Got milk? why eCasinos pAy (usually) By Bill Haywood [In January of 2000, RGE will be publishing Bill Haywoodís first book: BeatWebCasinos.Com: The Shrewd Playerís Guide to Internet Gambling. Although the first Internet casino opened almost five years ago, and the Internet gambling industry today is estimated to be a $1.5 billion industry, Haywoodís book will be the first comprehensive study of this industry, and it is written from the perspective of the player who wants to make money from these online casinos. Writing under the pseudonym ìYikesî in the Spring 99 BJF, Haywood penned: ìMilking the Matchplays: Beating the Online Casinos,î the first article ever written on playing in web casinos for a profit. We have had an avalanche of response to that article, and we expect his book to fill a serious void in the professional playerís bag of tricks. If you missed Billís first BJF article, which describes his basic method of play (a form of cyber comp hustling), the point is to collect the 10-20% and higher deposit bonuses, while racking up more than the minimum in action, the minimum generally being deposit plus bonus.(We still have back issues available for those who want more details on this and who do not want to wait for the book to come out. An expanded version of the matchplay article will be another chapter of BeatWebCasinos.Com.) The following article is taken from the first chapter of the book. BJF subscribers who would like to save a few bucks by placing an advance order for the book will find details at the end of this article. ó A.S.] Flamers on the net are not shy in their skepticism of virtual gambling. Hereís the usual response: ìGive your credit card number to an offshore Internet bookie? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!î Most cyber casinos are located on Caribbean islands and if they decide to keep your money, they can. It has happened more than once. It is sensible to be leery, especially considering the ignoble roots of the gambling den. Gambling, as well as other businesses, was very different in the olden days, back before the automated, incorporated society. Once upon a time, shoemakers took pride in protecting their friendsí feet, food came from gardens not drive-up windows, and the ancestors of HMOs took pride in saving lives. Gambling has become corporatized, but the predecessors of Internet casinos never went through the community-minded stage. Early casino bosses were thugs and scoundrels in flashy clothes. They now have changed ó into business suits. The casino today is akin to what Marxists call ìprimitive accumulation,î or organized plunder by powerful institutions. The savvy playerís decision to exploit eCasino weaknesses is not based on trust, or belief that some abstract ìtheyî would never allow cyber-stealing. It comes from a cold-eyed look at the nature of the industry, and the tricksterís impulse to beat the big guys at their own game. The eCasinos pay winnings out of self-interest. Their checks clear for the same reason that nickel bags contain heroin and not baking powder: so people will keep coming back. It is the exhilaration of a win that turns dabblers into gamblers, and that is the foundation of games of chance. Although blatant rip-offs can never be ruled out, there have been surprisingly few. Just as the occasional gas station will have a dishonest meter, there are still plenty that do not. In research for my book (BeatWebCasinos.Com, soon to be published by RGE), I played at dozens of Internet casinos. Not one refused to give back money I had deposited. There have been problems ó and they will be detailed in this book ó but in the main they pay. Now letís look at some of the reasons why honest casinos would be more profitable than rogues. Beef v. Dairy The gambling industry is split between two different business philosophies, which in this article will be referred to as ìbeefî and ìdairy.î The beef side of the industry wants all your money right now. They do not expect to ever see the gambler again, so they devour the entire carcass immediately and leave the bones in the sun. Dairy casinos are different ó they know that thriving, happy cows are the best milkers. They want you healthy for your entire productive lifespan (and then the ride to the glue factory will be comped by the house). Dairy executives do not even call it gambling; they use the nicer sounding ìgaming.î Gambling has a terrible reputation for ruining lives. Gaming is the clean, corporate, modern pastime. They want a pasteurized image as sparkling as a stainless steel bulk tank just before milking time. Dairy eCasinos tend to offer better odds so you can play longer and have more fun. They also tend to be bigger operations than the beef rustlers. There are powerful economic agents seeking an orderly, trustworthy gambling industry that is hooked into every home. Dairy methods are better suited for this than beef. A look at the economics of online gambling suggests why: there is too much money to be made for operators to blow it by ripping people off. Note first of all how much cheaper cyber casinos are. Land gambling is a very labor intensive business; for every person they hire, they pay another to watch him, and another to spy on her. They build cavernous structures, fill them with lightbulbs and pay an army of guys to shine them and mail the electric bills. The first cyber casino went online on August 18, 1995. It had 17 employees and cost $1.5 million to start.1 There is not a parking ramp in Atlantic City that could be built for that paltry sum. But donít stop reading, we havenít gotten to the exciting figures yet. Take the cost of comps, that is, the complimentary rooms and meals handed out to make people feel good about losing. The land industry standard is that a full 40-percent of what you lose is eligible to come back in the form of comps. The online expense is nothing like that. The eCasinos are experimenting with comps, but itís hard when thereís no buffet. ECasinos not only spend less to get a dollar, they get more dollars from the player. In casino accounting, the ìholdî is what a player leaves behind at the end of the day. The land betting hold is generally considered to be 40 percent. You walk in with $100, bet it over and over running up hundreds in action, until you leave with $60 left. Statistics on Internet gambling are scarce, but there is every reason to believe that the cyber hold is higher. Michael Flint of I-national Gaming says most people who log-on to his cyber dens lose their whole deposit. Flint guesses that the occasional win brings the average hold down to 60 percent. In Australia, the Lasseters company has both land and Internet gambling. CEO Peter Bridge says the average loss per session on land is $44. On computer: $200.2 Since expenses are low, the extra hold goes right to the bottom line. And if eCasinos get busy, they do not have to build a Taj Mahal annex. Once established, extra Internet capacity is a trivial expense. Offshore taxes are generally lower too. There is so much money to be made online that the Internet domain name ìblackjack.comî was sold in June, 1999 for $460 thousand dollars.3 Half a million for the right to name the street where the virtual casino was going up! The price of established eCasinos is also impressive ó a September 1999 want ad asked $6 million cash for a place claiming a $420k monthly win. Another asked $10 million up front.4 Not bad for a business that can fit in a dentistís office. Starnet, an industry leader in leasing eCasino software, claims that the April 1999 ìhandleî (the total amount bet, not the hold) for all of its licensees was $100 million.5 Thatís a lot, but theyíre just getting started. The whole Internet is still getting started. In 1999, there were about 147 million users of the web world wide, expected to be 194 million two years later.6 Another source predicts 350 million users by 2003.7 Even the poorest countries have rich communities that are eager to bet online. There is also still tremendous growth potential among those already online, because most people are not yet making cash transactions over the web (only one fifth do). Gambling ó on the Internet in particular ó has many souls still to be persuaded. A study by Cyber Dialogue found that of adults already online, only two percent are willing to have anything to do with online gambling. That is two percent of more than 65 million Americans online. Compare that to 20 percent of a nation of 260 million who gamble regularly on land.8 If the industry attains a good reputation, the potential for growth is enormous. Reputation is built one player at a time by promptly paying her for that first, timid step into a cyber gambling den. The nature of the Internet gambling industry has important implications for savvy players to exploit matchplays. Since fixed costs are so low, Internet casinos are hemorrhaging money. What do they do when their pockets burst? They throw money our way in the form of promotions. Since one crap game is pretty much the same as another, the eCasino has to use other means to pull customers in. (In all fairness, marketing budgets can be staggering. This will weed out the less limber eCasinos.) Competition to attract players is good for us; it is the source of the deposit bonuses for which this article lives. More often than not, management considers bonuses to be a one-time formality necessitated by competition and industry custom. They are simply making too much money to worry about us chiselers. If you have a conveyer belt of money coming at you, do you run along the side catching bills that fly off, or do you wait at the end with a great big box? Currently, bonus hustling is still beneath the radar of the industry. Internet gambling execs fret about hackers, credit card fraud, players reneging on debts and minors sneaking in, but not about promotional bonuses. They are aware that some people cash out quickly, and generally they will not give the bonus unless a certain minimum amount has been wagered, but that is the extent of their worries. Not once did the issue come up at the Internet gambling conference in Vancouver, British Columbia in June 1999. I asked a marketing employee at Starnet Software what they do about people who bet and run. ìOh, they have to play their full depositî was the clipped answer. The issue just did not register, despite his being a client marketing consultant for one of the two biggest software franchisers. Michael Flint of I-national said flatly that he doesnít believe that people would go to the trouble of downloading five megabytes of software just for the bonus. Such salutary attitudes may or may not change as the industry matures, but for right now high cash flow plus low costs equals meal time for us foxes along the conveyor belt. Besides creating some interesting opportunities for the sly, the profitability of Internet gambling creates powerful incentives to offer honest games and prompt payouts. Consider this, who makes more money in the long run, a cheater at cards or the manufacturer of cards? The card shark gets a score here and there, but the manufacturer sells the most cards if they are believed to be unmarked. The ìcardsî in our case is the software that companies sell for consumers to gamble on. More will bet if the games are trusted. The software designers driving the industry understand this, and they are powerful agents for a commercial form of integrity. Alchemists like Microgaming or Boss Media hold the formula for turning copper wire into gold. When they license their software to a casino owner, they typically keep 30 percent of the win every blessed month. Global Games Corporation takes 50 percent.9 The software companies generally keep close control over their franchisees, often providing all the technical support and cash handling as part of a package. Starnet has been aggressively discounting franchises for as low as $10,000, attracting many small-fry proprietors who would be a greater risk for trouble, except that all transactions go through Starnet.10 These small licensees rent what is known as a ìturnkeyî package. The big company does almost everything; the eCasino owner just has to turn the key in the lock when he arrives at work. (However, most owners do write the checks for winnings and usually control the button that gives you a bonus.) Since the only real function of the micro-franchisee is to attract web traffic, they should not even be considered owners. They are independent marketing reps for the Starnets who actually run the casinos. Those who promote well will succeed. Others will fail, but at no risk to the software company. The Starnets thus gather about them the most energetic eCasino marketers without suffering any liability for the ones who fail. The game designers make their money from the industry volume as a whole ó they are less tempted to stiff someone who runs up a surprise $30k win at craps. Itís for the poor web owner to carry most of that risk. Software companies make their money not when one casino does well, but when all their licensees do. Granted this is more true of the bigger, older outfits ó some early gerry-rigged java games were very fly-by-night, but for trend-setters there is strong incentive for self-policing the industry. Major firms dig into the backgrounds of license applicants. ìOur name goes on them, but their name goes on us,î explains Avron Marcus of Microgaming. One thing in particular they do not want their brand name associated with is money laundering. David Prue of Tropika says they particularly worry about Russian mobsters who like to set up an eCasino, then lose $100,000 a week to themselves. The dirty money bet by ìplayersî then comes out as honest winnings of the casino. Major software companies do not want their brand besmirched by such activities. Would you want to place bets with the Russian mob? Probably not, so Tropika reports that it does thorough investigations of potential licensees. And the mysterious types with wide ties who drop by asking about a franchise? ìAs soon as you say to somebody theyíve got to clear an RCMP[Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and Interpol background check,î says Prugh, ìwe donít hear from them again. That has happened on many occasions.î11 After the software is licensed, the big firms keep a tight rein on it. The servers of licensees remain hooked to the franchiserís mainframe for various purposes, including monitoring ó that is, if they have their own servers. Only the head office can make most changes in program configurations. Even if a casino owner is intent on introducing cheating sub-routines into the program, he cannot get at the source code because it is encrypted. At least thatís what a Microgaming exec told me. Do I believe him? Yes, because heís dairy, not beef. Two lessees of Starnet said the same thing. Encryption is the industry standard in dairy software. Many of the software designers, such as Online Gaming Systems (OTCBB:OGAM) are publically traded companies, some have even qualified to get onto the Nasdaq board. Publicly traded companies have to follow the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which requires independent audits. Compared to private holdings, their books are open to the world. For the ambitious companies, the future is not in screwing a few credit card holders, but in attracting the pools of investment capital. Stock prices are vulnerable to wild swings based on the flimsiest rumors, so like any company they are sensitive to scandal and lawsuits. The wise farmer worries not just about tainted milk, but the mere whiff of it. If a company issues stock, that is a good sign that their business is selling lots of software, not ventilating the players. The software kings and the casino owners have distinct interests, and this has created some interesting clashes. A fascinating case involved a defunct casino known as Tradewinds, which licensed its software from Atlantic International Enter- tainment (AIEE, now Online Gaming Systems). Tradewinds was started by a greeting card shop owner who had no background in casino management. A savvy player noticed that his blackjack game had generous rules for surrender and doubling down, did not shuffle every hand and could be beaten with precision play. The player deposited $20k, then racked up an impressive $70k in wins. The owner lacked the background to understand what was happening, so he assumed the player was a computer hacker who had discovered a bug. The casino froze both the winnings and the initial $20k. Undeterred, the player eventually complained to the software firm, telling AIEE frankly that the game had generous rules and he beat it fair and square. AIEE investigated and determined that there was no software bug; the game was vulnerable because of the rules and configurations that the owner selected. AIEE demanded that Tradewinds pay the $90k or have the software turned off. Tradewinds refused. The player never got a cent, but the owner lost his casino. (The URL link for Tradewinds now takes you to a place called Go Online Sports Book and Sharkeyís Casino.) Two lessons here. One, never win so much that a proprietor is tempted to go out of business rather than pay. Two, and more importantly, is that it was the software manufacturer who shut down the place. The U.S. police did not care, the alleged regulatory authorities in Costa Rica did not care, but AIEE pulled the plug. The company was reportedly about to go public with a stock offering, so it was being especially careful. But the principle remains: software companies are dairy industry leaders! Although Internet casinos are far cheaper than physical ones, they still cost enough to screen out your average basement computer larcenist. Already the market is crowded enough that it takes several million dollars in startup costs for a website to stand out. The software needs to be flashy, and a license from a sovereign govern- ment ranges from $25k in Dominica to $350k in Australia. The major firms will lease software only to government licensees, so the unlicenced places use java programs that are noticeably cruddy. Casino credit card processors have all kinds of software safeguards in place. Generally, eCasinos do not even get your credit card number. Your money goes to a third party credit card processor, who then forwards the credits minus your number to the casino. Sure, nothing is certain. But your credit card is probably safer with major eCasinos than with the kid swiping it at the gas station. Also notable: outfits like Goldchip or Mpact commonly process credit cards for a variety of online casinos. Like the software programmers, they are milkers, not butchers. They benefit from volume and the overall health of the industry. Cash processors and software designers cannot strong-arm casinos that they do not license, but they can encourage governments to do so through regulation and law enforcement. Traditionally business is thought to be hostile to regulation, but the gambling industry lives to be regulated. Take Nevada, the closest thing to a republic by and for the casino. The stateís economic health rests on gambling and it protects its reputation aggressively. To sell slot machines in Nevada, a manufacturer has to have the model tested. Not only do the Nevada machines have to have fair and verifiably random number generators, but the manufacturer must certify that all their machines sold anywhere in the world work the same way. Nevada does not want a cheating machine on a Gulf Coast island to tar the reputation of similar models in Vegas. That is forward-thinking dairy philosophy taken to its furthest. If anything, Internet casinos are even more eager for regulation than the land-lubbers. Recall the statistic about how only 2 percent of adults online will stick so much as their cursor in a web slot? Credibility is the single biggest obstacle the industry faces. The solution is to accept regulation in return for government sanction. Sue Schneider of the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), the Internet gambling industry group, dreams of a time when federal and state governments will regulate eCasinos ìthe way they license and supervise land-based casinos. Customers will know what theyíre getting.... Why risk your hard earned cash at www.flybynight.org when you can do the same thing at www.licensed-and-regulated.com?î12 The IGC is not waiting around for American sanction; the group is working internationally on a model regulatory code. So far, 25 governments have set up net gambling licensing, and the IGC wants such laws to spread as far and as uniformly as possible. Many of the first Internet casinos got licenses in the Caribbean, but more and more are considering Australia, despite the fact that the casino rate for taxes down under is 50 percent. They need regulation and legitimacy and are ìquite willing to pay for that with taxes because they are facing a colossal problem,î according to David Post of the Cyberspace Law Institute. ìThey want everybody to know that thereís no cheating.... You wonít see the industry explode until that happens.