Anyone supporting the regulation of online gambling in the United States has heard the name Sheldon Adelson. He’s the billionaire CEO of Las Vegas Sands Corp, and the driving force behind the push to criminalize internet gaming across the nation. A new web show video has revealed just how hypocritical his argument against regulation really is.

Anti-online gambling cmpaigner Sheldon Adelson Exposed as is prepping for the release of a full web show video that tells the tale of Sheldon Adelson’s hypocrisy. The teaser video for the show, which went live on Saturday, August 15 on YouTube, tells a much different story than 82 year old Adelson gave Betty Liu of Bloomberg back in May of 2014.

The casino magnate and exorbitant GOP donor has staunchly opposed the regulation of online gambling in the United States, and vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to get a blanket ban of all internet wagering enforced across the country.

His argument has been based majorly on the proliferation of underage and problem gambling.

“I can’t tell over the internet who is underage… I can’t tell who is not gaming responsibly,” said Adelson during last year’s interview.” He went on to vow that, “I can in a casino.” Adelson believes that, wherever these things can be controlled, they should be.

Each of these quotes made the opening cut-scenes of the web video teaser, and what followed may (or may not) shock you.

Tim James says everything Sheldon Adelson claims to objectionable to is already happening freely at his own casinos. “I took two different people undercover into your casinos. Both of them were age 19,” says James.

The video then shows the female undercover player at the cashier cage of The Venetian attempting to cash out chips. “Are you 21 years old?” asks the cashier. When the 19 year old customer lied and said yes, the cashier simply gave her the money without even bothering to ask for identification.

The male undercover customer had no trouble either. He walked into the casino, ordered alcoholic beverages, played the slots, tables, even poker games, cashed out his chips, and despite multiple employees walking right by him throughout his underage gambling and drinking adventure at the Las Vegas casino, not a single person ever asked him for ID.

Tim James took his investigating one step further when he decided to enter the casino and pick up a prostitute. Why a prostitute, you ask? In Adelson’s interview, the billionaire compared legalizing online gambling to legalizing prostitution because “it’s happening all over the place anyway”. So James wanted to see if it was just as easy to pick up a hooker as it was to gambling and drink underage at Adelson’s casinos.

The result—you guessed it—yes. The teaser video shows Tim introducing himself to a lady of the night and asking if she wanted to “get out of here”. She said yes and they went back to the hotel room, where she asked “how about a thousand?” for her services.

James of course revealed himself to be the host of a web show, not an actual customer, and she agreed to answer some questions for him (with her face blurred for anonymity, of course). She said she’s worked the Venetian “ungodly amounts” of times, saying it’s easy to find work because “all the rich guys come here”.

Next up, James has his two 19 year old guinea pigs attempt to sign up an account to play online poker at They each used fake IDs to register their accounts—the same fake IDs they would have presented at Adelson’s casino had they ever been asked to show them. Regulated online gambling websites restrict identity verification procedures that quickly detected the invalidity of their identification and denied them access to the website.

In the end, it’s rather obvious that Sheldon Adelson’s claims to be able to control the very things he says are uncontrollable in an online environment are absolutely false.

View the complete 9-minute teaser video, Sheldon Adelson Exposed: Underage Gambling. Underage Drinking. Prostitution.

The Portuguese government recently chose to regulate internet wagering, with license application scheduled for acceptance in September 2015. However, with an exorbitant tax rate, online gambling in Portugal may continue to be dominated by black market operators.

Online Gambling in PortugalThere was a resounding cheer of joy from enthusiasts of online gambling in Portugal when regulators chose to end the monopoly of the state lottery on internet wagering. But it was soon revealed that licensed operators would be required to pay taxes of 15-30% on gross gaming revenue (GGR), and that could deter many legitimate operators from applying for a license.

According to a study of online gambling in Portugal by PricewaterhouseCooper, it’s already been predicted that up to 80% of all companies who receive a license to operate will go out of business within 12 months. And that summation was derived immediately from what gaming analysts are calling an exorbitantly high tax rate.

As a direct result, analysts fear that grey market operators will thrive in the Portuguese iGaming industry. Because unlicensed operators won’t have to pay punitive taxes, they will be able to provide fans of online gambling in Portugal with more attractive promotions and bonus offerings.

PokerStars & Full Tilt Withdraw from Online Gambling in Portugal

In lieu of the licensing application process that kicks off in two months, Amaya Gaming has withdrawn its PokerStars and Full Tilt offerings in the region. The online poker giant wants to make sure that, when September rolls around, its operations are seen as wholly compliant and worthy of licensure.

In a statement from PokerStars, the operator made it clear that they “fully expect to apply for a license in Portugal so that we can provide a fun, safe and competitive environment for Portuguese consumers to enjoy online poker.”

Other Operators Take Precautions while Weighing Options

Several other major online poker and casino operators have followed in the footsteps of Amaya Gaming by withdrawing their services from the soon-to-be regulated Portuguese iGaming market. However, they’ve yet to decide whether it will be worthy of their time, effort and money to apply for a license, or simply avoid online gambling in Portugal from here on out.

888 Poker, Betfair, PKR and William Hill are just a few of the iGaming operators who fit into this category. They have already ceased operations in Portugal, but are taking a ‘wait and see’ approach before pursuing steps to re-enter the market in a licensed, and consequently taxed, capacity.

These companies would prefer to evaluate the landscape of online gambling in Portugal once regulation goes into effect in the fall. If the market becomes saturated, the high tax rate could spell disaster for profit margins.

Examining the current situation in France does not incite a positive outlook. Online gambling in Portugal is shaping up to mimic that of the several year old French market, where high taxes and ring fenced networking has hindered growth.

If, however, the Portuguese government takes a strong enough stance against unlicensed operators, it could leave enough wiggle room for a few licensed operators to compete for traffic and generate enough revenue to survive in the newest European online gambling market.

Thanks to an all-inclusive PA online gambling bill introduced by Rep. John Payne earlier this year, the Pennsylvania House Committee on Gaming Oversight—Chaired by Payne—held a public meeting yesterday to discuss the pros and cons of regulation. As usual, Sheldon Adelson’s crony, Andy Abboud, was on hand to spread trepidation throughout the room, but testimony from industry experts and technologists prevailed.Gaming Oversight Committee meets for PA Online Gambling Hearing

Andy Abboud churned out his all-too-common, long winded fear mongering speech, warning of the harms online gambling would bring to society, the inability to successfully thwart underage gambling or regulate the industry, and of course, Sheldon Adelson’s favorite, ‘click your mouse, lose your house’ spiel.

He even tried insinuating that the reversal of the Wire Act opinion in 2011 by the Department of Justice was bought and paid for by the gambling industry. One must wonder how many attendants of the PA online gambling hearing had to hold back audible laughter at that ridiculous implication, ironic because the federal anti-online gambling bill, RAWA, would not be circulating congress right now if it weren’t for Adelson’s deep pockets.

But one after another, witnesses at the PA online gambling hearing shot down Abboud’s arguments. Heading up that campaign was John Pappas, Director of the Poker Players Alliance, who found so many holes in Abboud’s testimony that he produced an 8-page document refuting 18 of his claims, cleverly titled “Andy Abboud’s Testimony of Myths”.

“Sands’ testimony today is a house of cards that is more about fear mongering than providing the Committee with meaningful insights on how to best protect consumers,” Pappas told the panel. “It’s clear that they are not really concerned about Pennsylvania citizens’ safety, but rather the corporation’s bottom line.

“The PPA will continue to share the facts with Pennsylvania lawmakers on why a licensed and regulated online gaming market is the best and only way to ensure citizens are protected through a system that is accountable to regulators and the government.”

The Director continued pounding away at Adelson’s crony by pointing out that his Pennsylvania casino, Sands Bethlehem, has come under fire, and penalty of fine, on multiple occasions for permitting underage patrons to gamble at the establishment. Pappas went on to highlight the fact that Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands (LVS) properties in Nevada proudly advertise mobile sports and casino gambling to visitors.

Panelists were quick to respond to the numerous accusations against Abboud’s testimony. Rep. Tina Davis, who introduced one of three PA online gambling bills in 2015, inquired of the Sands’ representative what fines LVS has paid to state regulators.

In his response, Abboud made no effort to actually answer the question. In fact, side-stepping questions became a distinct pattern for Adelson’s crony, so much so that Rep. Payne eventually reprimanded him, requesting that he keep his responses specific to the subject of each question.

A representative of geo-location service provider GeoComply, Lindsey Slater, offered a stellar hands-on presentation of how her company is able to precisely pin-point the physical location of online gambling account holders. In a real-time demonstration of the high-tech systems, she validated the supreme accuracy of the technology by identifying two internet gamers at a Starbucks in New Jersey, seated on opposite ends of the coffee shop.

