> Maybe a professional gambler, like a poker player who plays a hundred
> hands a day, would care about getting that last little percent, and
> wouldn't mind the less than glamorous online surroundings. But for the
> average guy it probably wouldn't be worth it. Most people seem to play
> the slot machines in Vegas, which have some of the worst odds.
A poker player would love to play without a rake, but pros also know that online poker is a bad idea--it's too easy for a team of two or three players to sit at machines in one room and play in collusion. The odds on slots actually aren't that bad in most major casinos, but the one in grocery stores and such are awful, as are state lotteries, which are also popular. The California lottery, for example, has a 33% return mandated by law, and still millions play it.
The safest, probably most lucrative form of on-line gambling would be a sports book. There's no fear a casino would affect the outcome (assuming they booked bets even on both sides), and the no-vig idea would be a real attraction, because the 9% (11:10) charged by casino sports books is more salient than in other games. A lot of serious gamblers would jump at an opportunity to avoid it. And realtime-changing odds are a natural for the net.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC