oocuz.com

The Rolls Royce Of Lotteries

viru — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:59:06 +0000

The 1977 Gaming and Lotteries Act defined charity as including any purpose ‘beneficial to the community or any section of it’. Thus it had a wide application-too wide according to some critics. Groups concerned with sports and recreation, culture, the arts, film, the nation’s heritage, youth, the aged, community development, medical and scientific research, as well as welfare organizations, were all eligible for a piece of the pie. In the 1988-89 year, a total of $51 million was allocated, 37 percent to arts and culture, 31 percent to sport and recreation, 13 percent to community development and welfare (including general, aged and youth), 11percent to grants for 1990 sesquicentennial projects and 3 percent to medical and scientific research. The Minister of Internal Affairs also retained some ‘discretionary’ lottery profits in a Special Projects Fund over which he or she had personal control. Some $4 million ended up in this fund, prompting charges of ‘ slush funding’ and overindulgence, such as when Margaret Austin decided in 1990 to spend nearly $1 million on two Charles Goldie paintings for the National Art Gallery. When Graeme Lee became Minister he decided to slash this to $350,000 and consult two parliamentary colleagues before making spending decisions. He also instituted a system of public disclosure and explanation of how and why the Lottery Grants Board and its committees made their decisions.

Given the nature of its operation, the occasional controversies that have broken out over Board decisions were only to be expected. The vast majority of individual funding decisions (about 5,000 annually in recent years) have not been challenged. However, since the inception of Lotto, traditional recipients have seen their allocations fall drastically in real terms. Welfare groups, in particular, have criticized the fact that the biggest regular recipients in recent years, the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council and the Hillary Commission, have been classified as ‘charities’. Lotto advertisements which proclaim that Online lottery funds have gone to charity have misled the public and damaged the fund-raising efforts of mainstream charities, they claimed. It was a moot point, at least to a degree. Denied any money from the Lottery Grants Board because it was both government-funded and nationally organized, the IHC, for example, watched in dismay in 1988-89 as profits from its own fund-raising lotteries slumped from $900,000 to $185,000 in the face of competition from Lotto. On its 1988 appeal day, Crippled Children Society collectors met with refusals on the misperception that the organization already received Lotto profits. Appeal takings fell by more than half.The Foundation for the Blind was similarly disadvantaged: proceeds from its own lottery dropped by three-quarters in twelve months from July 1987. Like the other bodies, it complained that the Board had not made up the loss of revenue caused by Lotto’s ‘poaching’ of the discretionary dollar. But their criticisms need to be kept in perspective as not all the drop in returns could be blamed on Lotto’s success. The recently imposed Goods and Services Tax had made people more circumspect with their money and the fright of the October 1987 share-market crash both dried up discretionary income and made any kind of specula tive investment seems not worth the risk.

Sports bodies, however, did appear to receive disproportionately generous funding from both Internal Affairs agencies and lottery profits. Barnardo’s chief executive complained that the Board was too concerned with both political acceptance and its own image. ‘The 1990 Commission and the Commonwealth Games had wide public appeal,’ he maintained, ‘whereas glue sniffers and intellectually handicapped children did not.’ That was the harsh reality. The welfare funding market had been deregulated along with all the others, and some charities were sinking deeper into debt.

In February 1990 the Board faced a crisis when the Audit Office found serious deficiencies in its modus operandi. After studying 50 grant applications, the auditors criticized the way funds were handled, how grants were allocated and the lack of checks on what was done with the money. Because the Lottery Grants Board had no predetermined policy for allocating funds there could be no effective public scrutiny of its priorities. In the absence of such a policy, the Audit Office concluded, Parliament was unable to evaluate its performance. These criticisms were partly borne out by a concurrent in-house Internal Affairs review of Board administration. One point was not in doubt. The spectacular increase in funds available for distribution-from $18 million in 1985-86 to $86 million in 1989-90-meant that they were outgrowing the bureaucratic means for distributing them.

Our site provides you a huge collection of Lottery games!! As we give you a golden opportunity to win, over $500,000,000. ‘New York lottery’- the whole team is engaged to put all the things needed, exclusively for our clients. You get a massive set of various lottery games in one place- Fantan, Early Chinese Lottery, Pakapoo, The-Monster, Cock-Fighting are some of them. We offer you various game winning tips at
http://www.lottery-newyork.com/

The Dominance of Video Poker

viru — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:32:13 +0000

Video poker and slots provide a large part of the “jack” to grow the “greenstalk” to support the giant “castles” that seem to spring up in areas where they become a legalized “recreation.” No wonder the new resort builders are returning to famous fairy tales as themes for their mega-resort clubs.
Video poker combines the skill of an age-old, relatively simple game of draw POKER with the ease of playing slot machine. These games of “skill” have been gradually outnumbering ordinary slot machines in many locations. Some very good slot machines available in the australia also. Consequently, casinos and manufacturers are finding it difficult to maintain a balance in play between the two types of machines. Larger progressive jackpots on regular slots try to compete with the new exciting varieties of video poker but it’s a losing battle.