“We have it pretty much down to a building level. You can see what part of Starbucks you logged in from and, yes, we also know what you did last summer,” quipped Slater.

That raised another question aimed at Abboud in regards to how the Sands’ can promote mobile betting within its Nevada casinos, yet oppose online gambling in the rest of the country. In typical fashion, he avoided giving a straight answer, but did concede to the fact that Sands is able to use geo-location technology to determine without a doubt whether players are located within the boundaries of an LVS property.

Testimonies in favor of PA online gambling continued to flow in. Michael Pollock of Spectrum Gaming Group presented the panel with successful regulatory experiences from New Jersey, David Satz of Caesars Entertainment heralded online gambling for its ability to document, monitor and audit all aspects of the games, and Chris Sheffield of Penn National Gaming proclaimed the myriad job opportunities regulation would provide the state.

Kevin Mullaly, VP of Government Relations for Gaming Laboratories International, praised the strength of the online gambling industry’s security measures, identifying them as the same form of security implemented by online banking websites and other financially driven markets.

In fact, Mullaly offered one of the most rational assessments ever made at any state or federal hearing revolved around the issue when he said, “Online gambling is simply a modernization of the delivery of content that your land-based casinos already have the legal right to offer.”

When all was said and done, it was obvious that supporters of PA online gambling clearly won the day’s battle. A second hearing to discuss PA online gambling regulation is scheduled for May 6, 2015.

The RAWA Hearing originally scheduled for March 5, 2015 held ominous undertones as the original witness panel was stacked in favor of Sheldon Adelson and his crusade to banish regulated online gambling in the US. Now set for Thursday, March 25, a fifth witness is scheduled to appear, helping to better balance the perspective views on the legislation.

RAWA—or by its official term, The Restoration of America’s Wire Act—is a federal bill that was scripted to reverse the DOJs 2011 opinion of the 1961 Wire Act, making it possible for states to regulate online poker and casino gambling. Funded by Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson, RAWA seeks to prohibit iGaming throughout the United States.

The RAWA Hearing (also said to be funded by Adelson) will take place in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, which just so happens to seat Representative Jason Chaffetz, who re-introduced RAWA earlier this year. The original panel of speakers for the hearing was set to include just four witnesses, three of which would heavily favor passage of the online gambling ban.

According to the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the winter storm that delayed the original RAWA Hearing was a blessing in disguise, because it gave the online poker community time to make their voices heard. As such, a fifth witness, Andrew Moylan, was added to the panel.

Official RAWA Hearing Witness List Updated

Mr. John Warren Kindt
Professor Emeritus of Business Administration at University of Illinois School of Law
Mr. Les Bernal
National Director of Stop Predatory Gambling Foundation
Mr. Michael K. Fagan
Adjunct Professor of Law at Washington University School of Law
Mr. Andrew Moylan
Executive Director and Senior Fellow of R Street Institute
Ms. Parry Aftab
Executive Director of Wired Safety

John Kindt poses the biggest threat to the RAWA Hearing for his distinct pattern of radical statements opposing gambling. He has frequently misinterpreted the results of research by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), and despite being called on it by the American Gaming Association numerous times, he continues to do so. No doubt, his testimony will make every effort to undermine the proficiency of iGaming regulatory systems.

Les Bernal and Michael Fagan won’t speak in favor of online poker, but they have historically based their congressional testimonies on facts (unlike Mr. Kindt). While they do not oppose RAWA, their findings should be based on the regulatory capabilities of online poker and casino systems already present in Delaware, Nevada and New Jersey.

Parry Aftab was the Democratic choice to speak at the RAWA Hearing, and will lend a positive voice for the online poker community. She has long advocated internet gambling as a means to protect consumers, and is expected to present a strong, highly educated argument opposing RAWA on Thursday.

Andrew Moylan is the newest addition to the witness panel, and could be the game-saving pinch hitter for online poker advocates.  The R Street Institute is a group of research experts with a libertarian attitude. Mr. Moylan is expected to rebuke RAWA as a violation of state’s rights; the number one argument against the federal legislation, even by those who do not support or oppose online gambling.

John Pappas, Director of the PPA, was tremendously pleased to see Moylan’s name added to the witness list for this week’s RAWA Hearing. “I don’t know Andrew, but I’m familiar with R Street and they have a good reputation for focusing on federalism and 10th amendment issues on a whole lot of subject matters,” said Pappas. I think they will be very credible and a good voice at the hearing.”