î13 Once a solid regulatory foundation has been established, look for the really big players like Harrahís, Caesars, and even Microsoft to sweep in.14 In the meantime, the IGC is trying to fill the ìregulatory voidî until governments take over. In the autumn of 1999, the IGC launched its seal of approval program and mediation service.15 IGC members pledge to follow a code of responsible dairy practices and get to sport a little seal of approval on their websites. Although the IGCís commitment is not to the consumersí pocket books, rather to the industryís reputation, membership in the group is a good sign when you are evaluating casinos. A look at some of the statistics and players of online gambling shows that beef-dairy is not just a cutesy metaphor; there is powerful evidence that the most important players are insisting on an honest game. Besides the software and ecash firms, there are the consortiums that own strings of major websites. They all want a clean parlor. Tending toward the beef trade are the small, single proprietor Internet casinos. They do not have the capital for the fanciest software. They cannot afford to offer jackpots of hundreds of thousands of dollars. They cannot buy respectability in the form of a government license. The beef operations will be increasingly squeezed in future years by the big guys. The beef casinos are the places you want to avoid. If you can identify them, you can have a happy career of bonus hustling in the dairy casinos. On the whole, eCasinos will pay, because they know we got milk. Which software companies? The best and easiest way to protect yourself from cyber ripoffs is to only play sites using major software brands. If you cannot identify the software, do not play. Two of the most reliable software companies are Microgaming and Starnet. They are the industry leaders with the most franchisees and the most to gain from a clean industry. You can play quite a few eCasinos before running out of these two. Identifying them is straight forward. In the case of Microgaming, many websites mention up front that they use Microgaming, so that is easy enough. If not, then after downloading and installing the program, use Explorer file manager to locate the file casino.exe. Right click on it and go down to properties, pick the ìversionî tab and you should see the words MicroGaming Systems. Starnet software is recognizable by the distinctive, vertical placement of the buttons on the blackjack game. The java version has similar placement. If the website lists this phone number (888) 685-7619 for tech support, thatís Starnet. Starnet sites generally process credit cards through EFS, Electronic Financial Services, a Starnet subsidiary. The EFS ìATMî machine is notable for using ìV-Chips.î Starnet is also developing a seal of approval, which may turn up on its casino websites. Other software brands that I have had a fair amount of good experience with: Cryptologic, Chartwell, Gambling Systems, Boss, Perplexa, and Xirtrix. There are two types of software: the java programs that you can play right away, and then the ones that require downloading a substantial program and installing it on your hard-drive. Generally, the downloaded programs are much more complex, and hence represent a bigger (and presumably more reliable) company behind it than the java versions. Nonetheless, there are good java companies; play only the ones with lush graphics. If the software is elaborate, then the designer is more likely to be in the business of selling software, not rip-off joints. If you run across a new brand and are interested in it, the first thing to find out is if the software is pretty, then find out if the company is publically traded (thereís a list at ). If you manage to run across something called Casinosoft by Handa-Lopez, avoid it. (I cannot give the reason why, because I cannot prove it.) Notes: 1. Mark Gross man, ìGambling on the Internet,î Interactive Gambling News, www.igcouncil.org, Oct. 8, 1997. 2. June 24, 1999, Vancouver, British Columbia. 3. Casinowire, casinowire.com, June 22, 1999. 4. www.rivercitygroup.com website. 5. Statement of marketing rep, Starnet open house, June 25, 1999. 6. Sebastian Sinclair, ìCasino Gambling and the Internet,î Interactive Gaming News, www.igamingnews.com, 1999. 7. eMarketer, ìWeb is Pretty Darn Popular,î Interactive Gaming News, July 8, 1999. 8. Glenn Barry, ìOver a Million US Gamblers Online,î Interactive Gaming News, March 23, 1999. 9. Fifty-percent figure observed November 11, 1999 at www.globalgames.com. 10. In Fall 1999, an outfit at [email protected] was reselling Starnet franchises for as low as 10k. 11 .Chris Livadas, ìManagement Interview: Hot Internet Gaming Stock Draws Widespread Interest: Will Tropika Replace Starnet?î StockHouse.com (September 1, 1999). 12. Testimony before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission; Chicago, Illinois, May 21, 1998. 13. Frank Velotta, Las Vegas Sun, reprinted by RGT Online, www.rgtonline.com, May 23, 1999. 14. Barton Crockett, ìU.S. Eyes Web Casinos in Australia,î MSNBC, February 10, 1999. 15. Alan Schneider, Executive Director; Vancouver, British Columbia, June 24, 1999. The Dairy (good) Casinos and Sportsbooks Dairy casinos are ones where the author has personally collected winnings without a hitch. www: Acescasino.net (Starnet) Allstarsportsbook.com (Starnet) Atlanticinterbet.com (Cryptologic) Bullsnbears.com (Microgaming) Casinofortune.com (Microgaming) Casinomagique.com (Microgaming) Casinoofthekings.com (Starnet) Casino-sunrise.com (Boss) Cowboycasino.com (Boss) Englishharbour.com (Microgaming) Fairplaycasino.com (aka African casino) (Microgaming) Gamblerspalace.com (Perplexa) Geishalounge.com (Microgaming) Goldenpalace.com (Microgaming) Goldrushcasino.com (Microgaming) (A little slow, but they paid...) Gotocasino.com (Perplexa) Mapau.com (Microgaming) Mayancasino.com (Starnet) Offshoreaction.com (Perplexa) Omnicasino.com (Cryptologic) Playstar.com (Playstar) Riverbelle.com (Microgaming) Sportbet.com (Perplexa) Sportfanatik.com (Starnet) Winward.com (Perplexa) Worldclasscasino.net (Gamblingsoftware.com) The Beef (bad) Casinos and Sportsbooks In most (not all) cases, ecasinos earn a ìbeefî rating for being high maintenance, not for ripoffs. Reports