Despite the Industry’s attempts to maintain the slot-video poker balance, video online poker is gradually tipping the scale in its favor. This mutant progeny in its infancy and adolescence promise to overshadow its predecessors. It is no wonder, then, why Slot Machine Mania has given birth to Video Poker Mania.
As video poker Mania escalates, everyone wants a piece of the action. Would be experts try to cash in with system to beat the machines and/or books which outline “sure-win” strategies. Mathematicians, college professors, weekend players, clubs employees, and ‘professional” gamblers have given it their best shot. Until now, though, we haven’t seen any authoritative strategies written by someone who has designed and built video poker machines and its RULES. Video Poker Mania fills that void.
This explains the simple math behind the machines, the percentages of payback, and the clubs hold percentages. It shows why no system can guarantee winning all the time, contrary to all the books that say, “Use this strategy and you will have a 102 or 103 percent payback.” You are plainly not going to get it! at least not with consistency.
POKER machines are designed to pay back a certain lesser percentage of what goes in, and - by the grace of a computer chip — they will do that. For instance, in a short term, you might pt in a few coins, hit a jackpot and walk away a winner. At that given moment the machine’s payback percentage is in your favor, depending on the size of the jackpot. However, the longer you play any machine the closer it will approach its “hold” percentage, that is, the casino’s win percentage. This long-term play almost always proves the percentages out and gives the house that proverbial edge. What better reason could you have to keep your playing sessions short, and hopefully, sweet?
To help you tackle this built-in edge, our review outlines three types of strategies: the Optimum strategy, the Royal Strategy, and the conservative Strategy. The Royal is for high-risk, high-roll gamblers looking only for the big jackpot. The Conservative is for the recreational player with limited funds who wants the maximum playing time for investment. The Optimum is for the player who wants to make the machine at least pay back it’s built in percentage, at the same time, try to TIP the odds in his favor.
Play in the best Australia online poker site with the best poker players in the world.

Conditional a poker game

viru — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:58:51 +0000

Post-mortems and rabbit hunting slow down a poker game and should be discouraged. If a rabbit hunter proves himself to be too much of a nuisance in a serious poker group, the players are better off without him. One way to rid the group of such a player is to move (or Boat) the game and stop inviting him. Another way to improve the situation is to correct his lack of etiquette at the table. But some of these fellows can be so persistent that it seems, at times, as if the only way to rid your game of one is to do to him what Doc Holliday did to Ed Bailey.

Holliday, Bailey and others were playing poker at Ft. Griffin, Texas. Bailey was an especially obstinate rabbit hunter. He even looked at the players'’ discards and dead hands, often making cutting remarks on how the hand had been played. Now Holliday, like most serious poker players, held that a man had no right to see his hand unless he paid to see ita. Several times he strongly advised Bailey to “play poker:'’ But Bailey kept pushing, not only straining poker etiquette and gentlemanly relations, but also stepping over the line and into the realm of cheating at cards. So many conditions are in the poker in australia also. During the showdown hand, Holliday and Bailey were head to head in a pot. Bailey started finger¬ing around in the discards and deadwood, apparently hunting a card that would improve his poker hand. Without a word, Holliday threw in his own hand face down and reached for the pot. Quickly Bailey went for his gun, but Holliday was quicker with his knife, which, as he said, stuck Bailey “just below the brisket!” Exit one rabbit hunter.
Getting rid of some kibitzers is almost as difficult~ although I'’ve never known of anybody has to pull a knife on one. The follow¬ing recap of a little story from Playboy says about all there is to say about kibitzers:
Four men were trying to play poker in the presence of a par¬ticularly irritating kibitzer. When the nuisance went out of the room to mix a drink, the players decided to make up a game so that he wouldn'’t know what was going on and would, hopefully, shut up.
When the kibitzer returned, the players went through the ab¬surdly complicated mechanics of the sham game. Looking at his hand, the dealer announced that he had a “mingle” and bet $1. The Second player raised $1 on strength of a “snazzle:'’” The third player folded. After pretending to study the situation at length, the fourth player announced that he held a “farfle” and raised $2.

“You'’re crazy,” barked the kibitzer. “You'’re never going to beat a mingle and a snazzle with a lousy farfle”

The privilege of dealer’’s choice is much abused in the typical Friday night group. Some of these sessions are quite way out, and the dealer may invent his own game or variation. The trouble with sessions of this sort is that too much time is spent explaining the mechanics of chimerical games, settling disputes over one point or another with impromptu rulings, and grumbling, “That’’s not the way we played Razzle back in Yeehaw Junction” I'’ve even seen some dullards who waste a lot of time in trying to decide on what to deal.

Because of all the confusion, sensible groups settle on a dozen or so games and stick pretty much to one variation of each. Seven-Card Stud High-Low, for example, is played by three scales and three methods of declaration. If the game were not standardized within the group, each dealer wollet have to specify exactly which variation he intended to deal. His announcement would be something like:

“Seven-Card Stud High-Low Split. Wheel is your best low hand. Straights and flushes can swing. Last bettor, last raiser, or high man has to declare first. Swingers have to win both ways to win either way.” Then he would probably have to repeat all this at least once for the benefit of those players who were holding a post-mortem on how the previous hand should have been played. But if the group agrees to one variation” the dealer can shorten the name to “Seven High-Low” and everybody will know what he means. Some groups agree on a variation that will be understood unless the dealer calls other¬wise. For example, California Lowball will be understood unless the dealer specifies either the sixty-four or the seventy-five scales.

