 1/10th their current losses.

~~~
il
I suppose it depends if you're looking at the GAAP(negative) or non GAAP
earnings(positive). I'm not sure which one tells the truth, but most press
sources seem to cite a positive EPS of $0.01. In any case, this is not really
a company that's hemorrhaging money.