without cited sources are from the authorís experience. Some negative reports come from public emails to newsgroups and websites. Cases where the person might not have played enough to qualify for the bonus are not included. ìStalled bonusesî means they paid, but required repeated calls and emails, despite the total action being many times the buy-in amount. ìSlow payî is defined as longer than two months. Software designers are in parenthesis. ìProprietaryî means the software is not otherwise identifiable and is believed to be unique to the casino (avoid no-names). ìUnknownî means the information came from another source that did not report the software brand. Some sites from other sources are not written in url form. www: 2001casino.com (Crystal Software Solutions) As of August 1999, cash-out procedure was inexcusably prolonged and difficult. (Shares management with majestic-casino.com.) 21st Century (unknown software) www.bettorsworld.com reports payment problems. Aaacasino.com (unknown software) Refused to pay $20,000 winner, stating that the software was ìdamaged due to hardware corruption.î Player states that she ran up the win over three weeks. (Casinomeister.com) Aceinthehole.com (unknown) Player claims non-payment (www.casinomeister.com) Allied Sports (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com reports payment problems. Arizona sportsbook (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com reports payment problems. Balicasino.com (Perplexa) Stalled bonuses and chaotic phone support. Camelot Gaming (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Caribbeanisland.com (Tecnologia) Very slow and archaic java software. Carribean Sports (not Caribe sports) (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com reports payment problems. Casino of South Pacific at www.sp.cosp.com or www.cosp.com (Unknown) Player reports slow and unresponsive payment process (www.casinomeister.com). Casino International (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Ccasino.com (aka C3I aka Caribbean Cyber Casino) (Microgaming) Stalled bonuses; chaotic management. Dial A Bet (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com reports payment problems. Empire Sports (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Cyberthrill.com (Unknown) Portal websites report it has not paid them for banner ad click-throughs. (CNETNews.com, July 6, 1998). English Sports Betting (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Firstlive.com (Proprietary) Holds industry record for negative player reports posted to Usenet news groups. GlobalSportsNet (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Goldcoast (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Goldenchipscasino.com (unknown) Barred from returning to Antigua licensing jurisdiction for unstated reasons. Goldminecasino.com (Xirtrix) Slow pay. Gosports.co.cr (unknown) Associated with non-payer Tradewinds Casino. Granddominican.com (Handa-Lopez, Tecnologia JPR) Uses Handa-Lopez software. Grand Holiday (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Ibetcasino.com (Perplexa) Stalled bonuses; confused staff. International Casino (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Internet Casino (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Islandgaming.net (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Lustcasino.com (Chartwell) As of November 1999, Lust Casino has a policy of not returning bets if their java software freezes mid-hand (not that that ever happens ;-). Playersí concentration must also compete with bare body parts. Majestic-casino.com (unknown) Multiple obstacles to collect bonuses; chaotic staff. (Shares management with 2001casino.com.) Majestic Sports Book (unknown) Watchdog at Las Vegas Sporting News Online reports a payment problem incident. Nasa Sports International www.nasasportsbook.com (unknown) A major book, but the Watchdog at Las Vegas Sporting News Online, reports it refused to pay a $180,000 win, stating the person belonged to a group of professional sports bettors. NetBetz (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Offshore Race (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Paradise Sports (not paradise casino) (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Paradisesportsbook (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Paramount Sports (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Royalclubcasino.com (Starnet) Stalled bonuses; unresponsive. RKR Sports (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Safari-casino.com (unknown) License revoked October 1999 by government of Antigua for unstated reasons. Sharkeyscasino.com (unknown) Associated with non-payer Tradewinds Casino. Sportsbook Wagering (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Sports International (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). Top Turf (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Ussportscasino.com (proprietary) A correspondent of the authors strongly recommends against it. Wagersports (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. Worldwidevegas.com (Gamblingsoftware.com) Blackjack rules varied from website claims; stalled repayment of buy-in. Also, negative player report from Michael Shackleford, aka TheWizardofOdds.com. World wide web casinos (unknown) Government of Antigua denies it is licensed there (www.antiguagaming.com). WWSportsbook (unknown) www.bettorsworld.com, The Clink, reports payment problems. .