Have a firm understanding on betting limits and conduct the game accordingly. Peeking at another man’’s hole card, for example, may be permitted in some penny ante sessions, but it’’s quite another matter in high stakes. The betting limits influence not only the conduct of the game but also higher online poker strategy and the principles of winning play. The bluff, for example, may be a powerful tactic in high stakes but only a playful gesture in penny ante.
Here are some of the more popular methods of limiting the betting:

Play in the best Australia online poker site with the best poker players in the world.

Gambling By Euphemism The Hammond-Mcarthur Experience

viru — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:41:44 +0000

In August 1966 Victorian Premier Harold Bolte sought to extend the running of Tattersalls lotteries in New Zealand for a further three years from June 1967 and, he hoped, for longer. As an incentive he proposed a new arrangement whereby New Zealand took 60 percent of the tax take and Victoria 40 percent. Holyoake rejected Bolte’s offer but he was conscious that Tattersalls lotteries, in particular their racing sweepstakes, were still popular. He proposed a two to one split, to which Bolte agreed; he had no choice if he wanted to see the company continue its New Zealand operation. In the end, however, it was the success of the Golden Kiwi and the succeeding Mammoths that killed Tattersalls in New Zealand. Ticket sales continued a long slow slide, although a loyal hard-core continued to buy them until the 1980s. The last Tattersalls ticket was sold in New Zealand on 1 July 1984, the company ironically deciding to pull out soon after the signing of a new seven-and-a-half year lease. The expiry of that lease on 30 June 1991 ended a century of profitable trading with New Zealanders, who had contributed substantially, not only to the company’s wealth, but also to the coffers of the Tasmanian and Victorian state governments. At long last, the money was staying home.

OPPONENTS
Over the latter years of the art unions, the Protestant anti-lottery voice had been relatively mute. Protestants appearing before the Gaming Commission reserved their strongest invective for the off-course betting on horse races. Indeed, some churches ran fund-raising raffles in the 1950S and more than a few members of their congregations purchased art union tickets. A 1953 scandal highlighted the change of attitude. Howick’s Presbyterian minister, J. A. Scarrow, was horrified when the wife of one of his church elders won £300 in a lottery . When Scarrow remonstrated with the elder, he resigned; as did another who also admitted he held a lottery ticket. Scarrow, a theological conservative, demanded penitence, but although the Auckland Presbytery condemned gambling as a social menace, it found that the elders did not contravene the spirit of the church’s rules. Scarrow was so upset by this judgment that he resigned, finding a more comfortable niche within the New Zealand version of the Dutch Reformed Church.

Evangelical arguments against participating in, and profiting from, games of chance fell on less fertile ground as society matured. This process was aided by the knowledge that the art unions themselves were quiet, respectable and uncontroversial affairs run with philanthropic intent. But the Golden Kiwi lottery-glamorous, high-profile, lucrative and therefore much more attractive to New Zealand punters-was a different matter altogether. The Anglican bishops of Nelson and Auckland both publicly castigated it, and Presbyterian leaders ordered their members not to buy tickets and decided not to apply for grants. The new lottery’s arrival coincided with the emergence of a new and outspoken Presbyterian leader, the Very Rev. Dr J. D. Salmond, a lecturer in Christian Education at Dunedin’s Knox College. In mid-1962 he published The Cult of the Golden Kiwi, a damning indictment which harked back to the wowser traditions of J. J. North, James Gibb and Rutherford Waddell. Salmond predicted that the new lottery would appeal to people’s worst instincts of avarice, selfishness and ungodliness. ‘Instead of letting loose a harmless kiwi, we fear that our Government has liberated a marauding tiger! … As New Zealand faced adjustments necessary if Britain entered the Common Market it could not afford to have such “parasitic growths” sapping its strength.’ His book was popular enough to be reprinted, his words inspiring outraged Presbyterians (mostly), Methodists and Baptists to inundate the government with accusations of ‘paganism’, state encouragement of gambling, and the use of lottery funds to combat social problems. There was little political response to this storm of protest. The government had too much to lose, financially and electorally, to abandon the Golden Kiwi.

Among the grants in July 1962 was one of £20,000 to the Freedom From Hunger campaign, the first lottery money to be designated for overseas use. This created a dilemma for the Corso organizers to whom it was given for distribution, because many of them were Protestant clergy. There was an unfortunate presumption of ambivalence within the Methodist reaction. The president of their conference, Rev. E. C. Leadley, had no hesitation in stating that his church would refuse a grant under any circumstances. ‘But when it involves something outside the church such as the Freedom from Hunger Campaign then it ought to be taken … When you have seen all the starving millions in Asia you would use anything to beat the hunger.’ A dilemma is raised, of course, as to whether Leadley would have approved of feedin.